It seems that I haven't known or understood Voltaire enough to appreciate his most acclaimed work. This reading put me straight since I've revisited this with a fair knowledge of Voltaire's life and philosophy.

When I first read this, I found it nonsensical. I didn't know that the whole work was a satirical attack on Leibniz's optimism. Leibniz's philosophy was that we live in the best of possible worlds and that everything happens for the best. Voltaire was highly critical of this theory and argued that if everything happens for the best, then good as well as evil deeds will have to be justified. If so, then there will be no physical or moral progress in the world. Candide was his attempt to ridicule that theory of Leibniz and to counter it with his own that "we must cultivate our own garden". So, what was nonsensical to me at first made perfect sense to me now. And it was quite right for the story to be nonsensical since it was satirizing a far-fetched theory. :)

In addition to Voltaire's criticism of Leibnizian theory, one can also see his pen working against many quarters. The European governments, kings, the wealthy nobility, the rich merchants, the philosophers, the literary men suffer through his critical eye. Voltaire's views thus expressed through the story were both interesting and amusing. And the story of Candide, with his adventures and mishaps, greatly entertained me.

One of the criticisms I had when I first read Candide was that Voltaire's language was unrefined. But having read a fair amount of 18th-century literature, I've come to realize that it was quite the norm at the time. Also, having read this time in French, I found the language was a little less offensive than the English translation that I've read before. And I agree with those GR friends who told me that the translation might have contributed to my disliking the book.

I'm glad I revisited this. It's a book I've misunderstood through my limited knowledge of the purpose of its author. I'm truly pleased that this time around I was able to understand, appreciate and enjoy it.

n  n    "(...) Encontraram um negro caído no chão, não tendo mais do que metade do vestuário, isto é, umas ceroulas de tecido azul. Faltava àquele pobre homem a perna esquerda e a mão direita.(...)
- (...) é o costume - disse o negro. - Por vestimenta dão-nos umas ceroulas duas vezes por ano. Quando trabalhamos nos engenhos de açúcar e a mó nos apanha o dedo, cortam-nos a mão; quando tentamos fugir, cortam-nos a perna. Incorri nestas duas situações. É por esse preço que os senhores comem açúcar na Europa."n  n

Candide ou l'optimisme, publicado em 1759 por Monsieur Le Dr. Ralph, que afinal era Voltaire, que afinal é François-Marie Arouet, foi a maior surpresa literária da minha vida. Jamais tive ambições de ler "Voltaire", e até me senti muito vaidosa nestes dois (curtos) dias em que me passeei nos transportes públicos com esta bomba literária nas mãos. Comprei o livro porque o herói desta sátira, o ingénuo Cândido, desembarca em Lisboa e sofre um terramoto, e ando embrenhada nesse estudo dos terramotos em Lisboa. No fim das contas, o livro valeu por cada parágrafo, e o terramoto ou a estadia em Lisboa são uma pequena vírgula neste mar de reflexões.

É importante deixar claro que quando decidi lê-lo foi sobretudo porque é pequeno - em conteúdo tem 128 páginas -, e porque é um livrinho bonito, outra primorosa edição da Relógio d'Água, que nos últimos tempos tem-se tornado a minha editora de eleição. Assim sendo, a expectativa era zero, sobretudo tendo em conta que deixei as minhas últimas leituras penduradas - A Montanha Mágica, O Homem do Castelo Alto e Quando Lisboa Tremeu.

Logo nas primeiras páginas, fui catapultada para a Vestefália e para o tom irónico, bem-humorado, o ritmo rápido, as situações inusitadas, as reações cândidas do nosso Cândido... Em breve surgem as hipocrisias, contradições e crueldades da sociedade do século XVIII, e nesse sentido é evidente que Voltaire fosse persona non grata em muitos círculos, como "libertador do espírito" que era. Voltaire, expondo Cândido às mais difíceis situações, parte da premissa defendida por Leibniz, seu adversário intelectual, de que no mundo tudo está bem, e tudo corre pelo melhor, e tudo é o melhor que pode ser (julgo que esta filosofia só convém ao poder, aristocrático e clerical, porque afasta o povo da contestação - e da consequente revolução, que estava ali ao virar da esquina). Este princípio, defendido pelo seu mestre Pangloss, por quem Cândido tem a maior admiração, é posto à prova nas viagens acidentadas do nosso herói, no decorrer das quais vai conhecendo todo o tipo de pessoas e se vai inteirando de que no mundo nada está bem, tudo poderia ser melhor.

Voltaire arriscou o pescoço ao expor a devassidão e a ganância dos clérigos, tão ou menos honestos do que os ladrões comuns, que mantém amantes e se batem por dinheiro e prestígio. Expôs a Inquisição, "na sua infinita crueldade", ridicularizou o costume de se fazerem autos-de-fé contra desgraças, ignorando a evidência de ser o auto-de-fé em si uma desgraça. As mulheres são objectificadas, violadas, cobiçadas e mantidas por homens desonestos, biltres sem honra nem moral. Em todas as realidades que percorre, a religião infecta o povo, escraviza-o, submete-o aos seus interesses e às suas lavagens cerebrais. O mundo, da Europa à América do Sul, está pejado de religiosos. Há jacobinos, oratorianos, jesuítas, franciscanos, e outros tantos que ele refere e que não chegaram ao nosso tempo, há também protestantes e muçulmanos, e todos se acham donos da verdade, e massacram os diferentes em nome do seu Deus.

Voltaire critica a escravatura e a opulência, o ócio e a malvadez, a presunção dos aristocratas e a crueldade dos costumes. A vida humana nada valia para os governos do século XVIII, que esquartejavam, queimavam, enforcavam, mutilavam, violavam e guilhotinavam o povo para que uma pequena elite mantivesse os seus privilégios.

Neste volume atreveu-se a demonstrar, por a + b, que somos todos iguais e que qualquer governo pode cair a qualquer instante. (Esta ideia tão simples abalava os alicerces do Absolutismo Régio, que estipulava que o rei era intocável e omnipotente, e que Deus o elegia para soberano de um povo. Estas ideias de que os reis são facilmente depostos despoletavam a cólera dos monarcas, e terão granjeado a Voltaire uma horda de inimigos.) Diria que o povo é quem mais ordena e, como pilar do Estado, chegava a hora de tomar as rédeas do seu destino, e de se libertar da tirania dos governos.

Acessível, divertido, pertinente, deliciosamente irónico.
Amei!

¿Puede ser una obra humorística cuando esta se compone de sucesivas desgracias? Antes de leer Cándido, hubiera contestado que sería muy improbable, puesto que la esencia de un libro proviene de sus hechos y el sentir de sus personajes. Sin embargo, con este título me encuentro con un oxímoron, un relato contradictorio. Los acontecimientos de Cándido son para llorar hasta la deshidratación, no obstante, si tenemos en cuenta el porqué del autor para escribirlo, este libro es para desternillarse de risa.

El optimismo leibniziano postula que vivimos en el mejor de los mundos posibles. En Cándido, Voltaire pone a sudar la gota gorda al pobre Gottfried Leibniz, con una historia que no es más que infortunio tras infortunio que ilustra un mundo que ya no es el mejor de los posibles, sino, ilusoriamente, el peor. Lo que hace este filósofo francés es poner al lector en una situación inmoral, culposa, casi vergonzosa. El carácter de la obra no es para reírse, aun así, es inevitable no descuajaringarse por el humor sardónico que destila cada evento desastroso en la miserable vida de Cándido.

'Panglossianism' fails to take into account that the 'best of all possible worlds' may not be the best state of existence for everyone living in that world. The question of what makes the world 'best' and for whom that 'bestness' is reserved seems to me to be the core question of this book. Happy to have added this to my 'classics shelf'.

“Do you think,” said Candide, “that mankind always massacred each other as they do now? Were they always guilty of lies, fraud, treachery, ingratitude, inconstancy, envy, ambition, and cruelty? Were they always thieves, fools, cowards, gluttons, drunkards, misers, calumniators, debauchees, fanatics and hypocrites?” “Do you believe,” said Martin, “that hawks have always eaten pigeons when they could get them?” “Of course,” said Candide. “Well, then,” replied Martin, “if hawks have always had the same nature, why do you suppose that mankind has changed?”
*
[...] why so strange an animal as man has been created.
*
[...] and our labour keeps us from three great evils—boredom, vice, and want.
*
All events are linked together in the best of all possible worlds; for, after all, had you not been kicked out of a fine castle for your love of Miss Cunégonde, had you not been put into the Inquisition, had you not travelled across America on foot, had you not stabbed the Baron with your sword, and had you not lost all your sheep which you brought from the good country of El Dorado, then you wouldn’t be here eating preserved citrons and pistachio-nuts.” “Excellently observed,” answered Candide; “but we must cultivate our garden.”

I guess I'm ashamed I don't like it but I'm sure Voltaire liked it well enough for both of us.

While fruitlessly searching for something decent to read, I invariably come across a ton of acclaim for total hacks being labeled as ‘master satirists’. God that pisses me off, especially since none of those books are worth a damn, and while the authors wrongly think they have something interesting or unique to say, the thing that really disheartens me is that someone out there agrees with them. For each of these books, there should be a simple label affixed to the front cover that reads ‘Not As Good As Candide’. I seriously think this would alleviate about 30% of all my unresolved issues with the public’s perception of what makes for decent reading. The other 70% could be resolved by making major overhauls to a universal ‘required reading’ list: The Great Gatsby, eh….let’s just toss that crap out and put Cosmos on there, how about actually learning something while you read?

tI’m not about to give Candide a perfect score, and I don’t think that it deserves one, but I will say that it’s damn good. It seems that some of the popular philosophy making the rounds back in Francois-Marie’s day was just rubbing him wrong, especially the absolutely moronic concept that we live in ‘the best of all possible worlds’. Most people hear something that weak and simply binge drink to erase the awful memory that somebody out there could possibly believe that kind of shit. A lot of people write against these notions and somehow get their pitiful little whims published in the commentary of the local newspaper, and you wish you could choke those imbeciles as well, for giving more press to an already absurd concept. Lastly, there are the few that decide to sit down and write a satire about a hundred pages long to denounce what they consider absolute folly.

tAnd with Candide, Voltaire relentlessly attacks the ridiculous philosophy of Liebniz and his familiars, attempting to show that this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the best of all possible worlds (mainly because of the large number of utter clods totally f--king up the works). Our hero, Candide, is a naive youth being reared in the castle of a Westphalian Baron, living the good life while being tutored by a total fraud and hack named Pangloss, the Baron’s oracle/scholar. The only hindrance in the life of our featherbedded little friend is that his love interest, Cunogonde, happens to be the Baron’s vivacious 17-year old daughter, and the Baron isn’t about to have his daughter betrothed to some chump lacking the amount of noble ancestry suitable to his standards. The soothing, silver tongue of Pangloss has made an indelible mark on Candide, however, and when the opportunity arises to plant a surreptitious smooch on Cunegonde, he’s busted in the act and driven from the castle “when the Baron saluted Candide with some notable kicks on the rear”. That’s just hilarious, 'notable kicks', and there’s something this appealing on basically every page to follow: as this is only just the beginning; the first misfortune to befall our thick-skulled friend, Candide. Each successive f--king he suffers along the way is not only totally hilariously described in an absurd fashion, but is usually resolved in awesomely unreal turns of fate (I don’t think I could make it more than five pages without either cracking a smile or outright laughing for all the right reasons). The Baron’s castle is sacked by Bulgarians following Candide’s exile, setting the lively and luscious Cunegonde in flight from Westphalia as well, and one unfortunate event after another befalls both lovers; with Candide’s life quickly becoming filled with floggings, poverty, the Inquisition. natural disasters, piracy, and getting pimp-jacked as a result of some devious manipulation, while his beloved is reduced to harlotry, being ravished or ravaged, and unbecoming servitude at the hands of her completely offensive captors and suitors. Wow.

It probably isn’t the best book you’ll ever read, but I'd be pretty shocked to find out it wasn't even enjoyed.

I loved Candide! It is such a brilliant satire on the ideas observed through the glass of rosy eyed philosophy. “All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”!!!

Candide, a young fellow, believes that whatever happens is for the best, courtesy his tutor Dr. Pangloss. The writing covers a number of unfavorable happenings and incidents, which should have been sufficient enough to let him abandon the colored glasses. But voila! Our man Candide is one optimist! He continues believing even through all the misfortunes in life. Nothing, not even the greatest follies of mankind like injustice, greed, apathy can shake his belief. In search of his beloved, Lady Cunegonde, he faces one trouble after another; at each step believing the philosophy to be true for he believes that he will be happy after he reunites with the love of his life. After many misadventures, he finally reunites with the Lady only to find that he doesn’t love her that much. (for she turns from being very beautiful to being very ugly for the hardships that she faces in life
) Still, Candide goes ahead and marries her to keep his promise, but he realizes that he hasn’t been happy at all.

So, where do we get from here?

Voltaire’s work is not only a satire on the times he lived in but can also be seen as a mirror to the modern societies where similar beliefs still find a strong foothold. It made me contemplate how still the religious or ideological conditioning can play a larger role in the underdevelopment of minds, thereby restricting rational thinking. It is further astonishing to witness the influence such ideas can exercise, if they are bestowed regularly with zest on a naive mind. (Here, I unwilling refrain myself from quoting examples from the ideas prevalent closer home.) Religious fanaticism is one of the examples where such conditioning can bring about discord in the societies. And more than this, an individual, accepting such ideology, stands in danger of coming face to face with a sense of utter despair or worthlessness at the mere hint of failure of the long held ideas.

So, what can be a solution to this? In this work, Voltaire suggests hard work i.e. labor for people to find happiness in life. He opines that labor holds off three great evils: tedium, vice and poverty, making life more supportable. I do agree with him. Along with this I also believe that younger minds should be encouraged to question and analyse the ideas presented to them, so that what they exercise are not mere vague ideas but beliefs which can sturdily stand the test of the times.

I wonder, is Candide REALLY a veiled parody of Voltaire's over-the-top pal, Jean-Jacques Rousseau? If so, as a fellow former bipolar case, I take exception!

I’m afraid this classic and long-winded anarchist rant is still as much Over the Top as nutty Rousseau and me. As it always was for me.

Yes...

It's still a bit much.

Sure, I see what Voltaire is railing at: Effete, Crazy and philosophically Liberal posturing - without a heart.

But aren’t theorists of all stripes NOW more or less heartless? Ah, for the old Kantian days...

No wonder we’re at our current impasse everywhere!

Sure, I know where Voltaire is coming from. He’s coming out of a traumatically blighted Childhood at the hands of some very corrupt Christian brothers.

We Canadians know the story well: ingenuous but disenfranchised poor first nation kids abused at residential schools. A truly sad and tragic story. And a black blot on our oh-so-prim history books.

Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire ALSO had a troubled and disenfranchised more-or-less ingenuous youth in similar schools in France.

Sure, he was also sadly abused - physically and (he told a scandalized noblewoman at dinner one night) sexually. Just read Nancy Mitford’s wonderful Masterpiece, Voltaire in Love!

So this guy had a palpable and dangerously angry axe to grind.

Explains a lot, don’t it?

And Voltaire has been trounced - much less soundly than I would have wished or expected - in a modern book about his extremely dubious legacy: Voltaire’s Bastards.

That book was written by the then-famous Canadian theorist (and former vice-regal spouse of Adrienne Clarkson) John Ralston Saul.

But he hadn’t the intellectual acuity nor the moral fibre to put that book over the top.

A valiant firecracker of a slightly damaging hit on Voltaire’s modern reputation. But Saul was in the wrong political position to even TRY to score a direct hit! He had to watch his words.

And Voltaire’s amoral descendants need the kind of pervasive damage control we have here now among our medical practicioners to straighten them out. Though hardly here in Canada...

Yikes! I really said that?

That’s one good thing about our world now, though it seldom, alas, asks questions - and treats its delinquency of compassion as justified.

In Canada we have what we now call ombudsmen, though their hands are tied. Our ingrained sense of morality, you see, has been largely washed away by pop culture here as elsewhere...

I, as a kid, found myself in similarly dire straits as Voltaire’s polite and noble once-upon-a-time table partner found herself - scandalized by this new-minted but outré mindset.

And the freethinking Pierre Trudeau years took draconian retaliation on the staunchly ethical kid I was - and were INVERSELY enraged by my moralism.

But, like Melville’s Billy Budd, I didn’t have enough time to adequately verbalize my rationale.

My drubbing-down was total: the political atmosphere that made such traditional ‘posturing’ acceptable - as it had been in my childhood 1950’s - had vanished into vapour and could now be neither understood nor tolerated.

So my reversal was simply a naïve harkening back to my childhood training.

I got to know many such drastically reconditioned souls as myself in the seventies! May you all Rest In Peace, my poor friends.

But I still resent this book’s easy popularity.

It’s STILL a bit too easy and facile, coming from a Hume-an unabashed root of pure scepticism.

Much too easy.

And where are you Now, my sure-footed radical friend?

Well, I firmly believe poor Voltaire is privately ruing his middle-aged temerity somewhere high above us - in purgatorial fires (“whose flame is roses/ and smoke, briars!”).

Be that as it may, he must surely at least have resented Robespierre’s brutally revolutionary realignment of his spontaneously angry thoughts -

And that, bitterly.

“Because,” as now probably grieves his hapless spirit, “my words were taken out of context....”

The final words of a badly misunderstood, poor human being, and not the Olympian he wanted to be -

But then, most opportunists share a similar moral vacuity and inspire the same short-lived enthusiasm in others.

n  humanities: book 2n
This is a piece of satire that was entertaining enough, but by the end, I was really skimming and I don’t think I actually got much out of this.

So Candide was written in an era where philosophical thought was that the world was full of meaning. Voltaire disagreed. And so he wrote an entire book making fun of it, as you do.

And that is…. all this book is. All of the characters are horribly dislikable, the plot is completely ridiculous, etc etc etc - this is just satire and that is fine.

I guess I honestly just didn’t find this very funny. There were isolated lines I found hysterical, but…. I was kind of eh on the whole? This is probably just not the type of comedy I enjoy.

So yeah, this was definitely an interesting view into the world of philosophical disputes occurring in the European Enlightenment. Unfortunately, it was definitely not anything I enjoy reading. The proof is in me having literally nothing to say about it.

Blog | Goodreads | Twitter | Instagram | Youtube

n  panglossian - adj. characterized by or given to extreme optimism, especially in the face of unrelieved hardship or adversity.n

If an English word came from a book's character, that must be something. If the book was written and first published in the 18th century and many people still read it up to now, that must be really something.

I thought Voltaire's Candide was a difficult boring slow long read. Wrong. Exactly the opposite. It's an easy, very entertaining, fast-paced and short (only 100 pages) read. If you are still scared of reading classics (pre-1900), give this one a try. You will love this!

It tells a story of a man named Candide who falls in love with a materialistic but very beautiful Cunegonde. Her barron father of the lady does not approve of the affair so he kicks Candide out from house. So, Candide wanders around and meets all the misfortunes along the way. The novel is a picaresque as the long travel, meeting a lot of people and experiencing all the fortunes and misfortunes along the way, ends up with Candide enjoying his life and tending the beautiful garden of his estate.

This is the reason why I, after more than 3 years, went to our frontyard this morning and tended my overgrown garden. I pruned the trees and the shrubs, trimmed the plants, pulled out some weeds while my daughter helped in shooing away big red ants and removing the cobwebs. Reading has these all positive effects on me. It can even remind me of the things that I have been forgetting for a long time. This novel closes with this line: "That is well said," replied Candide, "but we must cultivate our garden.". When I finished reading it last night, I said, why not?

Its complete title is n  Candide or Optimismn because of Candide's tutor, Doctor Pangloss who is an extreme optimist that Candide learns to always look at the positive side of things. You may say that I liked this book because of that. Wrong. The positivity of Dr. Pangloss is one for the books as it verges on stupidity and it is so funny when Candide remembers him and says "I wonder what would Pangloss say if he was here?" Having an English word culled from his name is really appropriate. He is really one for the books.

A life err routine-changing novel since I am gardening again after 3 long years of doing nothing at home but reading, reading and reading...

Except of course when am I at Goodreads reading book reviews of my friends, clicking the Like button and when I am in front of my desktop killing zombies by throwing plants at them.

I liked this book!

کتاب کاندید یا خوش‌باوری اثری کلاسیک از قرن ۱۸‌ام که به‌نظرم در نوع‌خودش و با توجه به‌زمان نگارشش یه‌شاهکار کلاسیک محسوب میشه.
کتابی بود که به‌شدت لحنی sarcastic(کنایه‌ای) داشت و برخی مکاتب فلسفی را که وجود دارند را در قالب تجارب عینی نقد کرده و به‌چالش کشیده بود.
ولتر با هوشمندی و زیرکی فوق‌العاده‌ای لحن طنز و کنایه را انتخاب کرده بود تا مباحثی در نقد برخی مفاهیم دینی، سیاسی، فلسفی و در کل جهان‌بینی‌های متفاوت افراد مطرح کند.
شخصیت کاندید(معنای لغوی این واژه یعنی فرد صادق و صاف‌و‌ساده و بدون‌تزویر و ریا) که کاراکتر اصلی داستان محسوب می‌شد و در تمامی فصول کتاب بود هم شخصیت بسیار جالبی داشت. فردی بود که در ابتدا صرفا پیرو و دنبال‌کننده افکار و دیدگاه‌های فلسفی بقیه از جمله استادش پانگلُس بود و تا زمانی که در قلعه می‌زیست فکر می‌کرد این بهترین جهان ممکن و این قلعه بهترین نقطه روی زمین است. تا اینکه به‌خاطر اتفاقی که نمی‌خوام اسپویل کنم داستان رو، کاندید مجبور به‌ترک قلعه میشه.
اتفاقات بعد از این رویداد شروع میشه و کاندید سیر می‌کنه در نقاط مختلف جهان و حتی درون وجود خودش.
خیلی جاها از دست سادگی و ساده‌لوحی کاندید عصبانی می‌شدم و فشار می‌خوردم. می‌گفتم مگه ممکنه همچین فردی وجود داشته باشه اصلا؟!
ولتر به‌زیبایی و استادی تونسته بود رشد شخصيتی(character development) کاندید رو نشون بده. افراد مختلفی با کاندید هم‌مسیر و هم‌سفر میشن تو این راه. دیدگاه‌های مختلف و جهان‌بینی‌های مختلف روی کاندید تاثیر می‌گذارند. کاندید به‌شدت متأثر می‌شود وقتی نظاره‌گر خشونت‌ها، بی‌رحمی‌ها، خودخواهی‌ها و ... نوع بشر را می‌بیند.
حین خواندن کتاب، استاد بزرگ فلسفه واقع‌بینی(مخالف لفظ بدبینی هستم)، آرتور شوپنهاور هم همراه من بود و دائما سخنانش بر روی ذهنم سایه می‌انداخت.
گاهی ولتر حتی فلسفه‌بافی برای هر مسئله زندگی را هم مورد نقد قرار می‌داد و می‌خواست که افراد خود را مشغول زندگی کردن بکنند نه فلسفه‌بافی برای زندگی.
در کل کتابی بود که واقعا لذت بردم از خوندنش و یه‌نفس کتاب رو خوندم. یک‌ستاره‌ای که کم کردم به‌هیچ‌وجه از شایستگی‌های این شاهکار کم نمی‌کنه. صرفا به‌این‌خاطر کم کردم که یجورایی تو لجبازی با خودم، دوس داشتم کتاب زود تموم نشه انقدر که دوسش داشتم و وقتی زود تموم شد عصبانی شدم. به‌نظرم هر فصل این کتاب به‌جای ۳ ۴ ص می‌تونست ۳۰ ۴۰ ص باشه. شاید اگر به‌جای نویسنده فرانسوی، نویسنده‌ای روسی کتاب رو نوشته بود، هر فصل کتاب شاخ‌و‌برگ بیشتری بهش داده می‌شد و شاهکار طولانی‌تری می‌شد، البته فقط شاید، شاید اینطوری می‌شد.
ترجمه کتاب از آقای گودرزی، ترجمه روان و زیبایی بود.