zaaaAP Lit Blog 2

The Second Mate Who Waits Too Late

After reading Part 1 of The Secret Sharer, I became suspicious of the character who is referred to as the second mate of the ship.  This suspicion arose after an incident that occurred on the ship.  Over dinner the crew, especially the chief mate, were trying to figure out why a ship nearby had decided to set down their anchor.  When dinner concluded, the chief mate came up with a theory and pronounced it to the rest of the crew.  At this time the second mate reveals that he knew all along why the ship had pulled over near them.  To me this is strange because if he knew why the ship had decided to stop near them, why would did he wait to tell everyone right when dinner ended and after the chief mate announced his theory, as opposed to when the question was first asked?  This I believe is very unusual, almost as if he is a secretive person.  What do you think?  Was he just curious to why others thought the ship was pulled over or was he trying to hide it?

I'm Dying For Some Action...(I'm Sick of Sitting 'Round Here Trying to Write This Book)

I don't know if I'm supposed to write about The Stranger, still, as we've kind of ditched it. But I'm going to anyway. This paper has given me far too much trouble, and I think the issue is in my interpretation of the book. The question of “why?” that frustrates Meursalt and produces no satisfactory answers for society. The question of “why?” in relation to the meaning of the Stranger is a similar struggle. Particularly when one, wishing to avoid the characteristics Camut portrays as piteous, does not want to look for meaning where there might not be any. One might not want to assign order to one’s own essentially random thoughts in an acceptable and comprehensible way. It would be so much smoother, so much easier to turn one’s mind off in such a case, and submit an analysis that methodically applies mandated techniques, and sounds like everyone else's. But after really reading a book like The Stranger, this task seems depressing.

What would a paper by Meursalt look like? If we were to simply react to a certain force in the manner he does, it is probable that our paper would take only a couple of curt, observational sentences. In the system, a paper that does not fit the guidelines is not acceptable. A teacher, for instance, might try to make sense of it, to understand the motivations behind it, but it would ultimately be frustrating. The message one receives from the Stranger, however, is immediate justification. Why try to cater to the frustrations, or pleasures, or mental comfort of others when we will all die? Why live in a desperate, pathetic manner like the chaplain, clinging to terms like “salvation”, or for that matter, “GPA”, “College Acceptance”, and other things synonymous with why-I-should-pass-English?
I wanted to turn in this rant, supplemented a bit maybe, and see where it got me. But I realized that my critique would just be reinforced by a bad grade, or a re-do request. Is anyone else upset by this paradox?

Hardly Human Leggatt

As I was reading, and after I finished reading the The Secret Sharer, I noticed something about the narrator's descriptions of Leggatt. He associated Leggatt with a ghost, a spirit or some other sort of inhuman or above human being. Even the nature of Leggatt's entry onto the ship how he is naked and simply seems to emerge from the depths of the violent sea, the narrator describing his entry peppers it with creepy diction, "...a broad livid back immersed right up to the neck in a greenish cadaverous glow...He was complete but for the head. A headless corpse!"(127). His ghostly attributes become even more apparent as the narrator continues to hide him in his cabin using metaphors like, "as noiseless as a ghost"(143) to describe his actions.

The narrator seems to be awed, almost dumbfounded, merely by the demeanor and presence of Leggatt, he says "And yet, haggard as he appeared, he looked always perfectly self-controlled, more than calm--almost invulnerable."(156) Later, Leggatt's ghostly attributes invoke an interesting self-doubt in the captain, "Can it be, I asked myself, that he is not visible to other eyes than mine? It was like being haunted."(159) Leggatt's specter-esque properties even seem to drive the narrator to the "border" of insanity.

Leggatt seems to transcend being simply human and has the narrator agape. After Leggatt is almost discovered by the steward the narrator is amazed, "marveling at that something unyielding in his character which was carrying him through so finely."(160) After, the narrator describes Leggatt as something "against nature, inhuman"(163)

And as Leggatt so mysteriously enters the ship he exits. It seems that Conrad purposely characterized Leggatt this way, why do you think he did that?

Trust Fall

The infamous 'trust fall' is everywhere.  It appears in television shows between new couples or friends (like Heroes), relationship counseling between husband and wives, as well as camp activities for team bonding.  It also occurs in the film, Trust, between Matthew and Maria.  Maria demands that he catches her as she climbs the cement blocks.  Without much warning, Matthew hurries and thankfully catches Maria.  However, he refuses to let Maria catch him.  Although I agree, he probably would crush every bone in her body, he didn't have any faith in her strength.  Sure, she doesn't play sports, but what about faith and the fact that, if someone (or you) believes you can do it, there is nothing to stop you!?  Were there any other meanings behind the physical factors that Matthew refused Maria's catch?

Anyone Else Rooting for Matthew and Maria?

At the beginning of Trust, we are introduced to two very peculiar characters: Matthew and Maria.  We see them go through a day or two of their lives.  We get to know them, and finally wonder how these two characters will cross paths.  They are both at an odd place in their lives, wanting to push for what they think is right and make spontaneous decisions to test the waters.  Maria's sister could even be dating Matthew, but instead I found myself wanting Maria and Matthew to get married.  They are very similar, despite their age difference.  Their current lives are a drag, and it's clearly bringing them both down.  They have so much hope for other lives, even though their current ones are somewhat secured.  How realistic is the idea of them eloping and leaving, compared to staying with the things they have now?

Tv: A Rejection of Society?

By refusing to watch TV and calling it "the opium of the masses," Matthew rejects the social constucts of society. He instead spends his time reading and listening to classical music. He refuses to work at his job fixing TV's because he doesn't want to contribute to this social obsession. This makes him a lot like Meursault who rejects several social constructs of society and is ostracized for it. Are Meursault and Matthew righteous for rejecting society and following their own path?

Building a gallow outside my cell:

In the stranger, it seemed interesting to me that Cammus ended his story with the “physical death” by beheading. It was interesting then to see how Mearnsalut acts during his sentence, even screaming at a preist that he does not need to be saved. This got me thinking about what happens to someone’s thoughts when they enter death row. It seems erie to me to the know the date that you will die. I always wonder what a person thinks when they are guilty on death row. They do pray for forgiveness from God, hoping that he will spare them, or do they lose hope for that god who punishes them so severely.

Perhaps some of them do what the Stranger says, they get used to the idea and it no longer scares them. They live those years on the row with a sort of sick happiness, living each day like Sisyphus not letting the rock rolling down the hill control who he is.  It reminds of a piece by Sarte called “The Wall” it told the story of man who was sentenced to die in a military camp the next day. All-night this man struggles with his fate, but at the end of the night, he is ready to meet his fate.  My question is what do you think death row inmates become like Meransult during their sentence?

Can't Think of a Good Title at 5:53

So we've been watching trust the past couple of days and I can't help but laugh sometimes... is that bad? I mean, Heidkamp says that all the actors portray the characters perfectly and that it's all intended, but I just can't see how some of the acting helps the character. For example, the woman who plays Maria has almost no inflection in her voice at times and she responds so quickly to questions that it just seems rehearsed, and the actor who plays Matthew seems so forced when he acts like he's such a rebel at his workplace.   

Acting aside, I'm having trouble really seeing more connections between Trust and "The Stranger" except that similar characters deal with emotional/physical burdens that are challenged by society.  I felt like we didn't really talk about trust in the stranger, so now that it's the main idea of this movie, it's hard to draw connections without it feeling like a stretch.  Maybe this is a movie you really have to watch a couple of times...

What's the Point of "Trust"?

I missed a portion of the movie today, so maybe it became more clear today what the point, or rather meaning of "Trust" is.  All of the situations just seem so random and ridiculously acted out.  Is that done on purpose?  Are they supposed to have significance? Is the point that they aren't supposed to have significance?  I guess I just want to connect this movie to "The Stranger" and what we have been talking about in class and I'm struggling to do so.

M&M

Over the last few days while watching Trust I began to try and link which character was most like Meursault.  At first I thought that perhaps Matthew's father could somehow be linked to Meursault's emotionless state, but then in one scene of the movie when he travels to the TV repair store where Matthew was supposed to be working, we find that he actually does love his son, contrary to what previous scenes had us believing. As the movie progressed I came to the conclusion that Matthew is somewhat like Meursault.  One scene where this is most obvious is when Matthew and Maria are talking about marriage.  The conversation is very similar to the one that Marie has with Meursault in that both women question the reasoning behind the answer that is given to them.  After Marie asks if Meursault would marry her, he states that he will if that is what she wants, but that he most likely does not love her.  Similarly, Matthew's response to why he wants to marry Maria is that is just simply wants to.  Both Meursault and Matthew show no real consideration in their decision, as well as emotion. My question therefore is, is this connection of characters too much of a stretch on my part or clear to other viewers as well?

"Trust" Me Its Funny

As I was watching "Trust" in class the other day i couldn't help but laugh out loud. Is it just me or is this movie really funny? I almost felt wrong for laughing because the moments were "dramatic", till I realized that a lot of the movie was funny for a better reason. The movie isn't funny because its bad, its funny in the way black comedies are funny. Parts of the drama are specifically overdone or underplayed to make light of them. For example, the father of Matthew breaking down the door. Certain elements are overdone to be dramatic on purpose. It makes them absurd. The film however is by no means a comedy, its dealing with more important things. But then again so is "Little Miss Sunshine". Thoughts?

Separation of Church and State?

As far as I know and am assuming, The Stranger takes place in Algeria in the 1940s or so. The characters are under French rule. I am not an expert on French government, but I was quite surprised when the magistrate interrogated and almost harrassed Meursault during the interrogations. I thought that by then there had been a separation between church and state. Was he allowed to push God in Meursault's face like that? I understand that he was just trying to get a confession, but his actions are obviously a criticizm towards religion. I suppose my question is why is the magistrate so often talked about in the novel?

Matthew and His Father

In the movie, "Truth", trust becomes a huge issue later on in the movie. Trust between Maria and Matthew, but also between Maria and her family. The weirdest relationship, however, is between Matthew and his father. When his father brings his television in to the store, where Matthew is supposed to be working at, he just really wants to know how Matthew is doing and if he is in fact okay living on his own. My question is: does Matthew's father really care and trust his son, or could he care less about the kid?

Trust what?

The movie Trust is supposed to relate to The Stranger, however it seems almost opposite. In The Stranger Meursault is almost devoid of emotion. He lacks morality and usual human values. In the movie the main girl character is overly emotional and naive. She has a dramatic experience and so she is changing but she is nothing like Meursault. Also, she stays with her mother because she feels and emotional bond with her unlike Meursault and his mother. She is beginning to loose her naivete because of the experiences she has had. She is starting to see the world as a different place that isn't that great of a place. The main guy character is also emotional, however he is more Meursault like. He thinks rationally and doesn't show his emotions very much. He has problems with his father but he kept living for him and following his rules. Both characters still have morals, although the guy character may not have many of them. They are not like Meursault, however they are outsiders too. Like Meursault they have to deal with the prejudices and harsh realities of the world. How is the move trust similar to The Stranger? Are either of the main characters supposed to be similar to Meursaults character?

Same Difference, Man...

As we observe Meursault experience what is as close to an emotional crisis as I think he can get, it is worth noting that he does not seek to find the meaning of his life through extraneous sources.  To cite one of the most commonly used examples, Mersault continues to insit that he does not beleive in God even after trying to be convinced by the magistrate and the chaplain.  I do not think Meursault needs to beleive in God.  He recognizes, even in his imprisoned state, that all decisions are his and they are a part of a life which is made up of a series of actions.  It seems to me that Meursault weighs all of his actions as equal.  Everything he has done is simply another link in the continuous chain of his life.  Is this what Camus was getting at, that all of our lives are simply a series of actions which we control?  To Meursault, no action is more or less important than another.  Perhaps this is a superior way to live life.  It is certainly a more difficult path in today's world.  Do we simply beleive in institutions and religious figures because it is easier?  Do we put faith in higher forces or structures because it takes away from some feelings of personal responsibilty?

If I fall, Will You Catch Me?

When Mr. Heidkamp told us we were going to be watching a movie, like any other student I was excited. I mean who wouldn't want to pass up a chance to take the stress off and just relax. However, when he told us the name of the movie, and that it was a relatively old movie, my interest was lost. But the movie began, and caught my attention right away. I think it caught a lot of peoples attention. Nobody would ever think to talk to their parents in such a manner. So while some people laughed, I sat back and thought there must be an underlying meaning to this movie. I think the director is attempting to make many morals become out of this movie. There is one part in particular, that really stood out to me. When Matthew asks her to marry him, she says, " Do you trust me?" and of course like anyone else would say, he says, " Yes." But, you could tell she wasn't completely convinced. So what does she do, she falls backwards off a ledge! This stood out to me as quite unrealistic, however, I thought to myself, that is an awfully good way to tell if you can trust a person. So a question that I have is what is the point the director is trying to convey? Is it working? What were your initial reactions to the movie? And Do you truly trust anyone, to know they will catch you if you fall?

Nothing By Accident

Today in class, it was brought up that in the movie "Truth" every little detail is conscience and has a purpose. I found this very interesting and began thinking about the small details in the movie. The scene where Marie is on the bed playing with the hand grenade, and than Matthew walks in, came to mind. She begins questioning him on how it works and continues fidgeting with it, than she says she wants to feel nothing and he says the only way for that to happen is death, and you don't want that. Is this dialogue and the placement of the hand grenade meant to represent her contemplation of suicide? Or does it have another meaning all together?

Trust Trust?

I noticed a few things in the movie Trust. Matthew's house lacks all color. Except for his Dad  and the toilet cleaner everything is black or white. Also the director zooms in on reoccruring objects like cigarettes and spills in the house. Also the tone is really slow and repetitive. My question is this movie really badly made or is the director trying to make a point and we should trust things are going this way for a reason?

Matthew in "Trust" a Reflection of Meursault?

I find the movie we are currently watching in class, "Trust" to be an interesting film. I think that the characters are all very straightforward and say exactly what they mean which seems to slightly mirror Meursault. Especially Matthew's character. His indifference at his job, the way he carries around a hand grenade, "just in case" and the way he suddenly falls for Maria. These all seem to be similarities to Meursault. Even their names are similar, Matthew and Meursault. There is however, a notable difference in my mind. When reading "The Stranger" I found Meursault to be completely unrelatable, however, Matthew seems to be more human, and someone that I can identify better with. I find myself wondering if perhaps the creator of "Trust" had read "The Stranger" and based Matthew slightly off of Meursault. So I guess that is my question, do you find that Matthew is similar enough to Meursault that Matthew's character could have been based on him?

Everything in Life is Physical

I believe that one major theme in The Stranger, is the idea that only the physical effects of the world on humans matter. Camus makes this point throughout the book. The most obvious is Meursault's lack of emotion. He shows no grief at Maman's funeral, no remorse for killing the Arab, is indifferent to Raymond's abuse of his mistress, does not have any emotional feelings for Marie. The only things that he reacts to are purely physical. Arguably, he kills the Arab because the sun made him uncomfortable, he desires Marie because of the sex, he enjoys swimming because the water feels good, he likes eating at Celestes, he likes sleeping. Interestingly enough, almost ironically, his death sentence is as 'physical' a death sentence as you can have, his head is cut off.

My reasoning then, is that this theme connects with the Exsitensialist views that there is no deeper meaning in life, simply the obvious physical aspects. But isn't saying that there are no Greater Human Truths (why is that capitalized?) in life, a Greater Human Truth in itself? Isn't Existentialism giving 'fake' meaning to life, by saying there is no meaning?

There's Something About Meursault

One of the most fascinating things within the Stranger, I have found are the character descriptions by Meursault. It seems for just about every character, Cammus has kept the descriptions curt and truly non-descriptive. For isntance, when describing how a Solomano and his dog look the same, all Meursault says is "stopped look, muzzled down, neck straining." Even for his fiance, Meursault lacks the ability of a long descriptions. Meursault describes Marie as "a former typist, I had a thing for (19)." Also, within the text there are no desciptions of his mother a woman who has just died.  The question then is why would Cammus keep his chratcher descriptions so short? I believe this happens for two reasons:

1: Cammus wanted to create a text that which would stays close to who Meursault is. Meursault lives for the present, cares little about his job and other life factors. Descriptions and personality means little to Meursault as well. For instance, despite Raymond's known womanzing, Meursault still helps him end his realtionship.

2: Camus wants the reader to illuinate the characthers with their own descriptions. Although this may seem contradictory to a book about existentialism, I believe this is valid. This is because how we see the characthers give meaning to how we both see the book and see the world. Prehaps if we read the book without care about personality or history of a person, we are an existentailist or maybe some might precieve Raymond or even Meursault badly, because of their own life.

My question is simple, Why does Camus keep cahracther descriptions short? Also, how to do you see these characthers?

Absurd

"Every man I have known in your position has turned to Him." (pg. 116-117)
When the chaplain says this to Meursault- after Meursault claims he is not desperate but afraid- I think that Camus is adding another example of absurdity in human life. So often we are dealt hands we cannot understand or feel the need to make sense of everything, so we create beliefs or answers for all of our problems. The chaplain is an example of somebody who uses a belief system, Christianity specifically, to create answers to the problems he cannot understand on his own. Meursault is so concerned with this notion that seeing the chaplain actually makes him angry.

It's not even Christianity in particular that disgusts Meursault, but it's the idea of any belief system in general.  Meursault is a walking model of absurdism, which is why none of his actions seem to have any logical reasoning behind them.  I don't even think that it's so much the lack of emotion, as it is a convinced mindset that nothing is right or wrong.  Even though Meursault identifies himself as a criminal, he does not have a guilty conscience because who's to say what he did was wrong if nobody should have a particular belief in the matter?

Are the Emotions Just Hard to Find?

For the past week or so that we have been reading The Stranger, everyone has been startled by the fact that Meursault appears to have no emotion. But is that really the case?

Yes, on page 100 he narrates, "...that I had never been able to truly feel remorse for anything," but that is just one feeling. Who is to say that the others are automatically excluded as well? In fact, four pages later he says,"I was assailed by memries of a life that wasn't mine anymore, but one in which I'd found the simplest and most lasting joys" (104). Last time I checked, joy was an emotion.

In chapter 5, he expresses more by confessing that the hope to be executed on the first try bothered him (111). It disturbed him, made him uncomfortable. And for the grand finale, Meursault finally lets everything out of his heart at once to the magistrate. "I was pouring out on him everything that was in my heart, cries of anger and cries of joy" (121). This is not just irritation, as someone said in class that that was the highest degree of Meursault's feelings, but full-out rage and happiness.

So my question is this: Did Meursault have an "epiphany" as the Essential Literary Terms calls it, or did he have all this with him all along? If your answer is the latter, then what does this make Meursault as a narrator? Is he reliable?

The Characterization of Religion

I found the characterization of religion very interesting in The Stranger, especially in the scene, near the end of the book, where Meursault is refusing the 'help' of the chaplain. The chaplain's unwavering determination to help Meursault shows how religion claims to know what humans know is unknown, death. Meursault is going to die, he knows that and he accepts that there is nothing else to be done.

Yet religion, even when faced with certain death (as we all are) says that there is more, the chaplain says "More could be asked of you. And it may be asked." "And what's that?" "You could be asked to see." The complete vagueness of this answer emphasizes the desperateness of religion to give hope even when we know there is nothing. When Meursault finally bursts the chaplain tries to explain to him that his "heart is blind." Again religion is characterized as some all-knowing all-fixing entity which can explain all the complexities of life.

Do you think Camus's characterization of religion is accurate?

Meursault and the Sun

Through out the entire novel, the sun has made several impacts in the main characters life. He uses the sun often to talk about his mood. He also talks about the time of day by using the sun such as;
"the four o'clock sun" (41). The sun is a huge influence on the novel when Meursault blames the sun for the killing of the Arab man. Meursault says in the trial, "I blurted out that it was because of the sun" (103). By saying it, Meursault was talking about the killing of the Arab. But my question is, why the sun? Why couldn't Meursault talk about clouds or rain or anything else? Why did he choose to always talk about and describe the sun?

The Same Thing

The robotic women who appears in The Stranger is thought to be there to be Meursault's foil. I think that instead of his foil she is supposed to be similar to Meurualt. The first time I read the passage where the woman sits next to Meursauil I thought that she was like him. It wasn't until I heard that she was his foil that I began to think of her as a person that is opposite him. To me she seems similar to him in the way that they are both different from the rest of society. True, Meursault is laid back and takes his time doing things, he seems like he has no plan, unlike the fast passed, on the dot women who doesn't have time to waste. I don't think these differences matter as much to the story than the similarity that they share. They are both two extreme types of people, they are different, almost like outsiders. They don't seem to fit into society very well. I think that the woman is there to remind the reader that there is more than one type of difference. After Meursault is sentenced to death she continues on being different.

The Stories within Stories.

I have found myself contemplating recently about the reason why Camus has added stories within the story. The two significant stories that stuck out in my head, were the story of the Czechloslovkian and the only story of his father. Did he have a point for adding these stories into the flow of the text? I understand why Camus gave us the story of Meursaults father. I think mostly to show us Meursaults emotions, and to let the reader see a clearer picture of Meursault. The story about his father, could of been a tatic to lead us up to Meursaults execution and show his true feelings. However, I am still pondering on the insertion of the Czech story. I mostly see this as unnecessary. Yes, it is showing the reader how Meursault feels about lying and possibly class, but it is nothing that we haven't learned about him from earlier passages. So did Camus add these sub stories to catch the readers attention again? Or do you think there was another strategy he was going for?

Basketcase full of Emotion...finally!

I knew that somewhere into the novel we would have to see emotion. I did not expect however to see this much out of Meursault. Merusault lived his life not acknowledging that he cared about what other people had to say. Towards the end, after he shot the Arab he started to show more emotion. When he was told he was going to be executed the emotion started to show more excessively. We got to see a side of Mersault I was not expecting. If there had not been a death sentence I am not sure if we would have seen this side of him. My question is did all of this emotion come out because he knew he was going to die? Or would it all have to come out eventually?

Meursalt Pities You For Your Heartlesslessness

As I was reading over several posts that question the heartlessness of Meursalt, it hit me that by proclaiming that he has no emotions, we are acting just as the other characters in the book. The entire point of the second half, I believe, is to demonstrate the human tendency to assign logic and rationality to acts that have none. I think Camus sees life as lacking any natural progression or meaning, and Meursalt is the embodiment of this deficiency. But the lawyers, the chaplain, and the press are unable to accept this, as without rationality they are essentially meaningless. Meursalt gets closer and closer to realizing that in fact, life is meaningless, and finally attaining this knowledge at the end, achieves what might even be called happiness. Meanwhile, others are fretting over his death in an attempt to avoid confronting their own eventual deaths.

I can't disdain Meursalt for his alleged heartlessness, because I would much rather be him than an embodiment of those that Camus seems to pity for their desperate attachment to "meaning".   What's more important to you?

Meursault's Metaphors

One line that I thought was very striking in this book was "He wasn't even sure he was alive, because he was living like a dead man"(120). The priest is a dead man because of his dedication to one of the systems that all of Meursault's beliefs go against. This statement is also meant to contrast how Meursault is going to die the next day, yet he doesn't seem himself in that respect, he even goes further into saying the priest is the dead man. Another one of the few metaphors Meursault used really puzzled me. He said "Throughout the whole absurd life I'd lived, a dark wind had been rising towards me from somewhere deep in my future, across years that were still to come, and as it passed, this wind leveled whatever was offered to me at the time, in years no more real than the ones I was living"(121). What exactly is the dark wind, is it the murder he will eventually commit, or is it his beliefs that keep him from being a part of society, or it is something else entirely?