Voltaire: Candide

[Heteronym]

With better prose and more descriptions, I feel Candide could have been written just for me. Voltaire's little book about a secluded nobleman raised on Optimism who is thrust into the real world sums up what I, in moments of frustration, think about Mankind. In just 120 pages Voltaire shows human beings at their lowest, indulging in the most varied crimes, incapable of being virtuous, as Candide's travels across the world start casting doubts in his belief that everything 'is for the best' in our world.

The book is biased; Voltaire wants to make his point and doesn't consider other alternatives. His purpose, I think, is to demolish all the Enlightenment ideas about human beings and civilization. This is a far cry from Rousseau's belief that Man was born good. There's also the traditional epicurean truism that fortune brings pain and misery; in fact, the garden that Candide ends up in reminded me of Epicurus' garden. There's probabaly a lot of erudite references that I missed. That's the difference between today's education and the classic education when people knew their Latin philosophers by heart

Nice too is the constant theme that it's better to live than to spend too much time philosophizing. It's interesting bacause Voltaire was first and foremost a philosopher.

And this I think is the book's great problem. Voltaire is clearly not a fiction writer. He may know how to argue wittily about freedom of speech, but he can't make a great sentence. His prose lacks vitality. Candide is a novel of ideas, and everything is concentraded in favour of the ideas. The book is sparse in descriptions to the point that a ship shipwrecking during a sea storm and Candide ending up on a beach is done with in two lines. Objects seem weightless, dresses colourless, cities seem cardboard-made, architecture wasn't invented in this world, and apparently Candide walks through a world without surroundings; I can only imagine it as a huge blank void. It's all so we won't forget the main idea

Still, some of the things that make the story are just incredible. Reading 18th century literature really shows how a lot of 19th century novels (especially British) were a step back in so many things. In Tristram Shandy, Gulliver's Travels and this, there was so much freedom for scatological humour and bawdy jokes: you could have a giant urinating on a palace, or a man's penis being severed by a window. One century later, everything is so damned prudish (with the exception of some Russian novels), and sentimental, and beautiful, and pure, and happy, and sickening! In Candide I lost count of the times the word 'rape' shows up. Can you imagine Emily Brönte writing that word? Or Charles Dickens?

Candide is funny, but not Seinfeld funny; liking dark humour helps; and unless you have a healthy dose of cynicism and have moments when you doubt people can solve all the world's problems, then you may not enjoy it

 

[bren]

I saw this as a teleplay and it was hilarious. I totally loved it. Unfortunately I don't recall many details of where/when it was produced and all that, but it was, I believe an American production for PBS. After later reading it I can see why it would work as a play, better than as a plain read for some of the reasons you state as shortcomings overall. Let the storm speak for itself, in this best of all possible worlds.

 

[nickupton]

Candide is one of my favourite books. It's all about the main idea, that is the philosophy of the time "everything is for the best, in this, the best of all worlds" is rubbish. I find this as true today as it was then. In many parts of the world this philosphy is still applied and the have-nots are discouraged to think about a better life by the haves.

The way that Voltaire illustrates how stupid is this philosphy is hilarious, with tragic events coming thick and fast, sometimes 2 or 3 to a page, yet Candide continues not to question that these events are for the best. Some of these events are ridiculous and there is a touch of Monty Pythons 4 Yorkshiremen when Candide, Cunegonde and her mother (or was she the maid?) compare who has had the hardest life.

Don't expect detailed character developments or atmospheric descriptions just a ridiculous chain of events and some quite simple philosophy.

 

[Sybarite]

... Still, some of the things that make the story are just incredible. Reading 18th century literature really shows how a lot of 19th century novels (especially British) were a step back in so many things. In Tristram Shandy, Gulliver's Travels and this, there was so much freedom for scatological humour and bawdy jokes: you could have a giant urinating on a palace, or a man's penis being severed by a window. One century later, everything is so damned prudish (with the exception of some Russian novels), and sentimental, and beautiful, and pure, and happy, and sickening! In Candide I lost count of the times the word 'rape' shows up. Can you imagine Emily Brönte writing that word? Or Charles Dickens?

In terms of English literature, then I think that this point is entirely valid. But that could be largely a result of the prudery of Victorianism, seasoned with a dollop of Romanticism.

In wider 19th-century terms, one need look no further than Émile Zola, whose pursuit of naturalism embraced sex and treated it as a fact of life, neither inherently bad nor inherently good.

 

[booklover85]

Still, some of the things that make the story are just incredible. Reading 18th century literature really shows how a lot of 19th century novels (especially British) were a step back in so many things. In Tristram Shandy, Gulliver's Travels and this, there was so much freedom for scatological humour and bawdy jokes: you could have a giant urinating on a palace, or a man's penis being severed by a window. One century later, everything is so damned prudish (with the exception of some Russian novels), and sentimental, and beautiful, and pure, and happy, and sickening! In Candide I lost count of the times the word 'rape' shows up. Can you imagine Emily Brönte writing that word? Or Charles Dickens?

The problem is that you really can't compare Voltaire's writing to that of of the Bronte sisters or Dickens because they did write in separate times. Two different eras with two different views of the world.

Plus, Voltaire's purpose in Candide wasn't to sugar coat the way the world is, whereas Dickens and Bronte (and even writers during Voltaire's time, which is where the philosophy of "the best of all possible worlds" came from) wanted to focus on the good transformations that occur in the world.

 

[silverseason]

Plus, Voltaire's purpose in Candide wasn't to sugar coat the way the world is, whereas Dickens and Bronte (and even writers during Voltaire's time, which is where the philosophy of "the best of all possible worlds" came from) wanted to focus on the good transformations that occur in the world.

I don't find too much sugar coating in Bronte and Dickens. Jane Eyre is rejected by her aunt and sent to a miserable school where she is starved and her best friend dies. She is menaced by a mad women in the attic and almost betrayed into a bigamous marriage. Not too sweet!

And Dickens. Little Nell leaves the Curiosity Shop to wander in poverty and die. The girl in Bleak House survives small pox but is disfigured. Oliver Twist has to beg for "more food."

They have a more realistic, down-to-earth approach then Voltaire, but they see plenty wrong with the world.

 

[breading1]

This book is next on my reading list.

 

[tzina]

one of the best quotes :

“"That is well said," replied Candide, "but we must cultivate our garden”

 

[Sybarite]

I don't find too much sugar coating in Bronte and Dickens. Jane Eyre is rejected by her aunt and sent to a miserable school where she is starved and her best friend dies. She is menaced by a mad women in the attic and almost betrayed into a bigamous marriage. Not too sweet!

And Dickens. Little Nell leaves the Curiosity Shop to wander in poverty and die. The girl in Bleak House survives small pox but is disfigured. Oliver Twist has to beg for "more food."

They have a more realistic, down-to-earth approach then Voltaire, but they see plenty wrong with the world.

Silverseason, I agree with your essential point about the Bröntes and Dickens. Neither particularly presented the world as an 'easy' place, although in the case of the sisters, that was through a brooding 19th century romanticism, whereas the latter was a social commentator. You mention Oliver Twist, and it's worth also remembering that the themes in that book included child crime, kidnap, rape and murder.

On the other hand, one could point out that both Oliver Twist and Jane Eyre end well – perhaps Voltaire would consider that to ultimately be a somewhat Panglossian view of life.

 

[anonymous357]

Voltaire? YUCK!

 

[libris]

I read Candide in a college lit class and I really enjoyed it. We read Voltaire, Pope's Essay on Man (hated it) and various things by Rousseau (whom I greatly dislike). They're all so reactionary. It's easy to get lost in their squabble

All I could think of during the endless discussions was Blake's Poem:

Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau;
Mock on, Mock on, 'tis all in vain.
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.

And every sand becomes a Gem
Reflected in the beams divine;
Blown back, they blind the mocking Eye,
But still in Israel's paths they shine.

The Atoms of Democritus
And Newton's Particles of light
Are sands upon the Red sea shore,
Where Israel's tents do shine so bright

 

[Vellocet]

I really enjoyed Candide. I am by no means a philosopher. In fact I usually have a hard time reading philosophy without getting completely distracted or falling asleep. I found that Candide was refreshing. Up until Candide, I'd really only had experience with Kant and some others that bored me to tears.

So perhaps Candide is great for those of us that aren't built for heavy philosophy?