The idea of courtship is a central theme in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Bayardo, through lavish gifts, worries more about proving his social power than his fiancé, Angela Vicario. For example, Angela describes her future house as “the farmhouse belonging to the widower Xius.” Bayardo, intent on satisfying her, doesn’t take no for an answer when he offers to buy the house “along with everything inside.” Bayardo demonstrates just how much money he is willing to spend on her. He also buys a music box for her, carefully wrapped. Although not keen on the engagement at first, Angela was told that love could be learned.
The Columbian social structure set up in Chronicle of a Death Foretold is not unlike old knight tales. Courtship, gifts, strong sexism, and an even stronger gender gap. Angela is “returned,” as if talking about something bought, to her house after Bayardo discovers her not a virgin. Angela is viciously beaten by her mom and returned by her husband, perpetuating a brutal social structure. Although it is perfectly acceptable, presumably, for a male to engage in premarital sex. Sometimes, while reading, I imagine a time period much earlier, only to be rudely awakened by the introduction of cars or other modern technology. But then again, maybe this just reminds me how glad I am to live far away from Bayardo.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Karma
Both TFA and CDF share similarities in portraying individuals who go against instinct and in doing so suffer a bad fate. A sense of predestination also seems to play a big role in both works. Both cultures believe that a sense of duty acts through members of their society. Members get 'chosen' to carry out specific tasks. For instance, Clotilde Armenta says, "It's to spare those poor boys from the horrible duty that's fallen on them" which the narrator says occurs "Because she'd sensed it. She was certain that the Vicario brothers were not as eager to carry out the sentence as to find someone who would do them the favor of stopping them" (57). This suggests that is it not their fault if they were willed to carry out a duty. It is ironic because often they go about getting vengeance in a violent way and this makes them no different than the perpetrator. This leads to a proactive approach where they believe it is there duty to seek justice in this way instead of letting that individual receive their own destiny separate from their vengeful behavior (Michael Kohlhaas!).
At times it seems like the gods or fate's choice is sometimes against their own interest (even though at the time they think they are doing the right thing)and this puts the spirit world at odds with the human world. Does this suggest that the gods are misleading them?In both texts individuals are warned about a potential death (that eventually occurs) and given a warning to interfere and stop, or at least to play no part. In both texts there is a lot of foreshadowing for what is to come. For instance, Ezeudu says, "A cold shiver ran down Okonkwo's back as he remembered the last time the old man had visited him. That boy calls you father," he had said. "Bear no hand in his death"(121). But the narrator in CDF says, "A death for which we all could have been to blame." This is very interesting because the narrator chooses to place blame on themselves for their actions instead of blaming the sole perpetrator. In TFA we have the exact opposite response. Okonkwo is blamed for the deaths that he cause and the culture and community are not held directly responsible. In both cases though there is little or no remorse for killing other people based on their own nonviolent behavior.
Another interesting comparison between these two texts is that they both share similiarites in basing judgements on an individual's reputation. In CDF it says "Their reputation as good people was so well founded that no one paid any attention to them (52)." Reputation plays a big role in both texts. But reputation seems to undermine both the fate of Santiago and the success of Okonkwo. Since everyone thought the twins had a good reputation they didn't believe they would do something bad, so they overlooked that he was going to be murdered. In Okonkwo's case, he spent his whole life trying to clear a new trail away from his father's footsteps and he ended up like his father in a way- by meeting despair by being kicked out of his community.
At times it seems like the gods or fate's choice is sometimes against their own interest (even though at the time they think they are doing the right thing)and this puts the spirit world at odds with the human world. Does this suggest that the gods are misleading them?In both texts individuals are warned about a potential death (that eventually occurs) and given a warning to interfere and stop, or at least to play no part. In both texts there is a lot of foreshadowing for what is to come. For instance, Ezeudu says, "A cold shiver ran down Okonkwo's back as he remembered the last time the old man had visited him. That boy calls you father," he had said. "Bear no hand in his death"(121). But the narrator in CDF says, "A death for which we all could have been to blame." This is very interesting because the narrator chooses to place blame on themselves for their actions instead of blaming the sole perpetrator. In TFA we have the exact opposite response. Okonkwo is blamed for the deaths that he cause and the culture and community are not held directly responsible. In both cases though there is little or no remorse for killing other people based on their own nonviolent behavior.
Another interesting comparison between these two texts is that they both share similiarites in basing judgements on an individual's reputation. In CDF it says "Their reputation as good people was so well founded that no one paid any attention to them (52)." Reputation plays a big role in both texts. But reputation seems to undermine both the fate of Santiago and the success of Okonkwo. Since everyone thought the twins had a good reputation they didn't believe they would do something bad, so they overlooked that he was going to be murdered. In Okonkwo's case, he spent his whole life trying to clear a new trail away from his father's footsteps and he ended up like his father in a way- by meeting despair by being kicked out of his community.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A Fractured Society
In “Things Fall Apart” I was intrigued by how it distributed the blame of the Ibo colonization by the Europeans. Instead of presenting the colonists as the oppressor and the villagers as the victims, Achebe’s world is much more nuanced. “Things Fall Apart” breaks the mold by introducing white men who epitomize ignorance, greed and injustice as well as sympathetic and peaceful missionaries who spread Christian principles while still respecting the Ibo culture. Nor are the Ibo innocent victims; indeed, Ibo social values lead directly to the alienation of tribe members who were the first to convert to Christianity. The tribe is wrought with physical and verbal violence, especially towards the weak and defenseless – women, children and those deemed “not man enough.” The poster-child for this brutality is Okonkwo, a character who routinely beats his family members because he is too terrified of being seen as weak. It is therefore significant that the biggest opponent of the colonists, Okonkwo, is also the novel’s least admirable character due in part to his role as a bully.
It would be disingenuous to go so far as to say that the Ibo “had it coming.” But it would also be wrong to overlook the consequences of creating a society that alienated so many. In this case the welcoming, accepting, not to mention largely peaceful attitude of the missionaries was an irresistible attraction to the outcasts of the Ibo tribes. These converts provided the colonists with a foothold to create an entire government seemingly overnight. The summary on the back of my book promises the “destruction of Okonkwo’s world with the arrival of aggressive European missionaries,” but ultimately both sides had significant roles to play in its destruction.
It would be disingenuous to go so far as to say that the Ibo “had it coming.” But it would also be wrong to overlook the consequences of creating a society that alienated so many. In this case the welcoming, accepting, not to mention largely peaceful attitude of the missionaries was an irresistible attraction to the outcasts of the Ibo tribes. These converts provided the colonists with a foothold to create an entire government seemingly overnight. The summary on the back of my book promises the “destruction of Okonkwo’s world with the arrival of aggressive European missionaries,” but ultimately both sides had significant roles to play in its destruction.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Death Foretold, Memento, and Name Interpretations
Ok, so I'm going to post another blog since I've been kind of blog-lazy recently.
So, I just finished my first Garcia Marquez book, Chronicle of Death Foretold, which is kind of embarassing being that I am half Colombian. But anyway, I am kind of unsure about how I feel about the book. As a whole, I can say I liked it, but when critiquing it page by page, it does seem kind of like a person's rambles. There were parts that just dragged on and seemed somewhat irrelevant to the plot, but then again, this was my first time reading it and I probably missed some of the the novel's motifs.
What I did like about, though, is how Garcia Marquez took one event (the murder of Santiago Nasar), which lasted only a few hours, and stretched it out to 120 pages. When I read the very first line in the book about how Santiago Nasar was to die, I naturally assumed that his death would come either a) eventually as the climax of the novel, or b) quickly in the introduction with the remainder of the story being void of death. But no, what Garcia Marquez accomplished is something I'm used to seeing in very well directed and though-out movies. He took a single event, and stretched into a whole story by showing it from multiple perspectives. He showed it from Santiago's, Bayardo's, Divina's, Pablo's/Pedro's, Cristo's, and Angela's viewpoints. All the meanwhile, Garcia Marquez utilizes an unnammed narrator to weave all the stories together.
In a way, this somewhat reminded me of the movie Memento, in which a man with no short term memory tries to puzzle his life together and in order to do so, he tattoos facts about his life on himself so that he doesn't forget. The movie moves non-chronologically through a single event - one full day. The beginning of the movie starts off with a death and the rest of the movie takes the reader through a series of pieced together events in order to understand the murder.
On a last, irrelevant note, I would like to point out the significance of certain names in Garcia Marquez's novel. Divina Flor, Cristo Bedoya, and Pedro and Pablo Vicario all have very interpretable names. Divina Flor, literally meaning Divine Flower in Spanish, could represent the innocence of the young women who were married off to older, promiscuous men in those times. Cristo, a shortened version of Cristobal, means Christ in Spanish. He is Santiago's true friend in the story and does everything in his power to stop the murder. The Vicario family's surname could be derived from the word vicarious, which means experiencing something through others. This makes sense because the twins had to defend their sister's honor and go to jail for her.
A Common Thread....
While I have read each book for this course one thing in particular keeps standing out to me. Maybe it is because it is so true in our daily lives and cultures that it is such a constant theme in literature. The idea that keeps presenting itself to me is this-if someone is different, an individual does not act, dress, or think the way the rest of society, the collective does, they are either cast out, frowned upon or locked up, or...some combination of those three. The collective seemingly cannot comprehend the individual. In the Overcoat, Akaky is viewed as an outcast because he is perfectly content to do his work, not advance, and live a mundane repetitive life. Michael Kohlhaas takes it upon himself to find justice in his story by Kleist. Nora, in A Doll's House makes her husband furious and risks punishment by society by stepping outside the accepted norms for women and what is considered to be womanly behavior. Kafka's ill fated protagonist is shunned and attacked even by his own family, when Gregor becomes a cockroach. He is seen as a disgusting monster, they cannot see the fact that he is inside still human because he is so very different from them. In The Stranger Mersault is locked up not because he killed the Arab but because he was an emotionless and odd individual. And the Arabs in the same book are viewed as less than human or less than the French colonists because they are different-they look different, they have different beliefs, different customs. In Things Fall Apart, and indeed with colonialism in general, missionaries come in claiming to know the path to salvation and writing off centuries old traditions because they are unfamiliar to them. Even as I write this, the adjectives I use to convey the way that these "outcasts" are viewed, come to me because society teaches the lessons of these works of literature. What if they author's themselves are simply outcasts trying to point out the wrongs that society commits every day? What if they are simply looking for someone to understand them, through their main characters, because they have been misunderstood their whole lives?
Separating Religion from Views
Before writing this blog, I have to be honest and preface that for the past few years, I have been slowly “losing my religion.” I was raised Catholic-Christian, but not very strictly. As a child, my parents took to Mass and Protestant services every week or so. For them, it wasn’t so much that they took me to a Catholic church or a Protestant church, but rather just to any type of church in general. I never understood at the time, but I now think that they did this because they didn’t want to shove religion down my throat and make me blindly believe in something without actually putting any thought behind it.
Coming from a very cultural Latin American family, I have always felt almost obligated to be Catholic, cause that’s just what “we do.” Now that I’ve grown older, I believe that the reason that religion on Earth varies as much as it does is because nobody truly knows what happens after we die and people fear that. And from fear arises opinion and from opinion arises faith.
Just like in the case of Okonkwo and his clansmen of Umuofia, religion is so deeply rooted in a society that people can’t separate it from reality or even comprehend what life would be like without it. Unfortunately, all societies in this world are like this; they can’t separate things that they grown up with from their beliefs and look at new situations objectively.
When I was reading Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, I subconsciously scoffed at the idea of there being Earth gods, rain gods, yam gods, etc. And even though I’m in the midst of questioning Christianity as a whole, I still saw this from a Christian monotheistic perspective. And why wouldn’t I? I have been exposed to it my whole life and everyone around me believes in it. In reality, the concept of multiple gods that control nature is quite logical. And if you don’t think so, then ask yourself if it is logical for men to arise from the dead, part oceans, or spawn a woman from a rib bone.
One of my favorite parts of Achebe’s novel and perfect example of this in the Ibo culture appears on page 146. A convert asks the missionary how he can protect himself from the neglected gods once he begins worshipping Jesus. It clearly shows two things: the blind faith that people will have in things due to fear, and the inability to separate their lives from long-held customs.
So in conclusion, I don’t want to bash on any religion or put anyone’s religion down. I just want to say that I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want because nobody truly knows why we are here, who or what created us, and where, or, if we are going somewhere after we die.
When Two Cultures Collide
This may seem a bit random, but there is currently a great controversy going on in the Korean Pop world. It was recently announced that Jaebeom Park, the leader of popular boy band 2PM, has been permanently removed from the group for unspecified personal reasons. Jaebeom is an American-born Korean, who has spent the last five years of his life in Korea as a celebrity. Due to his American upbringing, he has faced some difficulty in adjusting to Korean culture and language. This difficulty has caused him serious problems: leading to his flying home to Seattle after a conversation—in which he called Korea “gay”— held with an American friend via MySpace in 2005, sparked anger in many Koreans. Such an offense is hardly noteworthy in American culture, and Jaebeom, who was just a frustrated teenager at the time, would not have thought to think that such a statement would later cause him so much trouble. It was rather used as a way to release the tension he felt mounting upon him as he struggled to learn a new language, eat new food, and understand new social norms.
When two cultures collide both amazing and terrible things can happen. While reading Things Fall Apart, I felt like I was supposed to see evil in everything that happened once the Europeans come. From a historical perspective I know that it is unlikely that things turn out well for any of the Igbo people. However, one of Chinua Achebe’s goals in this novel was to show that some failing in the Igbo aided in the destruction of their own society. Under the guise of religion the Europeans come to Africa to civilize the savage. What the “white man” encounters is a culture with a set of beliefs foreign to it’s own, yet no less complex. In Igbo culture violence is a part of everyday life, a way to punish everyday grievances, get retribution, and adhere to spiritual beliefs. On a smaller scale, in American culture, doing such a thing as calling someone gay or committing some “serious personal problem” (this problem must have been legal, or not too illegal, as no authorities were called in) would not be enough to make the entertainment company feel like they must terminate his contract. In fact, it is more likely that the whole situation would be used as a publicity ploy. When Jaebeom releases his anger, or just does what he feels, like in the mysterious situation that led to his termination, he is just doing what is natural in his culture. This is the same for the Igbo’s ruining of the church to appease the spirits; it is what is natural in their culture.
Unfortunately for the Igbo and Jaebeom, it seems they cannot win. The Igbo lose believers one-by-one and their very presence in the village seems to drain their violent nature, at least that is how Okonkwo perceives it. In Jaebeom’s case he is thrown to the wayside as rumors spread about what he could have possibly done to cause his contract to be cancelled. The other members of the group seem eager to continue on without their leader, just as Okonkwo’s opinion has come to matter much less than it did before his banishment and the arrival of the Christians. Jaebeom’s story has yet to unfold completely, however a favorable solution seems incredibly unlikely, perhaps even impossible, as doubts are now being raised about the characters’ of the remaining members who seem so willing to do without the one who led them to fame. Umuofia’s story, as told by history, is destined for further entrenchment with the Europeans, that they remain unable to escape until 1960.
These two cases of brotherhood’s that are unable to withstand the various trials and tribulations that come with existence seem to show that when two cultures collide, someone’s got to lose.
Everything Happens for a Reason
“Everything happens for a reason”. This quote brings forth many questions that are often brought back to religion. Its various interpretations separate religions yet at some point bring them back together.
The Igbo religion consists of worshiping numerous gods. Each god represents a different aspect of Igbo life such as the sun, sky and earth. The Igbo people believe that if they do something to upset the one of the gods, then that god will punish him or her as necessary. For example, “we live in peace with our fellows to honor our great goddess of the earth without whose blessing our crops will not grow” (30). The Igbo people believe that if they fail to receive her blessing, then they were not meant to have a good harvest. This directly relates to the notion that “everything happens for a reason”. It is used as a means of explaining something that could not otherwise be explained. If one does wrong to the gods, then he or she will be punished with the ultimate punishment being death.
The missionaries, on the other hand, worship a single god that is not relevant to their everyday activities. “All the gods you have named are not gods at all. They are gods of deceit who tell you to kill your fellows and destroy innocent children. There is only one true God and He has the earth, the sky, you and me and all of us” (146). In Rom. 8:28, Paul explains, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are according to His purpose”. Thus it is not necessary to worship every physical aspect of the earth because God has a plan. In other words, everything happens for a reason, and if you are a believer, that reason will end up being a good one. While death is the ultimate punishment for the Igbo people, the missionaries hold that punishment will ensue after death, when one reaches the Day of Judgment determining if he or she will spend his or her eternal life in heaven or in hell.
While these two religions have major differences in respect to who is being worshiped, they are far more similar than different. Religion offers hope to aspects of life that are unexplainable. When something goes wrong, both groups turn to their god(s) for an answer and welcome the belief that any culprit will be punished, whether it be during his or her lifetime or afterwards. In essence, everything—whether it is good or bad, or breeds ignorance rather than intelligence—happens for a reason. Within religion, man cannot escape the influence of higher powers.
Different cultures, similar familial hierarchies
The white men in the "Things fall apart" view the so called "barbarians" as totally different from themselves, but they actually have many similarities. One similarity I noticed was the way that they treat their women. In "Things fall apart", Okonkwo treats his wife like a child. He beats her when she disobeys him, and he rules over her. She brings him food, and basically does whatever he asks of her. His relationship with his wife is certainly more controlling than a modern relationship. When she does something wrong, he beats her up, and this is viewed as acceptable in his culture. The man of the house is the conquerer, and his wife and children must submit to him. This is similar to Torvald's relationship with Nora, though to a less extreme state. Torvald is also the controller of household. Though he doesn't physically abuse Nora, he treats her like a child by talking down to her and withholding money from her. Torvald rules the house, and Nora is basically just another one of the children. It is interesting to me that such different cultures from such different places with no contact with each other have the same familial hierarchy, where the husband is the absolute controller, and the wife takes the role of a child. This makes me wonder, in most cultures, what traits does man have that lead him to assume the role of leader in the family?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Prove by Contrast
I think Achebe uses contrasts more than any other literary device to bring his points home. He draws parallels between Christianity and the tribe's religion, and insodoing he makes their differences clear. He draws parallels between justices and government, and thereby emphasizes differences in leadership and ties in gender issues (by bringing up the queen in contrast to the tribe leaders.
In part 2, Achebe troubles the customs of the tribe by contrasting Okonkwo's father's tribe with his mother's. On page 165, during the feast hosted by Okonkwo at the end of his exile, the following prayer is delivered by Uchendu:
"We do not ask for wealth because he that has health and children will also have wealth. We do not pray to have more money but to have more kinsmen. We are better than animals because we have kinsmen. An animal rubs its itching flank against a tree, a man asks his kinsman to scratch him."
I was struck by this quote because immediately it did not seem to me like it was a prayer Okonkwo would endorse or agree with, but he had no objection. I considered why I thought this prayer was in contrast with Okonkwo's lifestyle, and I saw that I had previously thought of Okonkwo as someone who would never ask his kinsman for help. Upon considering this I realized that in fact Okonkwo had already asked for help several times in the novel by asking for donations of seed yam. Here is where I found the real contrast. Where I had initially interpreted this prayer as a means of contrasting Okonkwo's father's tribe with his mother's, I discovered that this prayer actually serves as a greater contrast between this native value scheme and the values of the colonizer. In America, immense emphasis is placed on independence. It could be said that manliness is defined by the ability to fend for oneself in all aspects of life. In Okonkwo's mind, success and strength is paramount, but despite this his sense of manliness does not demand that he never ask for help. I found that to be a really striking and different way of thinking.
In part 2, Achebe troubles the customs of the tribe by contrasting Okonkwo's father's tribe with his mother's. On page 165, during the feast hosted by Okonkwo at the end of his exile, the following prayer is delivered by Uchendu:
"We do not ask for wealth because he that has health and children will also have wealth. We do not pray to have more money but to have more kinsmen. We are better than animals because we have kinsmen. An animal rubs its itching flank against a tree, a man asks his kinsman to scratch him."
I was struck by this quote because immediately it did not seem to me like it was a prayer Okonkwo would endorse or agree with, but he had no objection. I considered why I thought this prayer was in contrast with Okonkwo's lifestyle, and I saw that I had previously thought of Okonkwo as someone who would never ask his kinsman for help. Upon considering this I realized that in fact Okonkwo had already asked for help several times in the novel by asking for donations of seed yam. Here is where I found the real contrast. Where I had initially interpreted this prayer as a means of contrasting Okonkwo's father's tribe with his mother's, I discovered that this prayer actually serves as a greater contrast between this native value scheme and the values of the colonizer. In America, immense emphasis is placed on independence. It could be said that manliness is defined by the ability to fend for oneself in all aspects of life. In Okonkwo's mind, success and strength is paramount, but despite this his sense of manliness does not demand that he never ask for help. I found that to be a really striking and different way of thinking.
gender differences
In "Chronicle of a Death Foretold" the role of women and how they are treated can be compared to gender roles in "Things Fall Apart." With regards to the Vicario family in "Chronicle of a Death Foretold" the narrator states, "The brothers were brought up to be men. The girls had been reared to get married" (31). From this quote I can sense that women are brought up to be just wives and be under the rule of their husband. While males are to grow up into men. Women are dehumanized to live for their husbands. Men become the head and center of all life. In "Things Fall Apart," Okonkwo embodies that masculine, powerful man who has control and power over everyone else. He beats his wives and will not allow himself to be seen as weak or sensitive. He believes he could only be respectful by acting manly, aggressive and powerful. In "Chronicle of a Death Foretold" Bayardo San Roman is like the paradigm of the perfect man. He is rich, powerful, and handsome. All he has to do is pick any woman and that woman must become his wife. In both books the male gender is higher than the female and the female is clearly seen as subordinate. Both Okonkwo and Bayardo San Roman treat their wives violently as violence becomes the symbol of their masculinity and power.
Masculinity
I've been thinking a lot about Okonkwo's masculinity and how he was influenced by his father. One quote that stuck out to me was towards the beginning of the book. "No matter how prosperous a man was, if he was unable to rule his women and his children (and especially his women) he was not really a man." I've heard this idea before in other books; men talking about the need to control women in order to feel powerful and strong and masculine. It's a terrifying idea, but it's very prominent. I just finished reading a book about the true story of an Austrian man who kept his daughter as a sex slave in a basement for 24 years and she bore seven of his children. I know it seems like a bit of a stretch to compare these books, but the men both has strong issues with masculinity. This Austrian man was also raised to see women as lower and to be overtly masculine. He always felt like he needed control over something, and women was the easiest way to get that. Men that are raised to be super masculine can definitely cause problems later in life because that often comes with a need for power. And the search for power can have dangerous results.
The Center Cannot Hold
"For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary." (Hobbes, The Leviathan)
In Hobbes' The Leviathan, the idea that men are inherently violent by nature is presented. Hobbes argues that men need a Commonwealth (or Leviathan) to keep people "in awe," and the nature of men at bay. A strong Commonwealth is needed to keep society thriving forward and in a state of peace. Because the nature of men is disorderly and violent, structure in society is needed to control people's natural dispositions.
In reading Achebes' Things Fall Apart, I found the the Ibo village's structure to act similarily to the same Commonwealth described. In the village, Okonkwo's character is the most pressing example of a man dominated by his violent nature and tendancy to act out of anger. Okonkwo has this fire within him, and "desire to conquer and subdue" that is constantly expressed throughout the novel. Okonkwo is known as the best fighter in the land, and can be seen threatening and beating his wifes until "his anger [is] satisfied." He is the prime example for what Hobbes describes, because of his violent nature that at times even disrupts the order of his village. Okonkwo disturbs the Week of Peace and crosses over societal boundaries/regulations by beating his wife harshly; he even commits violence upon himself towards the end of the novel. Though the Ibo village contains many rituals and rules that at times bringforth and create violence, the institution aims keeps the nature of men at bay most of the time. Okonkwo's character is seen as more violent than the majority of people in the village, even admidst the cultural violence present. It seems as if their culture is naturally violent, because perhaps they are less civilized in instuition and doctrine than what people in the Western culture experience. Hobbes believed the primitive and earliest humans were violent in nature and tamed only through a strong societal instituion such as that of a Commonwealth. Okonkwo is somewhat controlled only through his village's regulation.
In the short quote from "The Second Coming," W.B. Yeats (at beginning of Things Fall Apart) writes "Things fall apart, the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." I interpreted this quote to reflect upon the idea of entropy- that things naturally move towards disorder, and perhaps towards a more violent state of nature. In reading Things Fall Apart, we see the culture and customs of the Ibo village fall apart admist violence in resistance to the British colonizers, bringing up the idea that we cannot escape disorder because it is the very center of everything. The inevitability of disorder in society parallels the violent state of nature present in humans.
In Hobbes' The Leviathan, the idea that men are inherently violent by nature is presented. Hobbes argues that men need a Commonwealth (or Leviathan) to keep people "in awe," and the nature of men at bay. A strong Commonwealth is needed to keep society thriving forward and in a state of peace. Because the nature of men is disorderly and violent, structure in society is needed to control people's natural dispositions.
In reading Achebes' Things Fall Apart, I found the the Ibo village's structure to act similarily to the same Commonwealth described. In the village, Okonkwo's character is the most pressing example of a man dominated by his violent nature and tendancy to act out of anger. Okonkwo has this fire within him, and "desire to conquer and subdue" that is constantly expressed throughout the novel. Okonkwo is known as the best fighter in the land, and can be seen threatening and beating his wifes until "his anger [is] satisfied." He is the prime example for what Hobbes describes, because of his violent nature that at times even disrupts the order of his village. Okonkwo disturbs the Week of Peace and crosses over societal boundaries/regulations by beating his wife harshly; he even commits violence upon himself towards the end of the novel. Though the Ibo village contains many rituals and rules that at times bringforth and create violence, the institution aims keeps the nature of men at bay most of the time. Okonkwo's character is seen as more violent than the majority of people in the village, even admidst the cultural violence present. It seems as if their culture is naturally violent, because perhaps they are less civilized in instuition and doctrine than what people in the Western culture experience. Hobbes believed the primitive and earliest humans were violent in nature and tamed only through a strong societal instituion such as that of a Commonwealth. Okonkwo is somewhat controlled only through his village's regulation.
In the short quote from "The Second Coming," W.B. Yeats (at beginning of Things Fall Apart) writes "Things fall apart, the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." I interpreted this quote to reflect upon the idea of entropy- that things naturally move towards disorder, and perhaps towards a more violent state of nature. In reading Things Fall Apart, we see the culture and customs of the Ibo village fall apart admist violence in resistance to the British colonizers, bringing up the idea that we cannot escape disorder because it is the very center of everything. The inevitability of disorder in society parallels the violent state of nature present in humans.
In reading Chronicles of a Death Foretold, I noticed that the details and the circumstances of the murder were similar to the murder in The Stranger. Aside from the fact that both victims were Arabs, both murders seemed a bit inexplicable although there were possible motives behind each. In Garcia Marquez’s novella, the twins’ motives for killing Santiago Nasar were reasons of honor. In Camus’, one could say that Meursault’s underlying motive was to defend Raymond. In both instances, however, the victims did not really understand what was occurring. Neither the Arab nor Santiago Nasar did anything to warrant death. Although they both felt threatened, there was no clear reason for them to expect to be killed. Each death was a result of many “fatal coincidences.” Although there was a collective knowledge of Santiago Nasar’s imminent death but absolutely none of the Arab’s, both situations are comparable. The twins had announced their intent to the whole town, but as the narrator mentions numerous times, they were waiting for someone to intervene. They had no real intention of actually killing Santiago Nasar just as Meursault had no intentions of killing anyone when he went for that walk. Both acts of murders were messy and confusing. Meursaults began with a single gunshot followed by a few inexplicable gunshots; the twins’ attempts to kill Santiago Nasar included various slashes and stabs. Just as the subsequent gunshots were questioned in the Stranger, the messy butchering of Santiago Nasar seems ridiculously excessive. After committing the murders, though, neither the twins nor Meursault saw fault in their actions. In both cases, we see society piecing together an opinion of each of the convicted men. In the twins’ case, society declared them to be good people because they were acting on behalf of honor and whatnot. Meursault was viewed as despicable for his nonconforming / unacceptable behavior. Both murders were grotesque and horrid, but what differentiated them were society’s reactions and perspectives. Both instances represent the absurd nature of life and how man lacks any control. Both stories suggest that there is no fate or destiny or any higher power controlling mankind’s actions. There is only a series of fatal coincidences that shape the circumstances of our lives and actions.
The Opposite of Love Is Not Hate
Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel says, “The opposite of love is not hate; it’s indifference.”
In Things Fall Apart, the Igbo tribe and culture dies when colonists enter Niger, bringing Christianity and European culture. Believing the missionaries to be humorously harmless, the Mbata tribe does not respond violently. When the white men first arrive in Mbata and challenge their religious beliefs, for example, the tribe “[breaks] into derisive laughter” (Achebe 146). Even Okonkwo, a violent man by nature, “shrugs his shoulders” at the presence of the missionaries, thinking them to be mad but unthreatening. The tribe even allots a plot of land for them, essentially granting them passage into their lives. Through the tribe’s pacification, the missionaries effectively penetrate the Igbo culture through religious conversions. These conversions, including Okonwo’s son’s conversion, undermine Igbo beliefs. The entrance of the missionaries can be blamed on the inaction of many, and the tribe’s subsequent demise can be called a collective suicide.
Conversely, violence is used to preserve culture in Igbo culture. For example, Okonkwo beats his wives and his children if they step out of traditional gender roles. Even Okonwo’s suicide, a violent reflection of the tribe’s own suicide, can be interpreted as a last ditch effort to protect Igbo culture from European culture.
Just as the Igbo tribe’s death is collectively caused, so is Santiago Nasar’s in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Though Santiago Nasar is brutally killed by the Vicario brothers, his death can be interpreted as a result of his town’s communal inaction. Various members of the town ignore the potential crime, often dismissing the Vicario brother’s blatant death threats as drunken talk. In fact, “there had never been a death more foretold”(50) that could have been--on multiple occasions--prevented. Although some of the townspeople might feel fearful, the majority of the town acts indifferently by not warning Santiago Nasar. His death, therefore, is a collective murder.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Similarities between Greek Mythology and Things Fall Apart
I've noticed a lot of similarities between Things Fall Apart and the Greek Mythology including the return and the death of a king, dislike of twins, and the existence of oracles.
1. The return and the death of a king:
In The Oresteia by Aeschylus, Agamemnon returns from war and is welcomed by his wife, Clytaemnestra. However, Clytaemnestra welcomes him with a crimson red carpet which is too much of a God-like or womanly welcome. Like Okonkwo, Agamemnon has been gone for so long that their home has changed. Umuofia has become soft in allowing the white people to establish their church, religion, and government in their land, and Clytaemnestra has become a strong, manly ruler of Agamemnon's throne. Both Agamemnon and Okonkwo seek a warm welcome, but each marked their impending deaths. Agamemnon subdued to Clytaemnestra's overly grand welcome that could be punishable by the Gods and walked on the crimson red carpet into his home and killed him. Okonkwo fails achieve his goals (to initiate his sons into the ozo and build his rank when he returned) and also fails to lead his people into war against the whites. I think since Okonkwo could not take such failures- the ultimate failure of his his great "to become one of the lords of the clan (131), he hung himself.
2. Twins:
Similar to Greek culture, twins are thrown away in the Umuofia tribe. Traditionally, in Greek culture, the twins (both sons) would compete for their father's throne and inheritance, thus only leading to bloodshed. This is probably why Umuofia and the Greeks are similar because they have traditions and the Western culture branched from Britain and Europeans. They weren't exactly around when violence was a part of their culture.
3. Oracles:
Even though the oracles demand a sacrifice of an innocent child, the people must obey or else the God's wrath will harm their soil. The oracles usually prophesize the killing of an innocent to appease the Gods, but Okonkwo slowly realizes that their prophecies aren't exactly justified. For instance, he had to murder Ikemefuna, an innocent boy who Okonkwon had taken in as a son and came to like. Also, the elders of the Abame tribe consulted their oracle and "it told them that the strange man would break their clan spread destruction among them" (138). So they decided to kill him and tie his iron horse to the sacred tree. Ironically, if they hadn't killed him, Abame probably wouldn't have been wiped out.
Also in the Euripidies' Bacchae, the idea of only the initiates can see the God, Dionysos. Only the initiates were allowed to know what goes on during the festival gatherings of the initiates and till this day we don't know their actions because they've been sworn to secrecy. We also see in Things Fall Apart, "one of the greates crimes a man could commit was to unmask an egwugwu in public, or to say or do anything which might reduce its immortal prestige in the eyes of the unitiated" (186). The glory, or kleos, of the Gods is represented in costumes and masks worn by mortals, but hidden from the unitiated, who don't believe in the God.
Again, the question of whether or not a man can overcome his destiny as fated by the Gods reappears in this text. At the beginning of the novel, we learn that if a man says yes, then his chi says yes also, portraying the idea that a man has his own will and makes his own destiny. However, Okonkwo discovers for himself that " a man could not rise beyond the destiny of his chi" (131). This means that his destiny his predetermined and his actions nor will cannot change it. For example, Oedipus tried to avoid the prophecy's warnings against his murder of his father and sex with his mother. Then he becomes king of Thebes and exacts revenge on the previous king that was murdered... but the king was his father and he already went to bed with the queen who was his mother. Also, in my previous post, I mentioned in The Stranger, the idea of chance versus fate- again the will of the Gods.
1. The return and the death of a king:
In The Oresteia by Aeschylus, Agamemnon returns from war and is welcomed by his wife, Clytaemnestra. However, Clytaemnestra welcomes him with a crimson red carpet which is too much of a God-like or womanly welcome. Like Okonkwo, Agamemnon has been gone for so long that their home has changed. Umuofia has become soft in allowing the white people to establish their church, religion, and government in their land, and Clytaemnestra has become a strong, manly ruler of Agamemnon's throne. Both Agamemnon and Okonkwo seek a warm welcome, but each marked their impending deaths. Agamemnon subdued to Clytaemnestra's overly grand welcome that could be punishable by the Gods and walked on the crimson red carpet into his home and killed him. Okonkwo fails achieve his goals (to initiate his sons into the ozo and build his rank when he returned) and also fails to lead his people into war against the whites. I think since Okonkwo could not take such failures- the ultimate failure of his his great "to become one of the lords of the clan (131), he hung himself.
2. Twins:
Similar to Greek culture, twins are thrown away in the Umuofia tribe. Traditionally, in Greek culture, the twins (both sons) would compete for their father's throne and inheritance, thus only leading to bloodshed. This is probably why Umuofia and the Greeks are similar because they have traditions and the Western culture branched from Britain and Europeans. They weren't exactly around when violence was a part of their culture.
3. Oracles:
Even though the oracles demand a sacrifice of an innocent child, the people must obey or else the God's wrath will harm their soil. The oracles usually prophesize the killing of an innocent to appease the Gods, but Okonkwo slowly realizes that their prophecies aren't exactly justified. For instance, he had to murder Ikemefuna, an innocent boy who Okonkwon had taken in as a son and came to like. Also, the elders of the Abame tribe consulted their oracle and "it told them that the strange man would break their clan spread destruction among them" (138). So they decided to kill him and tie his iron horse to the sacred tree. Ironically, if they hadn't killed him, Abame probably wouldn't have been wiped out.
Also in the Euripidies' Bacchae, the idea of only the initiates can see the God, Dionysos. Only the initiates were allowed to know what goes on during the festival gatherings of the initiates and till this day we don't know their actions because they've been sworn to secrecy. We also see in Things Fall Apart, "one of the greates crimes a man could commit was to unmask an egwugwu in public, or to say or do anything which might reduce its immortal prestige in the eyes of the unitiated" (186). The glory, or kleos, of the Gods is represented in costumes and masks worn by mortals, but hidden from the unitiated, who don't believe in the God.
Again, the question of whether or not a man can overcome his destiny as fated by the Gods reappears in this text. At the beginning of the novel, we learn that if a man says yes, then his chi says yes also, portraying the idea that a man has his own will and makes his own destiny. However, Okonkwo discovers for himself that " a man could not rise beyond the destiny of his chi" (131). This means that his destiny his predetermined and his actions nor will cannot change it. For example, Oedipus tried to avoid the prophecy's warnings against his murder of his father and sex with his mother. Then he becomes king of Thebes and exacts revenge on the previous king that was murdered... but the king was his father and he already went to bed with the queen who was his mother. Also, in my previous post, I mentioned in The Stranger, the idea of chance versus fate- again the will of the Gods.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Misinterpreting Mersault?
The idea that The Stranger is written in a form resembling a diary or journal got me thinking that maybe, we have misinterpreted Mersault. If The Stranger is read as Mersault's personal journal, maybe some of our interpretation that he is unfeeling is simply due to the fact that Mersault omitted the emotions he knew he was feeling, from his chronology of events. It seems very much to me that the story is one that dictates events, and while it appears Mersault is removed from emotion, maybe he has just removed his emotions from the story. For example, the first lines of the book "Maman died today. Or yesterday, maybe. I don't know" are viewed as shockingly unfeeling, but maybe Mersault is in shock. When he speaks of it being a waste of his Sundays to go visit his mother, maybe he is justifying to himself why he didn't go, since now he cannot go visit her.
As the story continues, Mersault is always dictating events from his point of view. Maybe he simply wants to remember the actions and realities on paper because he can remember his emotions himself. I cannot believe that Marie would want to be with an unfeeling monster.
The courtroom scene is presented as an attack on his character because he did not show emotion- but maybe just as the reader misunderstands Mersault, the courtroom could not interpret his expression of emotions because it was different than they might expect. Because Mersault is misunderstood he is locked up by society. If Mersault does not behave the same way as everyone else in society, society will not tolerate him.
As the story continues, Mersault is always dictating events from his point of view. Maybe he simply wants to remember the actions and realities on paper because he can remember his emotions himself. I cannot believe that Marie would want to be with an unfeeling monster.
The courtroom scene is presented as an attack on his character because he did not show emotion- but maybe just as the reader misunderstands Mersault, the courtroom could not interpret his expression of emotions because it was different than they might expect. Because Mersault is misunderstood he is locked up by society. If Mersault does not behave the same way as everyone else in society, society will not tolerate him.
Possible Foreshadowing
This is actually my second time reading this book. Rereading it has made me realize key aspects that I did not catch my first time around. The scene where Okonkwo kills Ikemefuna is one that I found very interesting. It reminded me of the Biblical tale of Abraham and Isaac. In Things Fall Apart, the gods order the death/sacrifice of Ikemefuna. Ikemefuna is not Okonkwo’s biological son; he comes to live with Okonkwo’s family from a different town. Although not blood related, Okonkwo grows close with this young man and considers him a son. Therefore, when the Oracle demands that Ikemefuna should be sacrificed, Okonkwo is devastated. However, when Ikemefuna calls out to him for help saying, “My father, they have killed me!”, Okonkwo, in fear of being regarded as weak, cuts him down with a machete, ultimately being the one to end Ikemefuna’ life.
Although the outcome of the story in Things Fall Apart is very different from that of Abraham and Isaac, I think the set up is similar. In the story of Abraham and Isaac, Abraham is commanded by God to sacrifice Isaac, his only son. God does this to test Abraham’s faith. Thus, both father figures are called upon by divine powers to demonstrate loyalty and faithfulness by sacrificing their beloved ones. In addition, both embark on long journeys to go to a specific place to carry out the act; Abraham climbs the mountain in the land of Moriah and Okonkwo goes deep into the forest.
I don't know if this has anything more to do with the comparison but I found it ironic that Nwoye, Okonkwo’s actual first-born son changes his name to Isaac when he converts to Christianity. Perhaps the relationship with Okonkwo and Ikemefuna foreshadows the changes that Umuofia undergoes later on.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Ch-ch-ch-changes
I've read Part One of Achebe's Things Fall Apart and so far, there's been a persistent motif of challenging tradition. More specifically, the story deals with questioning the legitimacy of accepted social practices, hinting at the possibility of change and modernization within the village.
Here's a list of evidence:
-Okonkwo's father Unoka was meek and powerless within society, conforming more to a perceived woman's role than a man's. For this reason, Okonkwo hyper-conforms to social norms for males, acting ruthlessly toward subordinates and providing well for his family. He fears that challenging this traditional role will undermine his life as he knows it.
-During the Week of Peace, Okonkwo breaks the peace by beating and nearly gunning down his second wife Ekwefi. Punishment for this, which has become much less severe, also conforms to the theme of breaking with tradition.
-Okonkwo's son Nwoye would rather listen to women's stories than perform manly activities, like sitting and conversing with his father at night.
-The descending of locusts is out of the ordinary. Though it has happened before, the event has not happened in a very long time. It is a break from the customs of daily life.
-Okonkwo kills his adopted son Ikemefuna, who called Okonkwo "father" despite counsel against this. Obierika later tells him, "What you have done will not please the Earth."
-It is "strange" that a man and his wife die on the same day. Women and men are never equals; they are not to be linked even in death.
-Ezinma defies custom when she follows the priestess Chielo, who is carrying her only daughter. She does this despite being explicitly told to stay behind and wait for her daughter's return.
-When Okonkwo kills a man and is expelled from the village, Obierika asks, "Why should a man suffer so grievously for an offense he had committed inadvertently?" and wonders why he had to abandon his twin babies in the Evil Forest.
Though I haven't yet finished the book, perhaps these events foreshadow a great change in the tribe's way of life.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Metamorphosis
As I was re-reading these texts for tomarrow’s essay I noticed in the beginning of Metamorphosis there is a lot of irony and foreshadowing. For instance, when Gregor refused to let the chief clerk in and questions why his sister is worried, the narrator says “Surely these were things one didn’t need to worry about for the present. Gregor was still at home and not in the least thinking of deserting the family (76).” The passage in the texts hints at what will actually happen in the future.
Reading Argina’s post got me thinking about if Gregor lived in the present. Initially, right after his transformation, he is not very worried, although he is in denial. As in the quote above, when Gregor hears his family pleading with him to open the door he tries to stay calm but this quickly changes. It says “Yet Gregor had this foresight. The chief clerk must be detained, soothed, persuaded, and finally won over! If only his sister had been there!” Immediately before this it says how his parents had convinced themselves that Gregor was settled for life in the firm. It seems as though Gregor’s family has been caught up in delusion for a long time, acting like kids that rely on Gregor for all of their monetary support. However, as soon as he is transformed he also becomes stuck in his mind and delusioned with fear. It seems as though his limitations of dependency on others is the driving force that keeps him out of the present and forced into a state of fear.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Stranger
Today’s discussion got me thinking more about Meursalt being deemed inhumane because he is an individual and doesn’t follow traditional institutions. One thing that sets him apart is the fact that he simply allows things to happen to him and he doesn't try to go against his fate. He doesn't regret what he did and he doesn't spend a lot of time pondering what will happen next. One of my favorite quotes in the book was when he met with the magistrate and he says "On my way out I was even going to shake his hand, but just in time, I remembered that I had killed a man." I love that quote because he doesn't seemed fazed at all about the fact that he is in prison and killed a man. He wanted to shake his hand because, for a bit, he simply forgot the fact that he killed someone and was about the be tried.
I also think it's interesting how he talks with Marie. She asks if he loves her, and he just says no, but that it probably meant nothing. He even agrees to marry her, but just because she wants to, not because he loves her. I wonder why he doesn't feel like he loves her, even though he shows clear signs of love. This shows again how he just lets things happen, and doesn't think too much into things or what's going to happen.
Living in the present
Meursault's entire life was based on his present physical state. His mood and behaviour changed as the landscape and weather changed. He felt passion and emotion only when he thought of Marie in a sexual way. He felt everything was meaningless and devalued what society valued like marriage, religion, family, and even death. However, in spite of all this indifference, he was honest. He was honest to himself and to others. He said what he thought or felt even if it wouldn't help him. For example, when his lawyer tries to figure out a good defense for him by trying to defend him by saying Mersault was in shock of his mother's death, Mersault honestly said he wasn't and that his mother's death didn't really bother him. When the chaplain comes to his cell to talk to him about God, he feels it is unnecessary because everything he had done, he didn't regret. He had done everything honestly for himself. Unconsciously, his actions were meaningful only for him, but not for society. So he didn't feel guilty for the murder or not mourning for his mother's death. He says, "I had been right, I was still right, I was always right." Moursault had lived his life the way he wanted and so it didn't matter to him what anyone else believed or thought. However, the Chaplain believed religion is Truth and God is the truth. For this reason that the Chaplain didn't live by his own ideals just like Mersault, he wasn't sure the Chaplain "was alive, because he was living like a dead man" (120). Meursault says, "But I was sure about me, about everything, surer than I could ever be, sure of my life and sure of the death I had waiting for me" (120). After becoming so certain of his death, he acquires freedom, and happiness. The chaplain would never feel this way because he would have hope to go to heaven and never live life to the fullest because of fear of God. In this way, we can see how Meursault rejects social institutions like religion as an interferrence to living in the present and attaining happiness.
Duality of Man
The Strangers tracks the life of a remarkably indifferent man using an indifferent narrative. I question how aware our protagonist, Meursault, was of his mortality. Beyond awareness, I question whether mortality was an issue for him at all. Camus refers to Meursault as the “only Christ we deserve”, and in the story Meursault seems to find comfort when the magistrate refers to him as Monsieur Antichrist. Such ironic depictions of the same character create a paradox when examining Meursault.
Is he truly a saint or is he evil? The difficulty in answering this question is what helps readers understand such a misunderstood character. It is true that he is a murderer, and yet he remains faithful to his honesty. He hardly instigates emotional repercussions, but merely responds to any external effects. I believe that Camus was implying that one must be an protagonist as well as an antagonist to truly be humane.
Is he truly a saint or is he evil? The difficulty in answering this question is what helps readers understand such a misunderstood character. It is true that he is a murderer, and yet he remains faithful to his honesty. He hardly instigates emotional repercussions, but merely responds to any external effects. I believe that Camus was implying that one must be an protagonist as well as an antagonist to truly be humane.
So what?
One of the many paradoxes presented by “The Stranger” is Meursault himself. Camus has called him “the only Christ that we deserve” yet here is a man who lives his life like an animal, and at one point is likened to a “dog” (113). His only concerns are with eating, sleeping, and having sex; indeed his “main problem was killing time.”(78) He appears to have no emotion when his mother dies – all he remembers is that he was “tired and sleepy” – and is so callus that at times in prison he completely forgets he is there because he killed a man. Yet, despite this “alien” nature and lack of emotion, he is the only person who truly understands people and accepts all equally. He considers Raymond the pimp just “as much [his] friend as Céleste, who was worth a lot more than him” (121). He recognizes that no one has a right to cry over his mother because she was happy at the end of her life, and there should be nothing sad about that. He understands that everybody is “privileged” because they are alive.
If Christ teaches us of the afterlife, Meursault tells us that ours is the only world that exists. Therefore even though one person may be better than another, ultimately it doesn’t matter since there is no overarching system of reward or punishment. Meursault contends that even though good and evil exist, they are meaningless because the world is indifferent to the distinction; everyone dies one day regardless of their circumstance. By recognizing this common thread shared by people, Meursault is able to understand and become friends with even a low-life like Raymond. He therefore becomes an unorthodox Christ, one without emotion or remorse, but a Christ nonetheless.
If Christ teaches us of the afterlife, Meursault tells us that ours is the only world that exists. Therefore even though one person may be better than another, ultimately it doesn’t matter since there is no overarching system of reward or punishment. Meursault contends that even though good and evil exist, they are meaningless because the world is indifferent to the distinction; everyone dies one day regardless of their circumstance. By recognizing this common thread shared by people, Meursault is able to understand and become friends with even a low-life like Raymond. He therefore becomes an unorthodox Christ, one without emotion or remorse, but a Christ nonetheless.
The Inevitability of Death
Meursault’s notion of the inevitability of death stems from his focus on chance occurrences and the physical rather than mental or emotional aspects of life. It is clear that he is solely concerned with the physical aspects of life, as he is constantly aware of his own body, the sun’s heat and Maria’s body, among other components of the physical world. Contrastingly, Meursault is not aware of his own emotions. He lacks grief for his mother’s death, love for Maria, and remorse for his murder of the Arab.
He is indifferent to everything life throws his way as he feels the world is indifferent to him. This is where his notion of the inevitability of death comes from. During the trial, Meursault emphasizes that the fact that everyone dies is the only true fact. He does not feel singled out by the world, just simply that he fell to unlucky circumstances, as will be the case for everyone at some point.
This is how Meursault defends his case. His murder was merely a matter of chance. He has no mental awareness of any rational reasons as to why he committed the murder. However, his lawyer and the prosecutor attempt to create such rational reasons behind his actions in order to protect society. Society likes rationality because it is more comforting. Meursault’s inability to offer such rational motives behind his murder creates fear among the people, hence why members of society are trying to come up with the rationality of his actions.
Living a life guided solely by the physical world and chance gives Meursault the feeling of indifference to the world. He thus has indifference to remaining in the world. In realizing this indifference within himself, Meursault is able to accept his upcoming death with the sense of its inevitability.
The Metamorphosis
I woke up this morning and was reminded of Gregor Samsa. In the beginning of The Metamorphosis, Franz Kafka describes Gregor's blanket falling off of his slippery belly. The quilt that covers my bed is one that my mother put on it after I moved out. This quilt, made of polyester, I think, was slipping off my bed no matter how often I tried to catch it. I was just imagining how annoying it must have been to have a slippery blanket covering a body that was not my own or any other human's.
Why were parents involved in their’ children’s jobs? Today in most countries parents do not receive a report about how their children are doing at work. “Since you are wasting my time so endlessly I don’t see why your parents shouldn’t hear it too. For some time past your work has been more unsatisfactory.” I think it is strange because Gregor is an adult. I assume this because he has already been in and left the military. The chief clerk came all the way to Gregor’s home instead of just punishing him for not showing up to work. The closeness of family has a lot of weight in The Metamorphosis; I think the chief clerk comes to his house as a part of this family bond.
After Gregor's transformation, his family begins to slip away from him. Could his losing his family more and more as his denial of his transformation decreases be parallel to his quilt slipping off his body as he wakes up from his sleep?
Meursault as Christ?
According to the book's title, the protagonist Meursault is a stranger, but in relation to what exactly? Meursault is a stranger because he did not play the "game"- which is presented as a metaphor for the social rules, and by extension, morality in general, that is imposed on individuals by society at large. The word "game" itself signifies a sort of trickery or entertainment that people participate in to escape from the hard truths of reality.
From the onset until the end of the book, Meursault was consistently portrayed as anti-social. He focused on primarily physical things and his own desires, and with regard to anything that is socially constructed, he seems detached, ignorant or confused about. This can be seen by his stoic reaction to his mother's death, his condoning of Raymond's abuse and the focus on just the sexual aspect of his relationship with Marie.
Another aspect of Meursault that was highlighted is his desire to tell the truth. The fact that Meursault holds to his own truth regarding the death of the Arab even though he knows that he might die by the hands of the judgmental society is testament to his quest for truth. He feels sick and "imprisoned"by the fact that others are trying to impose their standards on him, whether it is his lawyer or the prosecutor. So, similar to how Christ had refused to conform to the Roman society at his time and chose to die for truth, Meursault is also refusing to play the "game," and will die for his own truth as well. Meursault's realization that he gains freedom once he acknowledges and embraces the truth for what it is- he gains self-independence and contentment by breaking free of the illusion of societal and religious constructions.
However, it seems that the implications of Meursault's truth, when applied to each individual, seems to compose a society full of anti-social people that cannot be held accountable to any discourse of right or wrong, and that seems opposite to what Christ had wanted for his followers.
From the onset until the end of the book, Meursault was consistently portrayed as anti-social. He focused on primarily physical things and his own desires, and with regard to anything that is socially constructed, he seems detached, ignorant or confused about. This can be seen by his stoic reaction to his mother's death, his condoning of Raymond's abuse and the focus on just the sexual aspect of his relationship with Marie.
Another aspect of Meursault that was highlighted is his desire to tell the truth. The fact that Meursault holds to his own truth regarding the death of the Arab even though he knows that he might die by the hands of the judgmental society is testament to his quest for truth. He feels sick and "imprisoned"by the fact that others are trying to impose their standards on him, whether it is his lawyer or the prosecutor. So, similar to how Christ had refused to conform to the Roman society at his time and chose to die for truth, Meursault is also refusing to play the "game," and will die for his own truth as well. Meursault's realization that he gains freedom once he acknowledges and embraces the truth for what it is- he gains self-independence and contentment by breaking free of the illusion of societal and religious constructions.
However, it seems that the implications of Meursault's truth, when applied to each individual, seems to compose a society full of anti-social people that cannot be held accountable to any discourse of right or wrong, and that seems opposite to what Christ had wanted for his followers.
Jose's Post
Meursault’s meaninglessness of human life is a long lived sacrifice that opened the doors to the understanding of human existence. Throughout The Stranger, there are various scenes in which Meursault, the protagonist of the story is presented as detached from human existence. For example, at the start of the novel Meursault receives a telegram stating that his mother died. Without any remorse or regret he decides to attend the funeral not because he wanted to say his last goodbye, but because he saw it as another responsibility on his behalf. Yet, this is not the only part in the novel in which Meursault’s amoral character displays a lack of recognition for emotions and existence. After Marie proposes marriage, Meursualt’s feels indifferent to the proposal. His inability to respond in an emotional manner is a representation of his emotional and spiritual death. The only manner by which he regains vitality is by taking away the life of another man. Through the interrogation in the court room Meursault gains sense of his emotions and begins to experience the life that was once lost to rational order.
The Machines
In “The Metamorphosis” we meet Gregor Samsa who is, for as long as we know him, an insect. He takes this major transformation in his life in stride, never troubling himself much with the question of how such a grotesque an event could have happened to him. Although he does show signs of being in denial, even when he accepts the truth of his new existence, he does not express any well-deserved self-pity, other than saying “he himself wasn’t feeling particularly fresh and active” (69).
Albert Camus’ “The Stranger” begins with another life-altering event, at least for most. We begin our time with Meursault on the day he finds out his mother died, but that’s no big deal. It’s not like they had anything to say to each other, and visiting her always “took up [his] Sunday” anyway (5). A little time with Marie and he is fine in no time, although he does feel a bit guilty—but then “you always feel a little guilty” (20).
Both men show a certain apathy that is quite astounding, living both their lives as machines more than humans. They operate in different ways but show definite detachment from the lives they are leading.
Gregor is a machine in the sense that he allows the people around him control to dictate his actions. He works at a job he hates to help his parents, shows such allegiance to this job he loathes that he worries about getting to work more that the fact that he has become a vermin. After his transformation he is completely controlled as he is imprisoned in his room and is visited by his sister, who acts as the prison guard, twice a day.
Meursault gives the extreme case, often voicing such concepts as “my nature was such that my physical needs often got in the way of my feelings” and “nothing, nothing mattered” (65, 121). He takes all things as they come, doing anything if it doesn’t hurt him or will appeal to some physical necessity. For him life is just a series of decisions that don’t matter either way.
These two characters seemed to have been sent as warnings from the authors. The metamorphosis of Gregor and the lack of emotion of Meursault test their communities. The reactions of their communities show that they do not take the chance that is given to them to change. Maybe the author’s hoped that readers would take the hint.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Insanity, Death, and Comparisons
Does anybody else feel like Mersault is clinically insane? Albert Camus’ The Stranger is a fantastic book that explores an apathetic man who feels indifferent toward all the most important things in life. This includes one’s mother, significant others/lovers, murder, impending death, etc. For example, Mersault’s mood at the beginning of the novel is odd because his mother has just passed away, yet he feels almost nothing. Instead of feeling remorse, he worries about his boss’ reaction when he tries to ask for time off work. And when he seems to have found true love, he tells Marie that he doesn’t want to marry her and that he isn’t in love with her. But Mersault’s view on death (which probably somewhat reflected Camus’ views on death) is the most pressing piece of evidence that supports his lunacy.
From what I have gathered, he seems psychotic in two ways of dealing with death. The first way is how he deals with murdering someone. On pages 58 and 59 of the novel, Mersault seems so affected by the sun and the heat of that fateful beach that he almost seems to have been forced to kill the Arab. This comes up again later in the story when he admits that he doesn’t feel any remorse for what he has done. A normal human being would have felt terrible for killing another person, even if that person was wielding a knife. The second way in which Mersault seems crazy is how he reacts to his death sentence. He almost seems glad at times that he is being killed because at least he knows when he is going to die. His cynical view on the inevitability of death leads him to feel to superior to all others who aren’t scheduled to be executed because he doesn’t have to worry about how or when he is going to die. This is sad because Mersault only knows one real truth in the world – that everyone dies. If this is the only truth one knows, that person leads a sad, sad life.
On a quick side note, I want to say that my mom first tried getting me read this book when I was in the 7th grade. I remember hating it after only reading the first five chapters and then tossing it away only to pick up Harry Potter or some other easy read. Now that I’m older (and now consider this book an easy read), I love The Stranger. For some reason, I am constantly relating it to another favorite book of mine, Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye. There is something about Holden’s attitude and Mersault’s attitude that seem to go together. If anyone has thoughts (agreements or disagreements) I would be glad to hear it.
Time Warp
Meursault goes through life relatively passive. Hearing, but not actually listening; living, but not stopping; and moving, but without any real purpose. It is safe to say that the protagonist of The Stranger lets life pass him by for the most part. For Meursault, time moves irregularly choppy. For example, during Maman’s funeral he recalls “After that, everything seemed to happen so fast, so deliberately, so naturally that I don’t remember any of it anymore,” illustrating time moving fast around him. Also, at the beginning of Camus’ work, Meursault spends a whole day watching the blur of people “heading to the movies in town.” Almost in a trance, the span of a whole day occurs in the space of a couple of paragraphs.
Meursault, as well, notices this too as during dinner with his neighbor, Raymond, he remarks “how quickly the time passed, and in a way it was true.” Time is a huge recurring theme in The Stranger with regards to how fast it moves compared to how willing Meursault is to keep up with it.
Meursault makes actions without planning and no thought to time. For example, he assaults the Arab “without even thinking about it.” He goes through the mundane concerns of day-to-day time, without any concern for repercussions. As NBC’s soap opera puts it: Like Sands Through the Hourglass... So Are the Days of Our Lives!
Fate vs Choice
One of the connections in The Stranger is the sun relating to death. Meursault's death is as certain as the sun sets every night, but what he lacks is his belief in choice and hope. He testifies that it is by chance he murdered the Arab.
In Greek Mythology, the Gods give men Pandora as a gift. Pandora opens a jar full of evils, but closes it right before hope escapes. Thus, men have blind hope. Without the gift of foresight, men are blind to their future and must have hope in order to keep their will for survival. In Meursault's case, he thinks of the sun as inhuman and oppressive, and that he's forced to conform to social standards such as crying at his mother's funeral. Meursault did not believe that his actions would make a difference in the world because his fate has already decided- Meursault, just like everyone else, will die. Detached from his mother's death, he believed the best way to handle such a situation is to just accept it as soon as possible and move on with life. He didn't see a point in crying.
Meursault says he would choose to relive the same life with the same state of mind- no hope, no choice. It may seem the Gods are behind men's action since they supposedly control their fates, but the Gods still leave them choices to make. For example, the citizens of Thebes are given the choice to honor the God, Dionysos. If they do not follow him, then Dionysos will cause the city to go into a frenzy. Relating this idea to the novel, Meursault has the choice to kill the Arab. He calims the murder was not premeditated and he had no intent for murder. Instead, it was all because of chance. Just by chance he had the gun, and was standing near the Arab with the sun glaring down upon him. Again, this idea of being oppressed comes into play. He thinks to himself that he could just turn around and leave. At that point, he knew he had a choice, but failed to make the right decision.
In Greek Mythology, the Gods give men Pandora as a gift. Pandora opens a jar full of evils, but closes it right before hope escapes. Thus, men have blind hope. Without the gift of foresight, men are blind to their future and must have hope in order to keep their will for survival. In Meursault's case, he thinks of the sun as inhuman and oppressive, and that he's forced to conform to social standards such as crying at his mother's funeral. Meursault did not believe that his actions would make a difference in the world because his fate has already decided- Meursault, just like everyone else, will die. Detached from his mother's death, he believed the best way to handle such a situation is to just accept it as soon as possible and move on with life. He didn't see a point in crying.
Meursault says he would choose to relive the same life with the same state of mind- no hope, no choice. It may seem the Gods are behind men's action since they supposedly control their fates, but the Gods still leave them choices to make. For example, the citizens of Thebes are given the choice to honor the God, Dionysos. If they do not follow him, then Dionysos will cause the city to go into a frenzy. Relating this idea to the novel, Meursault has the choice to kill the Arab. He calims the murder was not premeditated and he had no intent for murder. Instead, it was all because of chance. Just by chance he had the gun, and was standing near the Arab with the sun glaring down upon him. Again, this idea of being oppressed comes into play. He thinks to himself that he could just turn around and leave. At that point, he knew he had a choice, but failed to make the right decision.
Jesus? Hmm... I Don't Know
There are indeed several similarities between Meursault and Jesus. For example, they both accept the inevitability of death. Meursault discovers this while shouting at the chaplain. Jesus acknowledges he is the chosen one and that he must be the one to sacrifice his life when he goes to pray in the garden at Gethsemane. In addition, they both spend a considerable amount of time hoping that they will not be executed. Meursault contemplates how he could reform the penal code so that there might be a chance of escaping death. Jesus goes to the garden and prays to God. It states in the New Testament in Mark 14:35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. However, in the end, they both accept the fact that they must face death.
Although Albert Camus stated that “Meursault is the only Christ we deserve”, I believe that these two figures are quite different. I think that he said this not for it to literally mean that Meursault is a Christ-like figure but just to propose that Jesus may not be the perfect and forgiving man that people/society makes him out to be.
The deaths of Meursault and Jesus symbolize something drastically different from one another. Jesus died for our sins. God created him to save the human population. According to the Christian faith, by sacrificing himself, Jesus washed away our sins so we may live in heaven with our Creator. Meursault on the other hand, dies because he murders a man and feels no remorse. Meursault’s only explanation for the vicious act is that the sun was hot, which isn’t an explanation at all.
While I was researching about this topic, I came across an interesting site. The blogger talks about issues similar to those we discussed in class. He points out the differences between Meursault and Jesus.
“Christ taught his disciples and had them go and teach others, yet Meursault has no disciples and chooses to say little. Meursault murders while Christ brings a man back from the dead. Most drastically, Christ ”died for our sins” in order to make all those who follow free from original sin. Meursault just dies.”
If you look at the specific characteristics and actions of these two figures, they are completely different. However, I would not go as far to say that Meursault is the anti-Christ (even though he is called that in the actual book) because in the New Testament in Revelations, it states that the role of the anti-Christ is to convey similar qualities as Christ but deny the world salvation. The anti-Christ is supposed to possess characteristics that convince people that he is Jesus and make them want to follow him. Meursault does not do this.
Mersault IS the only Christ we deserve
As an existentialist, it would make sense for Camus to feel this way. Camus described Mersault as a man who refuses to play the game. He doesn’t act how society expects him to act at his mother’s funeral, he doesn’t return Marie’s love, and he doesn’t even bother lying about his feelings while being interrogated. Because he believes that death is all that awaits us, he does not live fearing judgment from a higher being or from society. In a way, he is a better man than all of us because he isn’t lying to himself or conforming to the expectations of others. In general, people strive to be good. As a society we tend to differentiate right and wrong and live our lives around a set of morals. Essentially, we are trying to be Christ-like. Perhaps Camus is trying to say that we are all just living a lie. We don’t actually know what is right or wrong but we’ve been socialized to live and react to situations in a certain way. By conforming, we feel that we have a greater control over the absurd nature of life. This idea of Mersault being the only Christ we deserve reflects the idea that perhaps we should all live and learn from Mersault. It isn’t that we should all forget society’s rules and go murder people for the hell of it, but we should all rethink why we live the way we do. Regardless of whether or not we’re religious, we fear judgment because we judge others. As a result we conform and reject those who don’t. We give our lives meaning by striving to be good people in theory, yet in reality we are all just sinners. His statement is a critique of society's flaws. We do not deserve this supernatural, ‘perfect’ Christ. It is something that man could never live up to because we are so flawed. We are all a bunch of judgmental liars and we only deserve Mersault. (Ironically, or maybe naturally, Camus’ use of the word “deserve” is quite judgmental in and of itself)
side thought: Camus said that Mersault is the only Christ we deserve, but that doesn't mean he is the only Christ we should have. A world full of absurdists would be quite insane.
I feel like I’ve strayed from the text, so here are some Christ/Mersault comparisons:
Mersault, like Christ, does not judge others and instead, befriends those who society casts aside. Mersault knows and accepts that death is a certainty, just as Christ knows that he is placed on Earth to die. Neither feel the need to justify their behavior while on trial. Towards the end, both are hesitant. Mersault starts reflecting and wanting to live again; from what I understand, during his crucifixion, Christ asks God "why have you forsaken me" (although my interpretations may be totally wrong). In a way they both seem to lose hope in what they previously believed, but ultimately embrace their beliefs once again.
side thought: Camus said that Mersault is the only Christ we deserve, but that doesn't mean he is the only Christ we should have. A world full of absurdists would be quite insane.
I feel like I’ve strayed from the text, so here are some Christ/Mersault comparisons:
Mersault, like Christ, does not judge others and instead, befriends those who society casts aside. Mersault knows and accepts that death is a certainty, just as Christ knows that he is placed on Earth to die. Neither feel the need to justify their behavior while on trial. Towards the end, both are hesitant. Mersault starts reflecting and wanting to live again; from what I understand, during his crucifixion, Christ asks God "why have you forsaken me" (although my interpretations may be totally wrong). In a way they both seem to lose hope in what they previously believed, but ultimately embrace their beliefs once again.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Why try, right?
In contrast to Camus's statement that "Mersault is the only Christ we deserve," I found the protagonist in The Stranger to represent a more of an Antichrist character, dealing with the inevitability of death. Mersault's character is incredibly indifferent towards his life. Mersault reflects Camus's existentialist beliefs, which explains much of the lack of hope for anyhting after death and emotional detachment Mersault shows when living. It is his way of dealing with life's adversity and the inevitability of death. Living indifferently saves one from much of the pain one can experience, which is what Camus may be trying to pursue through this story of The Stranger. This perspective that perhaps, "life isn't worth living," and the "when and how don't matter" is very controversial and can be dangerous because it excuses one's actions in life. Mersault reflects the very opposite of Christ, because he has no hope, and Christ is the very symbol for something more after death. Christ came to save hummanity, to give people hope, while Mersault's story does the very opposite in portraying life as meaningless.
Mersault's "insensitivity" and lack of conscience towards his actions in relation to Camus's statement reflects a very satirical comparision between two very different people. When Mersault is convicted of his crime, he feels as if "his fate [is] being decided without... his opinion." This reflects the bigger idea that one's fate cannot be controlled by one's actions on Earth- that whatever happens happens. In believing in the indifference of society is ruling out a greater power, such as that of God. It is saying essentially that there is no God, that nothing one does on Earth matters, because death is one's inevitable fate. In other words, nothing that one does in the world will change what will eventualyl happen. Camus creates Mersault's character to be an example for others to follow to survive the world, and the path he carves is much different than that of Christ's. Camus's statement mocks the character of Christ, which can be reasonable considering the existentialist beliefs of Camus. He is telling readers there is no Christ, no God that will save you. Camus believes death is the end, so why not live as Mersault did. Having hope and being emotional is a waste of energy and irrational considering one's inevitable predicament, as constant as the shining sun, which Camus references to much of the time.
Mersault's "insensitivity" and lack of conscience towards his actions in relation to Camus's statement reflects a very satirical comparision between two very different people. When Mersault is convicted of his crime, he feels as if "his fate [is] being decided without... his opinion." This reflects the bigger idea that one's fate cannot be controlled by one's actions on Earth- that whatever happens happens. In believing in the indifference of society is ruling out a greater power, such as that of God. It is saying essentially that there is no God, that nothing one does on Earth matters, because death is one's inevitable fate. In other words, nothing that one does in the world will change what will eventualyl happen. Camus creates Mersault's character to be an example for others to follow to survive the world, and the path he carves is much different than that of Christ's. Camus's statement mocks the character of Christ, which can be reasonable considering the existentialist beliefs of Camus. He is telling readers there is no Christ, no God that will save you. Camus believes death is the end, so why not live as Mersault did. Having hope and being emotional is a waste of energy and irrational considering one's inevitable predicament, as constant as the shining sun, which Camus references to much of the time.
"Mersault is the only Christ we deserve"
In class, we discussed Camus saying that "Mersault is the only Christ we deserve". Mersault and Jesus Christ are both similar in the fact that they were both aliens in this world. Throughout Mersault's life, he never really connects with anyone. He may have had relationships with Maman, Marie, and Raymond, but they are rather superficial, because he acts rather indifferently towards them. This is seen when he goes to his mother's funeral, but doesn't show any emotion. Also, he has a relationship with Marie, but when she asks him to marry him, he says that he doesn't care if it really happens or not. This alien aspect of Mersault's life is also shown in the courthouse when he sees all the judges and lawyers talking, and he feels like he is an outsider and everyone hates him. Jesus Christ was also an outsider because he was a sinless man in a corrupted world. They both were killed because of their differences. Mersault was killed not because he killed the Arab, but because of his indifference towards his mother's death. This alienated him from the rest of the population, and this is why I think the jury decided to pronounce him guilty. Jesus Christ was crucified because the Romans didn't like that he was declaring himself to be the Messiah, because by saying this, he was separating himself from humankind.
It is also important to note that like Mersault, Albert Camus didn't believe in the afterlife. This kind of indifference to death is showcased by Mersault, when he comes to peace with himself once he realizes that there is no difference if he dies now by guillotine, or by old age 20 years later. On the other hand, Jesus Christ teaches us that there is a life after this one, a much better one. He teaches us that this life is just a prelude to the next. Once we accept this, we are saved. When Camus says that "Mersault is the only Christ we deserve", he is saying that as humans, we don't deserve an afterlife. The only thing we deserve is to realize that there is no afterlife, and this is supposed to give us "peace", because it doesn't matter when or how we die. Once we realize this, we are "saved". He parallels this kind of "salvation", this indifference of death, with the idea of the afterlife that Jesus Christ teaches.
The Sun...The Setting Sun
In my reading of Albert Camus' The Stranger, I observed the sun to be a symbol of the inevitability of death. The sun was described repeatedly as a problem. After all, Mersault blames the sun for why he shot the Arab. He recalls that right before he kills the Arab "The scorching blade slashed at my eyelashes and stabbed at my stinging eyes. That's when everything began to reel...My whole being tensed and I squeezed my hand around the revolver. The trigger gave..." (p. 79) Also, the sun was present at his mother’s funeral. “All around me there was still the same glowing countryside flooded with sunlight. The glare from the sky was unbearable.” (p. 16) But these events have been discussed at length in discussion.
I found it extremely interesting to extend upon this idea and note that Mersault was to die at sunrise. He dreaded the sun setting every day as it brought him little hope of living to see the light again. Just as the sun sets every day, everyone must die. Accepting this as fact, allows for a peaceful flow of the cycle. Whether the characters in the book believe it or not, at some point they all must die. Once Mersault accepts this, he is able to face his death calmly. On the final pages of the novel, Mersault says that “Then, in the dark hour before dawn…for the first time in a long time [he] thought about Maman…Evening was a kind of wistful respite. So close to death, Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again.” He understands that life is a cycle at this point and therefore is able to face his execution day calmly.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Rage Against the Machine
“He seemed so certain about everything, didn’t he?”
This is Meursault’s criticism of the world in which he lives. Society leaves no room for difference; it won’t support someone who doesn’t contribute in the way it sees fit. In my reading of Camus’ The Stranger, society is mechanical in its conception of acceptable behavior, certain of what is right and what is wrong. Moreover, society’s practices—both religious and secular—are so ritualized that they have become sacred. For this reason, Meursault’s departure from social norms not only alienates him, but also deems him the antichrist.
The predictability and certainty of Meursault’s society rely on the individual’s adherence to its norms, with the sacred components of this society’s smooth operation being human emotion and religious belief. Rejection of these pieces leads to an inevitable demise of society as we know it. Muersault doesn’t fit with this social model; he does not pretend to know what others are sure of. Because of his own uncertainty about the importance of expression and emotion, he becomes an antichrist—a nemesis of the sanctity of society. He declines society’s religion, saying that he doesn’t like Sundays, a holy day of rest, and rejecting the chaplain’s idea of an afterlife. During the trial, there is “a lot said about [him], maybe more about [him] than about [his] crime,” highlighting the disgust society feels toward his general lack of emotion. Because of his indifference, the judge even labels him “Monsieur Antichrist.” Meursaut’s rejection of social values are so sickening that he “threaten[s] to swallow up society” if he is not done away with. In society’s eyes, his differences do not make him a unique little snowflake; they instead make him a potential murderer of social values.
In my reading, I see the guillotine as representative of society. Like the guillotine that ultimately executes Meursault, society is mechanical in its practices, certain and unrelenting. Social norms are so influential that they can easily overpower anything that gets in the way of the execution of these social practices. In fact, it is imperative that society get rid of any non-likeminded citizens, just as the guillotine “destroyed everything” in its blade’s path. Meursault is amazed at how the machine “was so simple,” just as he is similarly amazed at the simplemindedness of the chaplain who refuses to believe Meursault’s atheism and secularity. The mechanistic nature of society is also seen during the trial, with the presence of a “robot woman” and the fact that “everything was happening without his participation.” Meurasult is not a part of this holy machine; he is in fact a potentially destructive outsider.
Meursault steps outside of sacred social norms with his indifference to emtion and religion, thus threatening to dismantle the machine that is society. He might halt it, alter its pace, and threaten its viability. Meursault—an antichrist figure—must therefore be severed from society, just as the guillotine severs his head.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Absence of Duty
When Gregor transforms into his insect form, he is able to accept it and adjusts his mindset accordingly, His family is unable to adjust to the new set of circumstances and instead abuses him and attack his vulnerabilities. Although he gave up his own needs throughout his life so that he could work more and provide for his family, his love for them is not reciprocated when he needs help. It is interesting that although Gregor is stuck in insect form, he is still capable of experiencing human emotions. Ironically, it seems as though the emotions of his family members are strictly hostile and hardened.
Quite differently, Mersault goes on throughout his life pretty much indifferent to the world around him. While Gregor is portrayed as a selfless character, Mersault is more of a selfish character who focuses on his own needs and rarely reflects on the needs of others. However, quite similiarly, Mersault is put in the clutch of society's reigns. At Mersault's trial, even though he killed an Arab, there are so many deflections attacking his character. It seems like the whole trial centers around 'what type of person he msut be if...' so the type of person that he is is put on trial moreso than the actual crime that he did commit. In a way, the judge isn't doing his job- he's judging his character instead of solely his actions. Likewise, Gregor's family, who should be there to accept and provide for him in time of need, is also not doing their job. Both of these characters roles display how easy it is to forgot throughout their stories what is really the root of the problem. For instance, who is anyone to judge Mersault's mindset? Both of these are so similar to Michael Kohlhaas in a sense that the results of the characters seem to be entwined in a large array of factors that are well beyond their control as beings on earth.
Quite differently, Mersault goes on throughout his life pretty much indifferent to the world around him. While Gregor is portrayed as a selfless character, Mersault is more of a selfish character who focuses on his own needs and rarely reflects on the needs of others. However, quite similiarly, Mersault is put in the clutch of society's reigns. At Mersault's trial, even though he killed an Arab, there are so many deflections attacking his character. It seems like the whole trial centers around 'what type of person he msut be if...' so the type of person that he is is put on trial moreso than the actual crime that he did commit. In a way, the judge isn't doing his job- he's judging his character instead of solely his actions. Likewise, Gregor's family, who should be there to accept and provide for him in time of need, is also not doing their job. Both of these characters roles display how easy it is to forgot throughout their stories what is really the root of the problem. For instance, who is anyone to judge Mersault's mindset? Both of these are so similar to Michael Kohlhaas in a sense that the results of the characters seem to be entwined in a large array of factors that are well beyond their control as beings on earth.
Loneliness
“The Metamorphosis” is partly a story about a man crying for attention. Gregor has given up his own dreams to provide for his family, but no one seems to care. He “bears the expenses of the entire family,” and then some, yet his parents and his sister act unimpressed. Meanwhile, no one attempts to contribute, even though as we see later all three family members are highly capable and obtain successful careers; His father goes from “exhausted and buried in bed…in a sleeping gown,” “incapable of standing up” to a proud man in a smart suit.
Gregor certainly desires personal attention, to be repaid, in sorts, for his dedication to the family. This longing is presented clearest at the end of his life, when his sister plays violin to the three lodgers. Gregor fantasizes of a life where his sister would stay in his room for “as long as he lived:” The two would “confide” in each other, he would make her dreams come true by sending her to the conservatory (although how she can stay with him forever and also attend the conservatory is unclear), they would comfort each other. Gregor’s realization that this fantasy is “the way to the unknown nourishment he craved” substantiates this claim since he finally realizes that what he really hungers for is companionship. His hunger throughout the story symbolizes this; while he never has a shortage of food, he gradually becomes hungrier as his sister first stops cleaning his room and rearranging his furniture, then stops entering it altogether.
Of course, instead of being nurtured he is physically abused on multiple occasions by his father, and repulsed by his mother and gradually unnoticed by his sister. However, because Gregor retains human consciousness, as well as emotions, the reader doesn’t necessarily see him as a bug. What is therefore particularly haunting about this short story is not just that Gregor is trapped inside an alien body, but that he – and the reader – is painfully aware of this dreadful mistreatment. This awareness serves to exacerbate his feelings of loneliness throughout the story.
Gregor certainly desires personal attention, to be repaid, in sorts, for his dedication to the family. This longing is presented clearest at the end of his life, when his sister plays violin to the three lodgers. Gregor fantasizes of a life where his sister would stay in his room for “as long as he lived:” The two would “confide” in each other, he would make her dreams come true by sending her to the conservatory (although how she can stay with him forever and also attend the conservatory is unclear), they would comfort each other. Gregor’s realization that this fantasy is “the way to the unknown nourishment he craved” substantiates this claim since he finally realizes that what he really hungers for is companionship. His hunger throughout the story symbolizes this; while he never has a shortage of food, he gradually becomes hungrier as his sister first stops cleaning his room and rearranging his furniture, then stops entering it altogether.
Of course, instead of being nurtured he is physically abused on multiple occasions by his father, and repulsed by his mother and gradually unnoticed by his sister. However, because Gregor retains human consciousness, as well as emotions, the reader doesn’t necessarily see him as a bug. What is therefore particularly haunting about this short story is not just that Gregor is trapped inside an alien body, but that he – and the reader – is painfully aware of this dreadful mistreatment. This awareness serves to exacerbate his feelings of loneliness throughout the story.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Martyr or Sacrifice
I think while comparing characters in stories to Christ like figures it is important to discuss whether the character was a martyr or a sacrifice. The connotation behind a martyr is a person that GAVE their life to further a cause or protect some divine integrity. A sacrifice gives the strong connotation that the soon to be deceased has had their fate chosen for them such as the slaughter of an animal to appease gods.
A very important distinction between Gregor and a "true Christ" figure is that Gregor is a sacrifice not a martyr. While in his vermin-like state he forces those around him to come out of their static lives and start to live with actual meaning, he has not chosen to give up his humanity to bestow this backhanded gift on his family. This is very clearly a condition inflicted on Gregor that he had no control over. In this sense it gives a modern existential twist to an old religious dogma. Where in antiquity a divine plan was laid out and brought to fruition to give our lives meaning, in Kafka's revised version a terrible happening causes the people around to force meaning on their own selves. There is no sense of plan in Gregor that would cause the reader to believe that his transformation was done to save those around him.
When Gregor dies it is not some grand martyrdom but a simple excepting of what has already happened to him. The family takes this sacrifice take their new lives and recede into a more appropriate way o living. I believe that Gregor is a Crhist figure but one without divine guidence or self direction. Through Gregor the vision of the savior goes from being a lofty divine savior to the brother in the next room with the unpredictable disease of nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)