zaaaAP Lit Blog 4

Unconsciousness Vs. Consciousness

I think Leggatt is actually the unconscious half of the captain. With Leggatt, the captain is able to forget all the social rules and the moralities. Only when he is alone with Leggatt,  the captain is able to express his true feelings and face himself as who he actually is. The captain is able to find the similarity between himself and Leggatt and uncontrollably fall in love with Leggatt, although it is against the morality at the time. There is always a strangeness exists inside the captain. At the beginning of the story he complains about how little he knows about his crew, "My strangeness, which had made me sleepless.... the ship of which I knew nothing, manned by men of whom I knew very little more."(Pg. 125) Because the captain is young and comparatively well educated, his present doesn't fit with the rest of the crew. On the other hand the existence of Leggatt brings many similarity and make the captain feel that he actually belong to this place. Thus, the unconsciously, Leggatt become the mental and emotional safe house for the captain, but the conscious half of the captain is telling him that hiding a murderer in his own room and having a relationship with a man is morally incorrect.

The Dark Side

I believe that Leggatt brought out the dark side of the Captain because he began doing things he normally wouldn't, most of them being things he knew he shouldn't be doing. To me it is obvious that something bad had been influencing the captain do do these things, in this case it was Leggatt. The captain knew he Leggatt had killed someone yet he still let Leggatt hide aboard the ship and he even lied to the captain of the sephora to cover for him. He also put the lives of all his crew to try and save this man when he steered toward the island. This is clearly the dark side of the captain.

Secret Sharer: A Love Story

IT seems a little that there is a possibility that the Secret Sharer could have been a romance story. at the end of the book, the Captain's relationship was stronger then ever with his ship and he believed that nothing would come in the way of that. in a sense, he is in a loving relationship with his ship and it took Leggatt to help him realize that.

Why So Many Options?!

While discussing The Secret Sharer, the class concluded that there were multiple ways to view the story. The viewpoints involving Leggatt being a symbol of the captain's ideal or the captain's dark side seemed to be the most logical to me in class. The idea that Leggatt represented the captain's dark side seemed even more believable than the belief that he represented the ideal captain because of the fact that the captain improved once he had gotten rid of Leggatt.

However, I wonder why the author made so many aspects of the story a mystery. The more I think about the story, the more possibilities I see for what actually happened. Though a definite explanation of the story is difficult to agree on, does anyone have any speculations on why the author made the story so flexible? Do you think he possibly did not think his story would be so hard to decipher? My confusion was escalated when Mr. Heidkamp tried to discover if the word "queer" was being used as a homosexual term while explaining the romantic theory about the story and discovered that it was a mystery whether or not the author intended it to be used with such a connotation. Will there ever be clarity?

Meursault And The Captain

Already a couple of people have noticed that the two books we've read so far, The Stranger and The Secret Sharer, both describe their characters as strangers.  While reading The Secret Sharer I noticed not only the similarities between the two books, but also the main characters.

As I said before, both Meursault and the captain are characterized as strangers compared to the world around them.  With Meursault we have to pay attention to detail and his reactions that set him apart from society, but the captain tells us flat out that he feels like a stranger among the ship and the men on board. 
Next there is the company that the two men choose to surround themselves with.  Meursault wanted to be friends with Raymond despite his reputation.  The captain forms a strong bond with Leggatt, but has to hide him since no one else would accept him.

I also noticed that both the captain and Meursault were not very religious.  It is more obvious in Meursault who fights religion when other people tried to force it on him.  This actually happened twice, once before his trial, and the other before his death.  When the two captains in The Secret Sharer are talking about the storm Archbold went through, he describes how the foresail saved them.  The captain tries to explain their survival rationally, but Archbold has a different take on the matter.  "It was the setting of the sail which ---" I began.  "Gods own hand in it" he interrupted me." (Page 147).  Maybe it doesn't exactly say the captain isn't at all religious, but it was just a small thing I noticed.  What do you guys think?
 

Could It Be...Love At First Sight?

For the past three days in class, having the discussions on the symbolism and alternative meanings for The Secret Sharer have intrigued me. When I first began to read this novella I must addmitt that I was confused. However, in class, everything was pretty much cleared up and I grew a greater sense of appreciation towards the captain and Leggatt. What really grabbed my attention during our class discussions were the  "secret romantic connections," as Kevin B. in class put it, found between the captain and Leggatt. I probably would not have noticed how the abundant use of "queer" could have indicated homosexuality because I didn't take into account the date, which was about 1910 I believe. We learned that "queer" back then would most likely refer to a homosexual. I also underlined quotations such as "our eyes met... our glances mingled" (166), and  "our hands met gropingly" (167), however I only wrote "strange" on the margins... Now, I am most definitley intrigued by the meaning that can possibly exist behind the captain and Leggatt's relationship as doppelgangers (an awsome word I learned today). There is so much more to this novella then I was expecting, and these class discussions have really opened my eyes! Even towards the end of the story when the captain leaves Leggat and says that nothing can get in the way between him and his ship (her) and that there was a communion (marriage) involved, that just made the romantic point of view of this story that much more believable and real. I could add so many more comments on the symbolic meaning of Leggatt in The Secret Sharer, and how Leggatt seemed to change the captain from the darkside to a more ideal version, but I prefer to leave those notes to be shared in discussion. It's more stimulating that way!

Double Trouble

In The Secret Sharer, the discussion of whether Leggatt represents the ideal captain or a dark captain in my opinion can be able to be argued either way. Both portrayals have characteristics that a captain would and would not want to have. But the one question that I feel was not answered or completely resolved was the idea The Captain and Leggatt being very similar, or even the same person.

At one point, Conrad writes that, "He was not a bit like me, really; yet, as we stood leaning over my bed-place, whispering side by side, with our dark heads together and our backs to the door, anybody bold enough to open it stealthily would have been treated to the uncanny sight of a double captain busy talking in whispers with his other self” (135). This is just one instance that Conrad refers to the two as “double.”

So, what is the significance of Conrad writing about them being doubles? Does it maybe tie in with the idea of them having a romantic relationship?

Come To The Dark Side

In my opinion, Leggatt represents the evil side of the captain. While reading this novel I was always skeptical about the events that took place during the murder. I always thought that Leggatt lied to the captain. Leggatt killed a man because he got in his way and the Captain just immediately did not care and took Leggett's side. The Captain was so gullible and Leggatt played him. When the captain from the other ship came aboard the Captain did not even listen to his side of the story and when he left everyone was talking about how horrible the incident was and the captain did not even listen to them. The story that Leggatt told did not seem that horrible though. So who was telling the truth?

Juliet oh Juliet....or is it Legatt?

We had a very interesting discussion today about the sexual orientation of the two men in the secret sharer that had intrigued me very much. Throughout the story it is obvious that the two men are developing some sort of relationship. But the question remains to be answered, What kind of a relationship is it? There was a quote that interested me from the selection:

At night I would smuggle him into my bed place, and we would whisper together...

I feel that it is important to look at the historical relevance when discussing this particular case. Is there a possibility that two men staying in a bed together whispering, could not have the same meaning taken on by today's society? What could the author possibly be telling us by having a romantic relationship between the narrator and Lebatt? Is there a valid reason? I say that there is no romantic relationship between the two because logistically and contextually it does not make sense. It does not contribute to the character growth and development of either character.

A Drastic Difference.

The most obvious difference between The Stranger and The Secret Sharer is the transformation in the dialect and how straight forward the author is with their writing. Camus technique creates the narrator to be very blunt with their observations and point of views. However this is contrasted with the writing in The Secret Sharer. The captain is often uncertain about things and clues to the reader that he is uncertain.
"At that I suppose he raised up his face, a dimly pale oval in the shadow of the ship's side" (127). When the captain says he "supposed" he rose up his face it implies that he knows something is going on, but is not quite sure what. This oppose to Meursault's dialect because Meursault is very blunt and only says things that he means and knows is true.
The sentence structure is another difference between Camus and Conrad's writing. Camus writing style was relatively easy to comprehend the first read while when reading Conrad I often find myself re-reading sentences a few time to truly understand the context of the book.

Camus vs. Conrad

Its is definitely an interesting switch from the stranger to The Secret Sharer. Camus' writing style was so blunt and straight forward while Conrad's writing takes several reads to fully digest. Conrad are so complex and he packs a great deal meaning into a sentence.

For example on page 121 it reads "To the left a group of barren islets, suggesting ruins of stone walls, towers, and blockhouses, had its foundations set in a blue sea that itself looked solid, so still and stable did it lie below my feet; even the tracks of light from the westerning sun shone smoothly, without that animated glitter which tells of an imperceptible ripple." In this passage especially I think he exemplifies the power of the water. The solidity and stability that he describes it as having contrasts with the ruin like islets making it seem even stronger and more powerful.

Its instances like this where each sentence offers so much meaning, differentiates Conrads writing from Camus'. I have yet to read part two and need to re-read part one of The Secret Sharer so I'm not quite sure how this imagery and descriptiveness will aid the story as a whole. Any thoughts so far?

A Longish Post About Something: Vagueness and "The Secret Sharer"

In complete opposition to "the Stranger," Joseph Conrad's "the Secret Sharer" speaks in extremely vague, convoluted sentences. Take this sentence in the early pages of "the Secret Sharer:"

"My strangeness, which had made me sleepless, had prompted that unconventional arrangement, as if I had expected in those solitary hours of the night to get on terms with the ship of which I knew nothing manned by men of whom I knew very little more."

Although Conrad uses many words in that one sentence, he says very little. Paraphrased, the Captain tells the reader that because he was new and unable to sleep, he wanted to get to know his ship and his crew. Why does Conrad chose to use such complex language to convey a fairly simple message? Perhaps his writing style reflects his opinion of life: that life is complicated and multidimensional.

This would differ radically with Camus' style in "the Stranger." Instead of Camus' short sentences used to encourage a simple approach to life, Conrad tries to impress his readers with a sense of life's complexity with long, multi-faceted sentences.

Another much appreciated aspect of Conrad's writing is this brief passage of bathroom humor: "...he remained almost entirely in the bathroom, which, on the whole, was the safest place."

Contemporary Homosexuality

I hate to retread ground on the blog, but current events force me to. As many of you know, Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is visiting our great nation this week. He had a conversation, more an all out argument, at Columbia this week. Between the president of Columbia slamming Mr. Ahmadinejad and the Iranian president denying the holocaust ever occurred, the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was asked about homosexuals. The president of Columbia asked why homosexuals were being repressed and executed in Iran. Mr. Ahmadinejad, after enunciating the myriad of freedoms in Iran, stated that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

Now, my jaw dropped when I heard this. You can see the video here or read the summary here. This is such an ignorant and short-sighted comment. He went so far as to call homosexuality a "phenomenon". This made me think of the homosexual repression in The Secret Sharer. Is it a wonder that the Captain represses his homosexuality? In a world where people can blatantly deny the truths of sexual orientation, who would not repress his or her sexuality? Seeing this stupidity drives home the sexual themes of The Secret Sharer.

The Only Two Strangers Onboard

The Secret Sharer can easily be seen as a novel glorifying, and eventually solidifying class structures and elitism in society. The bond that forms between the Captain and the mysterious Leggatt is simply because they went to the same naval academy. They are the two most educated, and presumably wealthy members on the ship, and they feel alienated by their status. This class tension can be seen in some of the dialogue between the Captain and other characters in the story. On page 145 for example "He mumbled to me as if he were ashamed of what he was saying; gave his name (it was something like Archbold--but at this distance of years I hardly am sure)" there is a definite feeling of condescension towards the ship captain of The Sephora. For instance the Captain cannot even remember the other captain's name. The captain of the Sephora had earlier claimed that he lived simply and that Leggatt's demeanor had thrown him off. This is consistent with the view of elitism present in the novel because Leggatt and the Captain feel like strangers among lesser men. The ending is also a clear metaphor in support of the theory of a class conflict novel. Leggatt is set free, essentially reassuring both men that their position in society is above the law. It is only after this occurs that the Captain feels in complete control of his ship and is able to effectively bark orders at those under him again.

Talking to Strangers

I'm having trouble choosing how to read the Secret Sharer.  Following the discussions in class, the homosexuality POV and the "coming of age" POV are the leaders in my mind, but from there I'm torn.

I have to admit, when I originally read the Secret Sharer I kept thinking "are these two men homosexual?"  From the way they sat so close to each other, or would touch shoulders, or the way the Captain describes Leggatt lying on the bed, I got the feel that the Captain was getting a little hot.  Through the in-class discussion, this idea gained more evidence, with the "keeping Leggatt in the closet" bit and the constant in-ear whispering.  However, if the Captain really does feel strongly for Leggatt, why does he let him go so easily at the end?  The Captain does not fight for Leggatt to stay until they reach land, he simply gives him his hat as a memento.  If the person I had the hots for was about to swim off to a deserted island, I would be holding them onto the floor and refusing to let them leave.

The other train of thought that I have looked at the Secret Sharer through is the "coming of age" thesis.  Leggatt seems to push the Captain into becoming the captain he wants to be.  Before Leggatt, the captain ponders his strangeness to the ship, and how the other crew have been together for over a year, while he is brand new.  The Captain undoubtedly is questioning the loyalty of the crew, and his ability to lead men that don't trust him.  With Leggatt's departure, however, the Captain gives strong orders, leaving the first mate to follow along meekly.  The Captain becomes the strong, trusted captain that he has longed to become, all because of Leggatt?  How did Leggatt influence him so much?

Ahoy Captain Schizo!

Ok, so I was totally convinced that Leggatt was completely imaginary.  My hopes were dashed when the captain of the Sephora came on board looking for the escaped Leggatt.  However, there are still tiny clues that might allow you to still read it in this way.  When the captain was describing the captain of the sephora, he remarked on how many years had passed since it had happened- so this too could be a construction clouded further by the passage of time. 

I liked thinking about this reading of the Secret Sharer because I think it's interesting how once the captain and Leggatt part, the captain feels a sense of liberation and growth.  It reminds me of A Beautiful Mind, in which the brilliant mathmetician frees himself from his debilitating delusions, not with medication, but by learning to ignore them and get past them.  Something along the same lines seemed to happen to the captain. 

The captain as a good noble

When I read the story I interpreted it with Leggatt, as the captains evil and ghostly alter ego. I see him as representation of evil that winds up being rejected by a leader. Now, however, an idea brought up in class has shifted my viewpoint. The class struggle angle stuck with me, Leggatt and the captain have the bond of being privileged among the plebeian sailors. This sets them apart and at times against the society of the ship, but still that dimension of good and evil remains. Leggatt seems to me to be the reckless elite, a person who takes no reasonability and commits evil deeds without conscience or respect for the rights of others. At first the captain, who doesn't feel comfortable in his position over the crew, empathizes with Leggatt offering him an easy way out of explaining the murder and concealing him. Over the course of the story however the captain comes to represent a true merited leader and thus lets Leggatt go, no longer supporting or harboring his darker side. After becoming free of Leggatt the captain now feels the full confidence that comes with earning ones position and rejecting the corruption that comes with such power. For me this view included many elements we discussed in class, the class struggle, the coming of age story, and the Leggatt's an evil twin perspective helping me to see the story in a richer light.

Have We Met before?

It is interesting that the Captain and Leggatt seem to have a silent understanding and knowledge of each other.  It's almost as if they have met before, because the Captain never doubts or second guesses anything that Leggatt says or implies, no matter how far fetched (i.e. "a fit of temper"). 
Upon encountering each other, they fully trust one another and are willing to confide their darkest secrets, although they have no way of knowing if it is safe.  The Captain could have easily turned Leggatt in as a criminal, but Leggatt expresses no fear of this happening.

This relationship suggests that rather than being the Captain's homosexual lover, Leggatt might be a part of the Captain himself.  Perhaps the Captain has remained nameless, as pointed out in a previous post, because his name is Leggatt?

What Was the Captain Thinking?

At the very beginning of The Secret Sharer, the Captain first meets Leggatt. Leggatt is a strange man swimming in the water. The Captain allows him on board, and begins his secret mission to keep Leggatt a secret. What would you do in this situation?

It seems to me that it is kind of the Captain to allow him on board, but keeping it a secret is not a good plan. He should have informed his mates and together they could help Leggatt. Now some will say that the Captain was onlyl protecting Leggatt because he had murdered someone on The Sephora. However, I noticed that the captain begins the secrecy from the very beginning, before he even knew about the murder!

You can see this on page 129, "The man in the water began suddenly to climb up the ladder, and I hastened away from the rail to fetch some clothes. Before entering the cabin I stood still, listening in the lobby of the foot of the stairs..." Clearly the Captain does not want anyone to hear him so that he can sneak Leggatt aboard. Why would he not inform others? This seems to be an important reaction.... what do others think?

Good Vs. Evil

I think it is interesting that some people understand Leggatt to be the captain's "ideal", while others see him as the captain's "dark" or "evil" side. Obviously, to these two different points of view require radically different interpretations of the text. I

In both interpretations, the captain is able to accept his ship and his role as the captain of it only after he lets go of Leggatt. Yet if you interpret Leggatt as an "ideal", then this change occurred because of Leggatt's appearance. Leggatt disappears only after completing the task of improving the captain as a person.

Yet, if you believe Leggatt to be the captain's dark side, the murderer is the opposite of the "good" captain, and represents the evil in the captain's heart. Only after letting his dark side go may the captain finally be a man worthy enough to captain the ship

Secrets Shared?

I'm sure we have all remarked on the somewhat quixotic nature of the title. The book is called The Secret Sharer, but what secrets does the captain share? We discover that Leggatt murdered a man and I suppose that that is one secret shared. Yet, It seems to me that the Captain fails to share any secrets with Leggatt. Of course, the Captain tells Leggatt that he is insecure in his command. However, that would be natural for any new Captain. What secret did the Captain share with Leggatt?

Perhaps, the Captain informed Leggatt that he was homosexual. If Leggatt too was homosexual that would certainly explain the intimacy they share throughout the book, but this conclusion is somewhat unsatisfying. It seems too easy. I feel like we need to dig deeper to discover the importance of the title.

Could it be that the secret is something far more sinister? I feel like there is another layer to the text untapped, another chapter unread. If Leggatt is, after all, the Captain's darker half then the murder must be reflective of something the Captain has done. I'm not saying that the Captain killed a man, but maybe there is an infamous chapter in his history. Mayhap, the Captain shared this secret with Leggatt and mayhap the Captain chose not to share this secret with the reader. Then is The Secret Sharer a story about the import of trust?

It would make some sense. Who should you trust in The Secret Sharer? Leggatt? The Captain? Captain Archbold? Ol` Face-full-o-whiskers? Why does the Captain so readily trust Leggatt? Why does Leggatt trust the Captain? Throughout the story there is a web of intrigue, of trust and mistrust. Perhaps this could be a meaning to the story. Or perhaps this is one of the myriad cooky theories which goes nowhere.

Leggatt is a Ghost

It is strange how Leggatt is described as a ghost.  It may be Joseph Conrad's way of explaining dual personalities in humans.

It is quite possible that Leggatt is just a clever imagination of the Captain’s mind.  The narrator’s reliability is at question throughout the story.  Is Leggatt a doppelganger to the Captain, or just a ghost created to mend his lack of confidence to control his ship?

The initial description of Leggatt suggests he is ghost.  On page 127 it read, “But I saw at once something elongated and pale floating very close to the ladder” (127).  He was floating along.  It is also peculiar how the Captain is the only one ever to see Leggatt in the entire story.  Even the red bearded captain has not seen him since he escaped or possibly drowned.

Even in instances when he is most surely going to be seen he somehow is not and remains undiscovered.  When the steward goes to place the Captain’s jacket in the bathroom she does not bother to open the door but instead just puts her hand through to hand it up.  After the incident the Captain is relieved and states that sometimes he thinks that he is the only one who can see Leggatt.  And the Captain frequently comments on the ghost like qualities Leggatt has.  Like his illusiveness, fearlessness towards death, and finally the risks that Leggatt is willing to take.  On page 160 Leggatt says, “It would never do for me to come to life again” (160).  Leggatt is a ghost of the man that the Captain wants to be, more confident, assertive, and most importantly a man that can command a ship.

Was the Secret Their Attraction?

From the discussion in class the intimate relationship between Leggatt and the captain became more evident. Which caused me to question the purpose of Conrad's book. Was his underlying purpose to give voice to the voiceless?

Through reading the Secret Sharer you can pull various themes, but they pale in importance to the idea of homosexuality. Throughout the whole novel their intimate moments seem enjoyable and tormenting. And at the end Leggatt seems somewhat content that their relationship, has "sailed its course". This led me to believe that Conrad was sending an indirect message to the gay community- that one will be more at ease if they deny their feelings and accept society's view on human relationships.

( I however do not agree.)

The Captain Goes Through Puberty

Not really. But I do think the Secret Sharer represents a coming of age story (even though our group, the Straight A's, failed to express it correctly...). From the beginning he is inexperienced and unsure of himself. He feels like a stranger to his task and to the crew he his assigned to lead.

However, when Leggatt appears he becomes the Captain's responsibility. He is forced to hide this mysterious man, a stranger (and murderer) from the rest of the crew. Because he is successful in hiding Leggatt, the Captain gains confidence and authority. He orders the crew around, in order to keep them from discovering Leggatt. Ultimately, Leggatt's presence becomes the catalyst to the Captain's development as a captain.

By the end of the story, Leggatt decides to leave and the Captain is relieved. The burden of hiding Leggatt weighs heavily on the Captain. He successfully leads the ship out of a potentially dangerous sitaution, further establishing his authority.

After hearing the textual support for the homosexuality thesis, I am not discrediting that idea. I think the coming of age thesis could maybe even support it.

The Captain, Meursault's social alienation

The common theme that the theme of the secret sharer as being a story of hiding homosexualality and alienation from society highly relates to the alienation of Meursault from society for his lack of emotion. the realtionship comes because both of the characters fall into a sect of society that is unknown and thus feared by the mainstream culture.

The discrimination that is put upon the characters is what lead The Captain to fear that someone will discover "leggatt" (I put Leggatt in quotes becuase i am convinged that he is not acually a real person more likely a figure of The Captians imigination or the ghost Leggatt). But Meursault is interesting because he is unconcerned with society's view of him and seems have far less anxiety about being put to death then a normal person would. this diference between the feelings of Meursault and The Captain creates a new question. What causes people to be affected by social norms?

Can We Trust the Captain?

There wasn't enough time in class to discuss the reliability of the Captain, but it is a subject that has grasped a tight hold on my interest.  I would like to believe that he is a reliable source, as he is the narrator of the story. However, in the back of my mind, I cannot help but think that he has not only deceived us but also withheld some key points to the story.

First, I would like to point out that the Captain lacks confidence in himself. In the first part, he constantly doubts his decisions, noting that his actions are unusual and a bit eccentric. In addition, he is young and inexperienced. Still, the thing that most disturbed me was when the Captain mentioned that he “was somewhat of a stranger to myself” (123). As much as I’ve tried to understand this, I fail to comprehend how you can be a stranger to yourself. You alone have access to your thoughts and feelings. So, aren’t you suppose to know yourself better than anyone else? Also, the fact that the Captain so easily accepts Leggatt forces me to distrust him. How can you protect a stranger—actually, a murderer—without questioning his character even a little?

At the end of the story, when the Captain lets Leggatt go, he seems to have gained a newfound control over his ship and confidence in his own character. But because it takes so long for him to get to this stage, I still find it hard to believe that everything he has told us up to this point is truthful. Do you think he is reliable?

Doppelgangers, Ghosts, and Murderers on the High Seas

On rough waves and stormy seas, the Secret Sharer presents a dynamic and chilling setting, Darkness is everywhere, but there is plenty in the ocean. You feel motionless, yet know you are moving. The setting is unnatural to us. Conrad builds upon the angst and fear by introducing the supernatural.

The youthful captain feels alone on his ship, until he pulls a ghastly looking man up from the ocean. This is Leggatt. Leggatt has killed. But strangely, in this enviornment, the Captain feels more comfortable with a murderer than he does alone. He likens Leggatt as his double, that they share a special bond. Earlier, we suggested this may have been due to their positions in the upper class of British society. However, I believe that Leggatt is a much darker figure than suggested.

Frequently, when referring to Leggatt, Conrad incorporates the descriptors mysterious, and dark. When the captain invites him onto the ship, Legatt takes to almost "haunting" a corner of his room. No one else sees Legatt, though the second mate claims to have overheard "whispering" from the captain's quarters. Legatt engages in hiding, mysteriously appearing to, " vanish, as noiselessley as a ghost" (Conrad 143).

Legatt is mysterious; he came from an uncanny surrounding. Whether he is real or not, whether the reader can rely on him is the right question to ask. In my opinion, there is evidence to suggest that the dark figure is an expression of the supernatural.