zaaaAP Lit SuperBlog

Where Did He Go?

Multiple times in this story, Leggatt is almost caught by the shipmates of the captain and Leggatt's shipmates. Where did Leggatt go to hide? When the steward hangs up Leggatt's coat in the bathroom, he magically disappears. The captain says, "Had my double vanished as [the steward] had come? (159)" When the captain of the Sephora comes onto the ship, searches the entire ship from bow to stern, port to starboard, the man is nowhere to be found. Where does this magical man go?

Is it possible that Leggatt is not a real person, but merely a ghost? Or is he the soul of the captain, and that is why the two feel this special connection. Many times, Leggatt is not referred to as a person, but merely as a "creature" or a "ghostly figure." Is Conrad trying to hint to us something? Why would Leggatt be referred to as a creature instead of a person or human, or am I overreacting to a few word choices by the author? Is the mysterious man a figment of his imagination that he uses as a confidence booster? Or is Leggatt just an imaginary friend? Have I asked enough questions?

Mirror Mirror...

In this short story, the narrator and captain of the ship is confronted with his double, someone who he comes to feel is an extension of himself.

He describes, "It was, in the night, as though I had been faced by my own reflection in the depths of a somber and immense mirror" (130).

This feeling, of the convict being a duplicate of the captain, is prevalent throughout the story; it seems to be an important aspect of the greater meaning of the text. However, I cannot quite put my finger on what this meaning might be...

Is it that this man represents the hidden counterpart within everyone? Or am I taking this idea too far? Maybe Conrad is simply using this reflection/mirror diction as a way to describe the situation better for the reader. Is the man a symbol of something bigger?

A Possible Love Affair?

"Our hands met gropingly, lingered united in a steady, motionless clasp for a second... No word was breathed by either of us when they separated." pg. 167

This connection between Captain, and the "secret sharer" seems strangely close for two complete strangers. The way the narrator talks about their encounters with each other, makes the reader believe that these two men are not simply friends. Although Captain stresses that Leggatt is his "double", and that they are almost the same person, this tie seems to be stronger than that of two friends helping each other out.

"'Be careful,' he murmured, warningly - and I realized suddenly that all my future, the only future for which I was fit, would perhaps go irretrievably to pieces in any mishap to my first command." pg. 163

Not only do these two men interact as though they were more than friends, in which they hold hands, and whisper softly into each others ear, the Captain is willing to give up his entire life for Leggatt. He explains that what he is doing, in letting Leggatt off at the Koh-Ring, risks his entire career, and could possibly lead to death. He is risking his life for that of a stranger he met merely a short while before.

What is the significance of the relationship between Leggatt and Captain? Is it merely friendship, amplified due to the striking similarities between the two? Or is it something more?

The Nameless Captian

The Nameless Captain is so pathetic. He acts all "emo," with his "I'm a stranger," "I don't know the ship, but I don't know the people ever more," and "I'm so alone." But then, under the slightest bit of pressure, this man turns into a blundering man. For example, on pg. 147, he says, "The heavy sea which you told me, came aboard just then might have killed the man very neatly, by simply breaking his neck." Then, on pg. 148, he says, "Unless you manage to recover him before tomorrow... I mean alive."

Seriously?!? He might as well just take Archbold to Leggatt. I also do not understand how the Nameless Captain keeps comparing himself to Leggatt. I mean, Nameless can't handle pressure and doesn't have a lot of confidence in his words. But Leggatt straight up says, "I killed a man." How is that in any way similar?

Also, on pg. 152 when one of his shipmates says, "Some idea the man was hidden aboard here. They had really. Did you ever hear of such a thing?" That is just cliche.

Do you see any parallels between Leggatt and Nameless?
How do you think Nameless ever became the captain of a ship if he isn't very confident in what he does?

The Sea and the Sharer

In The Secret Sharer, Conrad explores the reaches of the human heart and the need for a friend and companion in one's life. For the narrator, I believe that the companion and friend, his solace against the loneliness he feels, is the sea itself.  Several times during the novella, the narrator draws a parallel between the sea and the feelings of comfort or happiness.  "And suddenly I rejoiced in the great security of the sea as compared with the unrest of the land, in my choice of that untempted life presenting no disquieting problems, invested with an elementary moral beauty by the absolute straightforwardness of its appeal and by the singleness of its purpose."  The sea is a great source of comfort for the captain, a friend and a way of life.

My discussion questions have to do with the like.  What do you think the significance of the sea is in the story, other than what has been covered?  Do you think that this will also be a recurring theme in Heart of Darkness? 

And what about the strange man, Leggatt?  He was introduced to the captain via the sea, and taken away very much the same way.  Could the mysterious stranger have really just been a stowaway, or something more?

Alter Ego

As the story begins, the captain feels that he is a stranger on his own ship. He is timid and unnerved by his own crew. The captain worries about his reputation among his crew and therefore lacks the courage needed to properly command his ship.
However, when Leggatt appears he helps the captain to change and become a better captain. Leggatt, who has killed a man on his previous ship, represents a powerful and feared figure and seems to be what the captain is lacking. As the captain interacts more and more with Leggatt he gains the power and conviction needed to better command his ship.
Together, the captain and Leggatt make a powerful tandem. The captain, who is rational but more reserved, and Leggatt who is irrational but triumphant, combine to lead the ship successfully. I believe that the message that Conrad is trying to convey in this story is finding the right balance of duality within a human being. In the case of The Secret Sharer, Leggatt helps the captain to find the proper balance between the timid and bold sides of his personality.
Is Leggatt the captains alter ego?

Mersault and Matthew

When I was watching Trust I couldn't help but think of the similarities and differences between Matthew and Mersault.  From the movie I would say that in all they're different from each other but they have one striking similarity which is how they reject traditional aspects of society.   Matthew thinks it's wrong to watch tv and doesn't believe in love.  Mersault believed in whatever fit him best in the moment and thought marriage and other things in society were petty.

Mersault and Matthew are different in what sets them off.  I am pretty sure that Mersault would never carry around a grenade to kill himself, when need be.  I think that the impulse that Matthew had to kill himself was different than the impulse that Mersault had when he killed the Arab.  Mersault was under a lot of physical torment, he was hot...  Matthew was under emotional and physical torment.  I believe the beating he recieved from his father and quitting his job were factors but what really pushed him was Maria telling him that she didn't want to marry him and that she had an abortion.  I don't think Mersault could actually get burdned by overwhelming emotions because Mersault can adapt.  Matthew couldn't, his way out was to kill himself.

Another difference between Matthew and Mersualt is that while Mersault just lived and didn't really care about the world, Matthew in a way did.  Matthew had his own beliefs and morals. He felt it was wrong for the computer company to build and sell faulty computers, and he made it known by confronting someone about it.  Mersault would never have done that, he probably wouldn't have cared. 

Leggatt and the Narrator: Complex Relationship

When I was reading chapter 1 of The Secret Sharer, I noticed something peculiar about the narrator.  In the first part of the chapter the narrator is passive and wants to fit in with his crew, he does things to please his crew members that a normal captain would never do. Then Leggatt shows up and he changes.  The next day he's a completely different person.  He orders his crew around and doesn't care what they think and in a way it seems as if he's trying to please Leggatt. He looks over his shoulder at Leggatt as he instructs his crew members what to do and he even has the urge to take into account what Leggatt thinks is best.  That whole scene just seemed ominous to me, it seems as if this normal guy, well not totally "normal," is now friends with the devil. 

The relationship between the two men is already strange since we're only seeing it through the eyes of the narrator who obviously thinks he and Leggatt are exactly alike. Which is also weird, he always mentions that if someone would walk in on him and Leggatt, the person would immediately think that they were seeing double.  The narrator seems to even take pleasure in that thought, "I saw him far back there, sitting rigidly on the low stool, his bare feet close together, his arms folded, his head hanging on his breast--and perfectly still.  Anybody would have taken him for me." (The Secret Sharer, Joseph Conrad, page 144) 

The narrator also accepts that Leggatt killed a man so easily.  I know it's early in the story, but does anyone see a resemblence between Leggatt and the narrator.  I think the narrator is trying to force the idea that they're identical, for his own reasons.  Another question I have is why does the narrator find it easy and and natural to relate to Legatt, the murderer, over his own ship mates?

The White Castle/ The Stranger

I've been doing an independent study on Turkish literature and I just read a novel called The White Castle by Orhan Pamuk. It's about a Venetian man who gets captured and becomes a slave in Istanbul. His owner, whom he calls Hoja (the Turkish term for master), look exactly alike and are theoretically the same person. Of course this causes many problems and brings up questions of individuality, original thought, and love. The Secret Sharer reminds me of this novel in that the two strangers on board the ship- the captain and the murderer- are "identical"- the main character refers to the new man aboard the ship as his "second self" (139, 144).

I also found that the murderer was very similar to Meursault. He is strongly affected by the weather, and, because of a bad storm and its frustrations, he kills in cold blood. This is almost the same situation that Meursault was in. I find it interesting that the Secret Sharer, which was written before either of these other two books, was emulated so strongly by other writers.

Or, are identical identities just a commonly explored theme in literature?

Long Lost Twin

After reading the first part of The Secret Sharer, some obvious themes jump out at me.  There is one, however, that I find very interesting.  At the beginning, before Leggatt comes on board, the captain is very self-conscious about his position on the ship and his being a "stranger" to the other crew members.  He calls himself a stranger three times in a very short period of time, making us as readers very aware of his self-consciousness.

After Leggatt boards, he stops thinking about his strangeness and becomes obsessed with their similarities.  He refers to Leggatt as "my double" or as having the same traits as him thirteen times over the course of fifteen or so pages!  To me, this seems a little obsessive.  I don't know much about the time that this book was written, but it's odd that it doesn't really bother him that this man is a murderer because he is so caught up in how similar they are.  Near the end of the first part, the captain refers to Leggatt as his "secret self" and then later his "secret sharer" (143).  Maybe I'm missing something, but this to me is verging on creepy and weird.  They have only had one conversation at this point, and yet the captain says that "the daul working of my mind distracted me almost to the point of insanity" (143).  This new man even causes him to change the way he runs his ship, because the morning after he shows up, the captain give "the first particular order [he] had given on board that ship" (143).

What I don't understand is where this obsession came from.  Could it just be that the captain always wanted a twin brother?  Or was he so lonely and nervous about being the new big shot on the ship that he latched onto this man who just showed up one night on his shift?

Meursault's emotional immaturity

Meursault has an obvious connection to his physical environment, and whatever emotions he does reveal are a result of his physical state. To most of us, the things that change our physical comfort affect us but for the most part are seen as subtleties. The difference with Meursault is that those subtleties are blown out of proportion and greatly influence his actions. The prime example of this is when Meursault is faced with the decision of killing the Arab:
“The sun was starting to burn my cheeks, and I could feel drops of sweat gathering on my eyebrows…my forehead especially was hurting me, all the veins in it throbbing under the skin. It was this burning, which I couldn’t stand anymore, that made me move forward” (58-59).
The sun annoys Meursault so much that it pushes him to make a movement that leads to his murdering of the Arab. This proves that Meursault is underdeveloped emotionally and breaks down when he faces adversity.

If that day had been overcast, would Meursault still have killed the man?

Meursault Chases Existentialism

While reading The Stranger, I struggled to accept that Meursault was truly an existentialist. To me, it seemed that Meursault was trying to be someone he was not. Each time he showed emotion, he tried to explain it away or take an action that would eliminate any reader’s thought that the world had affected on him.

A great example of this was when he had dinner at Celeste's and the "robot woman" sat down and had dinner with him (p 43-44). Meursault showed obvious interest in her as he was so intrigued with her mannerisms that he followed her out the door for bit. Once he lost sight of her, he said that he soon forgot her. I feel that he was shocked that he had paid her that much attention and was now trying to cover up how much she had affected him with an act of indifference.

I was unsure of the validity of my argument until the end of the book when I read how Meursault stated how he wanted a large crowd of people to come to cheer at his execution. He wanted people to acknowledge his indifference to the world. If Meursault who truly individualistic, wouldn't he be indifferent as to whether or not people realized how he lived his life? If he were a true a existentialist, wouldn't he have been happy to accept and receive his death with out wishing for people to react to it?

In my eyes, Meursault is the least existential person in the book because he was a hypocrite. He obviously lived his life trying to be something he was not. If the point of a existential life is living individualistically and creating your own meeting, he failed miserably.

The Baby Stealer

While watching the movie Trust, I am wondering about the significance of the woman who steals the baby.  Maria went and sat down by this woman right after her whole world came crashing down around her.  The woman talked to her, comforted her, and ended the conversation with talking about her own problems.  I believe that this woman is the foil to Maria in a way, because as Maria's world gets completely incinerated while, the other woman's life could be seen as "just beginning," because now she has the baby that she has always wanted. 

Yet, what are the woman's motivations in stealing a baby, besides always wanting one? Was it just a whim or is there meaning in the time and place of this incident? How does it connect with the obvious theme of existentialism? And what is the significance to the woman’s and Maria’s interaction?

Trust...Too Hard to Handle?

I read somewhere that the existential philosophy has two different ways to be viewed.  The first is that a person's actions, values, and thoughts are all their own responsibility.  They're totally accountable for their own life, and are aware of that fact.  The second view is that although an existentialist is "authentic" and "honest", that might go overboard and result in them disregarding other peoples' feelings, and their own morals and responsibilities.  The second view seems to pertain to Meursault.

That being said, depending on which view you follow, is it even possible for an existentialist to trust?  From viewpoint 1, I'd say it's possible.  If you're conscious of your actions and responsibilities, you know that life is easier and more enjoyable if you have someone you can trust.  Therefore, you'd make it your duty to allow trust in your life.

Viewpoint 2 makes it seem like trust is out of the picture.  A person like this, like Meursault, basically has no reason to feel the need to trust.  To him, it's not his responsibility to have people trust him or for him to trust other people.  If he's blinded by his individuality, or the light, he doesn't understand the morality of trust.

If this makes sense, does anyone agree??  Or maybe trust comes from society as a whole, and not from us individually?

Similarities Between Maria and Matthew

When I was watching Trust, I was starting to wonder about certain things.  Maria is only seventeen and has to deal with the death of her father, being pregnant, and relationship problems.  Also, there are many scenes in the movie that I think show how much alike Maria and Matthew are.  One part was when Maria wants Matthew to go live with her for awhile.  She tells Matthew that he needs to get away from his father, but then when Matthew gets to Maria's house, he tells her that she needs to get away from her mother because she is a psychopath.  Maria also tells Matthew that she has contemplated suicide before, and so has Matthew (especially since he has a hand grenade with him all the time).  I think that Maria and Matthew have a lot in common and during the rest of the movie, more similarities will be shown.  What do you think?  Do you think they are similar and have similar lifestyles?   

Existentialism in Trust

Throughout this film I have been thinking to myself where is the connection between this and The Stranger? As the movie progresses however I believe that I am beginning to see more and more connections. Maria began the movie by asking her father for five dollars. She wore flashy clothes, used lots of makeup, and did her hair in a special style hoping to approve her appearance.
As the movie progresses Maria becomes an outcast to society. She is not welcome in her own home, she is kicked out of school, and she is pregnant at the age of seventeen. As a result she begins to give up many of these material items that society associates with beauty. She begins to wear her hair straight down, puts on her glasses, and wears a plain blouse that does not attract much attention. Furthermore, she gives up the bed she once slept on and now sleeps on the ground. She is beginning to show more and more signs of an existentialist life.
However, while talking to Matthew she argues the reality of love and forces her point that there is such thing as love and not just "respect and admiration." Is Maria really becoming an existentialist?

What Do You Carry In Your Pocket?

Without any reading to question, I thought it would be fun to talk about the movie "Trust."
This non-Hollywood type movie is filled with symbolism and meaning in each shot. I think The hand grenade that one of the characters in the movie carries with him at all times represents his constant consideration of death. I think the hand grenade is quite funny. First off, the guy shows dedication and guts for carrying around a grenade from the Korean War, who knows if it even will work. Secondly, out of all the possible ways to die the hand grenade just doesn't seem like a top choice, especially because you have eight seconds to regret your decision before it goes off. The abandoned house where the two characters first meet in seems to represent the status of both their lives. There are so many more scenes, that seem to "hit you over the head." Unsure at this moment, of each scenes complete purpose I was wondering which scenes you noticed the deliberate use of a shot, prop or dialog. Does anyone know why the guy knows so much about electron appliances? Can he really fix anything?

Trust, Strangely Familiar

Of course one of the biggest questions about Trust is why we are even watching it.  I'm sure they are similar in their overall messages and in existentialist thought, but to start i thought i would point out some plot/character similarities.

The first i found was the relationships between Matthew:His father and Salamano:His dog.  Both relationships are clearly abusive. I think the most interesting part to both relationships is how Matthew's father and Salamono react with their "partners" are gone.  Salamano is strangely upset by the disappearance of his dog, and Matthews father even attempts to visit him at the repair shop after he has moved out.

Both works open with the death of a parent. Not only is the plot similar but the style as well.  The two deaths were presented rather bluntly. In The Stranger it was the first line and seemed to be anti dramatic.  Similarly in Trust a simple slap turns into murder, with almost no hype.

The main characters have very similar names Maria:Marie  Meursault:Matthew

The last similarity i want to point out is how all four of the main characters throw around the word marriage.  In today's society a proposal is usually a big deal and in fact a life changing event, where in both works marriage proposals are brought up during normal conversation.

Do these similarities have any meaning? Did you notice any other similarities? Do the two share any themes?  Also, hope you all got my pun in the title "strangely" "stranger". I thought it was pretty good.

Neccessary Social Constructions

I've been thinking a lot about existentialism lately, specifically in its connection to religion.

I read an article in the New York Times Magazine two years ago that argued that religion is a social construct created by humans as a security device. Believing in a higher power, they argued, was a mechanism that aided humans throughout their daily lives. Without religion, many saw little meaning in existence and were unable to handle the stress of daily life. They went so far to suggest that daily praying was beneficial for the human body as a moment of relaxation and rest from a hectic and stressful day.

It seems to me that perhaps social constructions are unconsciously created by humans to aid our lives. This subconscious creation would then suggest that religion, friendship, love ext.. are not social constructions, but devises central to human life.

The Trust Game

The most interesting scene in the movie is when Maria and Matthew play their trust game. Maria climbs on top of the cement block and falls backwards, completely trusting that Matthew will catch her. From the beginning of their relationship, Maria’s trust in Matthew is unwavering. She follows him to his house, allowing herself to be vulnerable. Only after a few days of knowing him, she offers him a place in her home and eventually a place in her family through marriage. Matthew says he trusts her before he climbs on the block but when she demands he fall he refuses. Granted, his reasons for not wanting to jump are valid. But does this mean he does not trust her to break his fall? Is he able to trust anyone? Maria’s unfailing trust in Matthew will be interesting to follow as the movie progresses. Will Matthew ever completely trust Maria?

Maria accepting Matthew’s proposal reminds me of The Stranger. Marie asks if Meursault loves her and if he will marry her, connecting the ideas of love and marriage. When Maria questions Matthew about his proposal, she asks if he loves her. He responds that he respect and admires her, Maria counters that these two are the same thing. She continues, saying that if he admits that he feels love towards her, they can be married.

I am confused about why she did not continue with the abortion. Why is she choosing to raise a baby with a man she barely knows? Perhaps as the movie progresses this question will be answered.

Can You Really Trust Another?

I am really enjoying the movie "Trust." For one thing, I think it's interesting and darkly funny. But also, it posses a good question, "Can we really trust someone else?" We are shown that parents and their children. Maria breaks her parents trust because she drops out of school and gets pregnant. Which is a surprise to them. Children cannot trust parents because they can abuse them, like with Maria's mom trying to set up her older daughter with Matthew. Even in a relationship there is the question of trust. Maria trusted her boyfriend to marry her, so she wouldn't have to worry being "stupid." But he turns his back on her. There is also random characters you meet that cannot be trusted like the lady who stole the baby or the alcohol shop owner. Even Maria's best friend turns her back on her when she asks if she can live with her. The viewer's last hope is between Maria and Matthew. Will they be able to prove it is possible to trust? Or will they deceive each other too? We also see that Maria is educating herself and becoming independent. Is that because the only person that you can truly trust is yourself? Or can you even trust yourself?

Could trust be related to the situation? Both Maria and Matthew come from abusive homes, which doesn't allow for a good establishment of trust.

What do you think are the requirements to trust someone else? Do you think it is even possible?

What Makes You Existentialist?

I was watching a documentary the other night about films, and they were going through the major movies and their plots throughout time. When they were talking about Cool Hand Luke (one of my favorites) they call Paul Newman's character an "existentalist leading man." (If you have never seen the movie, Paul Newman's character is sent to prison for two years, and works on a chain-gang. He continually tries to escape, but is continually caught.)

Paul Newman's character, Luke, to me, however, seems nothing like Meursault, who might be identified as an existentialist leading man, too. I don't know if you've ever seen the movie, but there are a couple key differences between these characters. Luke is not constanly trying to please everyone. Meursault seems to base some of his actions on how others will feel- although he also does some things society deems abnormal (not crying at his mother's funeral.) Luke does base any of his actions on anything but his own feelings.

Luke's mother dies, too. But we get to see that she and Luke obviously have some sort of connection, because we witness her visit to him in prison. Luke is called "original" in the movie, which automatically makes me think, "Oh! Original... he might lead an original and authentic life..." But still, his character sometimes seems to different from Meursault to be an existentialist leading man.

What do you guys think? Have you seen the movie? Is Luke as emotionally detached as Meursault?

Are we Capable?

How does one find individual meaning in life if everything we encounter is not real, but rather a societal manifestation? The theme that I pulled from The Stranger is that in order to survive with the knowledge of imminent death one must seek out individual meaning; something to personally hope for. But how can one be expected to bypass the knowledge of the falsities surrounding us and pick out meaning from them?

Camus gives his answere in the form of Meursault- whom achieves this contentment for his condition by downplaying society's manifestations. But, isn't Meursault the exception? He has been condemned and cast out from society because we; society; the unexceptional, do not understand him and are incapable of every being able to accept those who question the authorities to which we appeal to to guide our lives...

So really, my question is- is Camus attempting to enlighten the reader on how to achieve this indifference through the characterization of Meursault, or is he simply commenting on society's (the masses) incapability of ever being able to reach this indifference by ultimately accepting the individual and the actions taken by him or her in the process of discovering this personal meaning ?

No Judgements

As I was pondering what theme I could use for our essay assignment, one jumped out at me that had never occured to me before. It occured to me that maybe what Camus is trying to say is that there is no way that moral institutions can be used to fairly judge human nature. Meursault is judged in many ways, and as a result he is executed.

One "moral institution" that came to mind was the church. Meursault repeatedly refuses to talk to the Chaplin, and when he does, completely rejects his ideas, which are basic ideas about God. "I said that I didn't believe in God. He wanted to know if I was sure and I said that I didn't see any reason to ask myself that question: it seemed unimportant" (116). To some of us this seems unusual, and to others it doesn't. Religious beliefs are certainly meant to be individual, but in this case, the moral institution of the church is unfairly judging Merusault to be a bad person when he proclaims that God is unimportant to him.

Another "moral institution" of some sort would be society and the way society expects people to act. Maman's funeral would be an example of this. Meursault is immiedately caste as a bad person because he didn't cry at his mother's funeral. He was judged without being able to express his reason for doing this, which is certainly unfair.

This theme seemed glaring to me after I thought about how Meursault's nature was being judged unfairly by so many different aspects of the moral spectrum. Do you think that this could be one of the themes Camus portrayed? Is there any more evidence that supports it?

Thomas Perez and His Connection With Maman

The connection that Monsieur Perez had to Maman obviously is a stronger relationship then that of Meursault's.  Perez's affection and reliance on Maman is obvious in his actions on the day of the funeral.  First, he walks behind the hearse, and although the pace is too fast for him, he walks it anyways.  Clearly for a man with a limp, and with his age he has trouble with the route, but his love overshadows his pain.  Also, the director told Meursault that only the family was invited to the burial, but in this case he made an exception for Perez. 

On page 18 it states, "Big tears of frustration and exhaustion were streaming down his cheeks.  But because of all the wrinkles, they weren't dripping off."  Although Nabokov tells us not to connect with the characters, this saddens me, and I cannot help to feel sorry for him and angered at Meursault.  Meursault doesn't comfort him,  walk with him, or even try to talk to him.  Where is his compassion?  Will this lead to a visit with Monsieur Perez in the future of the book? What does Perez truly mean to this book?

Trust. A Social Construction?

From Mr. Heidkamp's lecture last week brings up the question about social construction. I'm sure you all know the lecture, the one that is supposed to change our lives (sorry Heidkamp, but the only thing the lecture did is show me that I don't want to be an existentialist.). Truth is a synonym of the word honesty. Will this tie the movie into existentialism? In the movie who do the characters have to be true to? Themselves? Is this the first step to be an existentialist? These things will come in time with watching the movie, but for me existentialism has only plunged me into the realm of confusion. It's hard to grasp what I don't know, and it would be even harder to try it. Maybe I'm corrupted by social constructions or systems of thoughts, but to me, those things, i.e. love, justice, God, religion, family, friends, they have created a life for me and I'm pretty sure they have for Meursault as well but he has emotionally detached himself to much to see that.

WWMD: What Would Meursault Do?

At the end of The Stranger, Meursault has an epiphany and accepts his fate.  Meursault also considers Maman's final days and understands why she took a "fiance".  He reasons, "So close to death, Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again.  Nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her.  And I felt ready to live it all again too" (122).

Meursault's ability to realize that Maman did not want to end her life in a sad way seems like a progressive step for him.  Throughout the whole book, he seemed to have difficulty understanding people's emotions and feelings, yet at the end of the book, this event changes my outlook on him.

It's also interesting that Meursault is feeling happy, considering that he will be executed that day in front of a crowd of people.  He says he's ready to live it all again, too.  If Meursault were let out of prison on that day, and allowed to live, what would he do?  How would he change his life - or would he change his life? 

Celebration or Critique?

Does The Stranger argue for existentialism? Or is it a critique of this ideology?

It seems that, on one hand, Camus celebrates existentialism. The main character has an epiphany, finds himself realizing the existential perspective, and then is able to come to terms with his death. This seems to be a positive. Perhaps the book is, in actuality, a critique on the society that will not permit Meursault to be existentialist without consequences.

However, I could also read the novel as one that questions that applicability of existentialism, or its very foundation. Maybe, through Meursault, Camus intends to expose the flaws in the existentialist theory.

Thoughts?

Movie Prediction

I really have no idea what is going to happen in the movie, but here's my best guess.

The high school dropout is going to get kicked out of her house. After all, she did kill her dad and show some extreme irresponsibility in becoming pregnant. Upon hearing the news, she will ask her boyfriend if she can move in with him. The boyfriend then dumps her and she becomes a homeless stranger to the world. She doesn't know what to do with herself, cries a lot, and I get bored of the movie.

Then, the computer geek encounters the girl. The develop a relationship where they must trust each other in order to find meaning in the world. Existentialism come in to play, they find it difficult to find meaning in the world, and a possible emotional collapse from one of them. My money is on the girl because we all know existentialism is a "male" thing and females can't handle it.

Any other predictions? Anybody think they have a better idea of what will happen in the movie?

Themes of The Stranger

The theme I got from The Stranger is your time on earth is short, enjoy the phisical nature of the earth while you can. This is evident in several places. There are many passages where Meursault is enjoying the sun and the fresh air. His last few minutes he spends looking at the sky in his prison cell. He loves swimming with a woman in his arms. Even the fact that the sun affected Meursault enough to cause him to shoot someone demonstrates this.

I'm just curious as to what other people had as their themes. Is there anything you would add to this theme to strengthen it? Any other evidence to support this theme?