Tragedy Journals

Journal #1: Oedipus

Creative Poem: Found at http://quizilla.teennick.com/poems/8165538/the-tragedy-of-oedipus-rex written by “CallUsOldSouls”. Describes a summary of Oedipus’ life (including a small prologue and epilogue). It clearly outlines the most progressive conflicts and dynamic plot (although I feel that it skipped key sections that contributed to the actual thematic importance that Sophocles was trying to portray. Additionally, I feel that had the rhyme scheme been continued in constantly changing couplets so that the significance of the poem could have been enhanced by showing the dynamic change of the characters/plot to be reversed half way through to show the circular logic and nature of Oedipus’ story in that it ends with the beginning. Regardless, here you go)

Here is the story of Oedipus Rex

For no one can detest

Fate had a plan for him

Which he could not escape.

Put on mount Kitharion

Left there to die

Saved by a Shepard

To finish his fate.

He finally solved the riddle

Of the Great & Mighty Sphinx

He then became king

Of the city of Thebes.

Married his mother

Bore his brothers

Teiresias came with wisdom

And all was lost forever.

A dagger & a noose

Artifacts of their tragic end

The dagger in his eyes

The noose around her neck.

A blessing and a curse

The mountain came to be

A lonely Oedipus

And Creon the new king.

Journal #2: Oedipus

Comparison: Personal convictions and shared beliefs

It seems that Sophocles was able to notice a similar pattern in ancient Greek culture from the problems that we face today. In particular, was humans’ attempt to reconcile contradictions about power, authority, and responsibility with personal life. The most apparent observation that Sophocles makes is that no matter how high a social or political position one may hold in society, everyone is subject to the same downfalls of mortal man. This could either be a simple observation or even a criticism of Greek leaders at the time who thought themselves superior to others. By showing Oedipus’ fall from grace, Sophocles demonstrates that those with the most power are subject to the greatest shame. However, it is interesting to note that the focus on Oedipus also focuses on how he effectively destroys himself in his ardent search for the truth. This poses the entire possibility for a morally righteous failure. In other words, despite his morally unforgivable actions, he is still thought of somewhat positively (Sophocles does this when Creon pardons Oedipus instead of condemning him to death). As a result, we are left to interpret that even with any mistakes or atrocities we as humans commit, if we choose to continue to live morally (or have attempted to act morally even with an immoral end) is still somewhat justifiable and mitigates the negativity of the sentence. However, there is one more blatant criticism Sophocles makes that would have been relevant in a Greece beginning to transition from polytheism to a Christian religion and is even more relevant in today’s society: The questionable effect of a higher power. The will of the Gods become embodied through the oracles/prophecies that the characters received. Therefore we are faced with the sad irony that the entire situation would never have been created had King Laius originally dismissed the so-called inevitable prophecy. While it cannot be concluded that there would be no circumstance for the prophecy to come true otherwise, the reader is led to conclude that the only way to have a chance at escaping the cycle that Oedipus faced was for all of the characters to no longer heed prophecy. Had King Laius dismissed it, Oedipus would have stayed with his parents and not have motive or ignorance necessary for murder or the wedding of his mother. Had Oedipus dismissed Creon’s prophecy, he never would have had to discover the truth about himself which lead to his destruction. This evidence (though circumstantial) all indicates a criticism of the Gods, their motives, and/or their existence.

Journal #3: Oedipus

Literary Topics: Narrative Structure

The plot is not separated into separate acts like many of the modern western literary plays. This seems to contribute to a feeling of continuity. Additionally, the play itself is meant to be performed as a known trilogy which implies that this story simply becomes a subplot for the entirety of Oedipus’ story. While the plot itself is linear, the cause-effect nature of the plot makes constant references to past deed. This in and of itself plays an interesting thematic role (see Journal #2) in that had inaction been embraced, the entirety of the story would not have developed. It is also interesting to note how the play ends. There is an exceptionally long dénouement as following the climactic realization of what Oedipus has done, the story goes on for many pages describing his shame, his children, and an emphasis on Creon’s newfound authority before Oedipus is finally exiled and the story ends. While for the “thrill” of the play it is a bit dreary, literarily it appears quite significant. Of particular interest are Oedipus’ multiple monologues which are very clearly divided into different sections attributing a different focus. These include sight, guilt, marriage, punishment, pre-emptive death, and children. In regards to the story itself this seems ineffective. However, literarily it is quite effective in conveying thematic importance as it allows Oedipus to provide his own reflection and commentary on his actions. As a result, the reader can clearly analyze the moral quandaries presented in the text. The time period is in the old ages of ancient Greece. This is significant in a number of ways. Firstly, the story was simply a retelling of a folk story that the audience would already know which would deemphasize the plot and instead focus on how the plot was told. Secondly, the use of religion at the time believed in the effects of things like prophecy (key to the movement of the plot) which is distinct from the time period it was performed as the culture was beginning to shift away from such absolutist views of deities. Additionally, the political structure of a monarchy was critical in portraying one (Oedipus) as being in a fake position of being “all powerful”. Finally, there remain a few unanswered questions: What were Creon’s opinions/motives (not particularly relevant thematically), why the Gods gave King Laius the prophecy knowing that it would be self-fulfilling (which poses another interesting question about the motive of Gods), and what the significance of blindness is.

Journal #4: Wild Duck (+ Oedipus)

Comparison: Plot > Style

I would largely agree with the statement that plot should be valued more highly than style. In addition to being the only things of actual interest in the work, it is far more unique than any form of style could be. Although, I would like to define plot as the actual content of the play, distinct from style which would include any kind of punctuation, specific diction, grammar, poetry, etc. That being said, plot is what allows the novel itself to move forwards, particularly in plays. In Wild Duck, there are lots of very specific stage directions which lends towards an emphasis on style. However, when considering the play being performed to a live audience, backgrounds affect little more than moods whereas the audience is effectively hanging off of every last word/action from the characters. We can therefore conclude that this degree of emphasis has a significant effect on the interpreter which lends plot more weight than style. Plot (and dialogue/monologues) therefore become the most efficient and effective way of conveying messages of thematic import. In Oedipus we see such a development. The most blatant themes revolve around Oedipus’ blindness, gods, family, judgment which are most apparent through what the characters say. Specifically, the story of Oedipus had been largely known to Greeks. Simply changing diction or rhythm would have had very little effect. Instead, Sophocles chose to emphasis unique points of the plot to embed some themes. This proves that plot is truly at the center of play literature. Ultimately, there is very little to analyze in terms of style. Stage directions, number of characters sound devices and sentence structure are about all that are left for playwrights to use for stylistic changes. Even these are mitigated as they become deemphasized on-stage. Additionally, since there are so few differences to be considered style, it can be misrepresented and misinterpreted. With such low thresholds for analysis, similar styles probably often appear, even if representing radically different things. On the same note, the implication of style is severely reduced as such limited variation allows for nearly limitless interpretations. Such a range of interpretations bounds the style less to being literarily/thematically important and rather lends it to being an over-analyzed tool for the authors of high school/college essays.

Journal #5: Wild Duck

Literary Topic: Setting

Geographically speaking, the reader/audience is lead to assume that the story/play takes place in Norway. There are a few indicators for this conclusion. Firstly, the characters’ names indicate Scandinavian origin (such as Hjalmar, Ekdal, and Werle). Secondly, the climate and surroundings (the cold climate as well as the forests [hence the logging industry jobs])  do appear in Norway. Finally, the other three plays in Ibsen’s trilogy also take place in Norway to be originally performed in front of a Norwegian audience, originally written in Norwegian. Therefore, it seems fairly safe to conclude that it takes place in Norway. In regards to timeframe, it appears that it takes place in a similar setting to be found when the play was written in 1884. All of the props for stage directions (lamps, for example) indicate both a level of industrial development as well as simplicity which implies such a time period. However, ultimately the timeframe seems rather irrelevant to the overall context of the play. The 1800s remain a point of interest in Norwegian culture. At the time (as represented by large emigration to the United States) life was hard on average Norwegians. In regards to occupation, most were either land owners (Like Old Mr. Werle) or a class of land workers (called huntsmen or cotters). This being the commonality makes Hjalmar’s profession of a photographer even more odd as having a unique skill at the time would have already separated him from society (may possibly contribute to a societal pressure theme). Also was the fairly recent introduction of democracy which appeared with the formation of Norway’s constitutional government in 1814. This is significant as when the democracy was formed, the smaller land owners vied for political power to offset the domination by foreign or wealthy powers as had long been the case in Norway (any form of nobility was abolished in 1821 [according to Tim Lambert http://www.localhistories.org/norway.html). Since the transition from strict class distinctions, Norway has been very conscious about being overly divisive and any forms of elitism are likely to face opposition. This context helps the reader understand any general animosity towards the Werle family, in particular Old Mr. Werle. More political turmoil grew as Norwegians began to resent being controlled by Sweden and Nationalism grew. Eventually, the entire government was impeached and convicted in 1884 which grew into a parliamentary democracy [Lambert]. Due to the heavy Westernization of Norway at the time as well as following Ibsen’s visit to New York, it is possible that this political turmoil could be reflected within Wild Duck.

Journal #6: Wild Duck/Oedipus

Literary Techniques: Links/Thematic ideas

1)      The idea of being worse than the worst. In Oedipus his blindness becomes a fate worse than death. He describes death as being too good for what he has done. In Wild Duck it isn’t so much about death but generic sickness. “I am worse than sick, most people are sick”. This idea of being irreconcilably punished seems to be a commonality.

2)      Obviously, sight is a similarity as both Hedvig and Oedipus end up being blind.

3)      The morality of truth seems to be an interesting concept. In both cases, one person is determined to pursue the truth (Gregers and Oedipus). In the end, when the truth is revealed the consequence is death and other means of suffering. Thus we are left to question, if it only causes damage, is the truth really the moral option? Is concealing the truth sometimes morally justifiable. In both cases, there was no benefit when the truth came out (although, it could be argued that the plague could have stopped as per the prophecy when Oedipus was banished). Regardless, the idea of an immoral truth could be interesting.

4)      Another interesting focus is one of public pressure which may or may not include all the topics regarding public vs. private life etc. Oedipus has the chorus which is a key method in which an unidentified public is used to represent views, opinions, and pressures on the public figure of Oedipus. It may be amusing to investigate the level of influence/significant of what the chorus says. This would include an observation of what is said ‘outside’ the palace compared to inside the palace. In Wild Duck there is far less clarity and distinction between a public vs. private entity but perhaps the concept of judgment of others could be significant.

5)      Finally, on the note of public vs. private we may also consider the effect of social class in affecting personal relationships or actions. The distinction is clear in Oedipus as the monarch compared to his subjects. In Wild Duck wealth may be what makes the characters distinct. The friction between the Werle and Ekdal family is obviously apparent.

Journal #7: Blood Wedding, Wild Duck and Oedipus

Comparison: Visual action as important as speech

As I noted in Journal #4, my general belief of stage directions on the play have very little stylistic interpretation. However, I would like to limit that statement in terms of analyzing plays the same way we would analyze a book for things like color, motifs in the backgrounds etc. Subsequently, I (perhaps contrarily) maintain that plays must still be interpreted from an audience’s perspective as that was the medium through which the play was designed to be interpreted. For example, in both Oedipus and Blood Wedding, the stage directions are very limited which re-emphasizes the importance of the plot. That is not to say that the plot is distinct from the appearance to the audience as they are intrinsically linked. I feel that there is a clear line of separation to be drawn when considering ‘stage directions’. The realm of inconsideration should be whenever the reader begins to interpret the specifics of the directions such as embedded symbols, specific diction, and other such meanings which could/would amplify the conclusion that they are trying to draw. However, if there is a difference to the way something could be interpreted from reading versus watching on-stage, the live version should be preferred. The way this interpretation of interpreting the text/performance is ultimately to act only in a limiting capacity. In other words, we cannot draw any new conclusions from stage directions, only eliminate possible theories based on discrepancies between visual text and performance. That being said, when plays such as Wild Duck provide very explicit and detailed stage direction the reader should be able to use those to help inform their interpretation of the PLOT. For example, to determine who can see whom, the way a line was phrased to interpret the character’s emotion, etc. are legitimate areas of interpretation. In contrast, Wild Duck allows far more investigation into characters’ emotions as a result of the stage directions as such a feeling would be tangibly felt by any viewing audience. However to say things like, “the fact that the lamps were shaded green contributes to so-and-so theme/motif/symbol” is excessive interpretation. While the attention to detail may be significant, there are alternative possible reasons for their inclusion. It may simply help develop the mood of the audience or (I concede) it may even have some type of thematic importance. However this should be considered irrelevant as any (sane [not including insane and overly-interpretive English teachers/professors/zealous students]) viewer would not interpret such minute details in background and/or setting in their thematic interpretation of a play and as the audience was the intended focus, that lost effect should not be considered for literary analysis. Essentially, anything that would not make a conscious thought if only seen and not read should not be considered. This brightline is best as it allows for a reasonable interpretation without allowing people to simply make up wildly inaccurate conclusions and then considered a genius for being able to string together random theories to a different conclusion from anyone else (as any other interpretation would naturally be similarly different. An oxymoronic statement if I ever heard one).

Dystopian Journals

(Discusses time in class - printed version)

Topic A-1: “According to the descriptions that have come down to us, something similar was experienced by the ancients during their “religious services.” But they worshiped their own irrational, unknown God; we serve our rational and precisely known one. Their God gave them nothing except eternal, tormenting searching; their God had not been able to think of anything more sensible than offering himself as sacrifice for some incomprehensible reason. We, on the other hand, offer a sacrifice to our God, the One State – a calm, reasoned, sensible sacrifice. Yes, this was our solemn liturgy to the One State, a remembrance of the awesome time of trial, of the Two Hundred Years’ War, a grandiose celebration of the victory of all over one, of the sum over the individual.” (46-47)

This passage precedes the culmination of the 1^st third of We when the society sacrifices a “sacrilegious” poet to the Benefactor. D-503 (still primarily embracing the One State thinking) is showing the beneficial consistency of the new society as compared to the “ancient” (or current) society. The passage outlines 2 key elements of the society that Zamyatin created. First, the focus on religion outlines first that the One State both rejects traditional religious beliefs and replaces itself as the object. The rationale behind this thinking is that previous Gods could not be proven and as a result must be immediately disqualified from rational thinking. In one sense, that suffering is caused by beliefs and desires for things that do not exist. The second focus is on the valuation of individuality as unimportant compared to the collective We. This criticism of our society is that an emphasis on humans collectively tolerate endless suffering to individuals as no being or set of beings could ever be considered ‘important’ when weighed against the whole. Thus, it remains a criticism and subsequent advocacy for means-based morality that values individuals in order to actually gain equality.

 

Topic B-2: D-503’s conflict against the One State mentality is an interesting phenomenon as it is primarily an internal conflict. It manifests itself as he intellectually tries to cognitively follow the regime while his human nature (or soul) backlashes against the lack of freedom. This exposes both the physical losses from oppression (as we see it) such as freedom, privacy, etc. as well as the psychological impact of such a dichotomy on one’s psyche. The situation ends up causing emotional pain and confusion to D-503 as he is torn between his intellectual preference and his gut reactions that begin to starkly contrast with his world view. The resistance that we see is ultimately unsuccessful as he is unable to truly rid himself of One State thinking individually and the excision operation externally leaves the State in control. The penultimate example of this resistance was his attempt to commandeer/crash the Integral which resulted from the combination of small, logical leaps. He spent this section mostly developing as a character in the sense that his meetings with I-330 (and dreams) show his transition to becoming a more emotionally ruled individual. The impact is that as resistance is futile, that all of the members of the society are condemned (or allowed) to live in the regimented lifestyle that the One State provides. Conversely, if/as people begin to realize that they could be more happy with more freedoms individually, the struggle and resistance that results in serving to cause more unhappiness (actually proving what the One State says). In the sense that ignorance is at least bliss, these realizations only cause an actual discontent.

Topic C-3: To me, there are two key elements of society that Zamyatin criticizes. The first is an emphasis on mathematically focused and regimented existence. This does not seem particularly believable simply due to the age of the book; philosophers have largely rejected mathematic moral calculations and while society is somewhat regimented, it is not so to an extreme as Zamyatin portrays it (perhaps due to the collapse of the major communist powers after the Cold War). The alternative was to embrace nature and our passionate emotions as a positive influence rather than demonizing it behind a mask of logic. The second and personally, more believable social construct is the fear of being entrenched in society to the point of being unable to see society’s flaws. In the book, this takes the form of D-503 being unable to challenge the One State mindset until he begins to view the society from a point of view of someone who has not grown up with society as it exists. This seems to have been revealed in real life to Zamyatin at the time both from the ideologues within the Bolshevik uprisings, but also to the European imperialistic colonial to the west. Rather than painting one as inherently better than the other, Zamyatin criticizes the simple existence of a society where people cannot make the distinction between ‘culture’ and fact. The alternative Zamyatin gives is to consider society through a lens not accustomed to the world as it is (much like D-503’s journal) and/or to listen to those who may not say things conventionally assumed to be true (like the I-330’s of the world). The idea of being oblivious to problems is an everlasting issue and still maintains its relevance in society today.

Stranger Journal #8

Not gonna lie, my first impression of the book led me to believe that Camus was basically insane. However, when I remembered that this was the same Camus from my philosophy books, it shed a whole new light on the book for the second reading. I thoroughly enjoy the book as I begin to understand his thought process and piece together Camus' intent. I love his ability to use the book as a philosophical allegory to tie together all 6 elements of Existentialism. In the course of a fictional work, he is able to soundly reject Angst, Existential inauthenticity, while simultaneously embracing the Look, the Existential Other, and Absurdity. I have seen books that have valued philosophies against each other, but this is the first I've seen to truly internalize the philosophy and critically analyze it. Camus was able to make every piece relevant to every other piece in the book (which sucks for I.B. Juniors trying to analyze it, but makes it a great piece of literature). Just as important is his incorporation of moral philosophy which is usually excluded in works focused on personal philosophies. His use of Deontology to support this semi-Existentialist outlook was quite beautiful. I regret that as a class we were unable to truly analyze the philosophies inside the book. For example, I feel like most of us actually believe that Camus is an Existentialist or and "Absurdist" (lol). In terms of minor characters, I enjoyed his use of people like Raymond or even smaller characters like the Robot lady to personify these intellectual ideas, although I think he started to stretch his point about Ontological reasoning when he got to Salamono. It just seemed like such a large area that either he didn't receive enough attention or Camus should have made that the focus of a completely separate work. I am beginning to understand why this effectively revolutionized the philosophical world of the time. While I personally don't agree with it, his defense is both admirable and solid. One final complaint I have about Camus' method was that he never gave Meursault an independent rationale for existence post recognition of the Absurd (which serves to open up a whole for all traditional Existentialists and philosophers). Other than that, I think that he did a great job.

Thesis: In Albert Camus' "The Stranger", the motifs of light, sleep and water exposes the futility of attempting to moralize life, where light represents the illumination of the world's amorality, sleep reflects Meursault's desire to ignore the ugly truth about life that the light exposes, and water symbolizes Meursault's recognition and embrace of  life's meaninglessness. Ultimately, the only way to appreciate life is to recognize and embrace or ignore life's lack of inherent meaning.

Backup Thesis: Albert Camus uses the judiciary and discrimination to expose the futility of attempting to moralize life. Ultimately, relativity of morals makes it impossible to apply external justice.

Stranger Journal #7

Topic: Analysis of how the motifs of the sun/night, sleep, and water interact. The sun signifies the illumination of meaning or life purpose (duh) which shows a few things. #1. That trying to find meaning causes Meursault pain (except for when with Marie where he 'feels' like everything is ok. Alone, he realizes the truth). #2. This is followed by sleep as he tries to escape these realizations by drifting out of consciousness. #3. Night (or even shade) represents a blissful uncaringness to the lack of meaning (is light is the illumination of meaning, dark much be the opposite). #4. The water is the conscious recognition and acceptance of the lack of inherent meaning (it cools the pain of the heat). The combination of sun and water (like at the beach) shows his freedom to accept this seemingly contradicting theory. (If room, explore how food brings back physical elements and distractions to the apparent lack of meaning)

My backup plan will focus on suffering exposed through loss or simply lack of inherent meaning to life (if not too generic/cliche)

Attempted fail at a thesis:
In Albert Camus' The Stranger, the motifs of light, sleep, and water exposes the futility of attempting to moralize life. The only ways to appreciate life are to embrace or ignore life's lack of inherent meaning and still find pleasure. (is that add-on too vague and unclear? Perhaps not putting it in may be best)

(Sun and sleep based evidence for Part 1. This does not include all water or night evidence)

#1. "[...] and the glare of the sky and the road, that I dozed off." (4)

#2. "The room was filled with beautiful late-afternoon sun. [...] I could feel myself getting sleepy" (7)

#3. Night had fallen suddenly. Darkness had gathered, quickly, above the sky light. The caretaker turned the switch and I was blinded by the sudden flash of light." (8)

#4. "The glare on the white walls was making me drowsy" (9)

#5. "Then I dozed off again. I woke up because my back was hurting more and more. Dawn was creeping up over the skylight." (11)

#6. "as if that night during which we hadn't exchanged as much as a single word had somehow brought us closer together" (12)

#7. "I could feel how much I'd enjoy going for a walk if it hadn't been for Maman. [...] I breathed the smell of fresh earth and I wasn't sleepy anymore." (12)

#8. "The sun was now a little higher in the sky: it was starting to warm my feet." (12)

#9. "Evenings in that part of the country must have been a kind of sad relief. But today, with the sun bearing down, making the whole landscape shimmer with heat, it was inhuman and oppressive." (15)

#10. "I was surprised at how fast the sun was climbing in the sky." (16)

#11. "All around me there was still the same glowing countryside flooded with sunlight. The glare from the sky was unbearable." (16)

#12. "When the sun got too hot, she dove off and I followed." (20)

#13. "Soon after that, the sky grew dark and I thought we were in for a summer storm." (22)

#14. "Then the street lamps came on all of a sudden and made the first stars appearing in the night sky grow dim. I felt my eyes getting tired from watching the street filled with so many people and lights." (24)

#15. "I felt sleepy [...] he'd hear about Maman's death but that it was one of those things that was bound to happen sooner or later." (33)

#16. "The four o'clock sun wasn't too hot, but the water was warm, with slow, gently lapping waves." (34)

#17. I'd left my window open, and the summer night air flowing over our brown bodies felt good." (35)

#18. "He was getting on my nerves a little, but I didn't have anything to do and I didn't feel sleepy." (44)

#19. "I was so tired and also because we hadn't opened the blinds, the day, already bright with sun, hit me like a slap in the face. Marie was jumping with joy and kept on saying what a beautiful day it was. I felt a little better [...]" (47)

#20. "I was absorbed by the feeling that the sun was doing me a lot of good." (50)

#21. "She lay down right next to me and the combined warmth from her body and from the sun made me doze off." (51)

#22. "We saw Masson making his way back to the beach to stretch out in the sun." (51)

#23. "'My wife always takes a nap after lunch. Me, I don't like naps. I need to walk." (52)

#24. "The sun was shining almost directly overhead onto the sand, and the glare on the water was unbearable." (52)

#25. "I wasn't thinking about anything, because I was half asleep from the sun beating down on my bare head." (53)

#26. "When they thought they were far enough away, they took off running as fast as they could while we stood there motionless in the sun." (54)

#27. "By now the sun was overpowering. It shattered into little pieces on the sand and water." (55)

#28. "The whole time there was nothing but the sun and the silence, with the low gurgling from the spring and the three notes." (55)

#29. "The sun glinted off Raymond's gun as he handed it to me. [...] We stared at each other without blinking, and everything came to a stop there between the sea, the sand, and the sun, and the double silence of the flute and the water." (56)

#30. "The sound of the waves was even lazier, more drawn out than at noon. It was the same sun, the same light still shining on the same sand as before." (58)

#31. "I knew that it was stupid, that I wouldn't get the sun off me by stepping forward." (59)

#32. "The sun was starting to burn my cheeks, and I could feel drops of sweat gathering in my eyebrows." (58)

Stranger Journal #6

1) Does the sun have a symbolic value? If so, what? (Possibility for illumination of meaning?)

2) To what extent does Meursault "value" (or appreciate) things (all things, not just physical) while he is in jail?

3) Why does Meursault sometimes comply with what other people want (esp. to hear) and sometimes feel the need to make his point clear? Is there a particular pattern or formula to these differences?

4) What do you think Camus' view on women is? Is that portrayed in the book in any way?

5) In the book, Camus (mostly through Meursault) goes through an analysis of all the elements of Existentialism except Angst. Why do you think this is the case OR is there a place that this is reviewed that I can't identify? If so, where?

6) How does Camus reconcile the contradiction he makes on the meaning of life? Very much like a Deontologist, he seems to portray a situation where life can have no inherent meaning before turning around and providing his own interpretation of a meaning to life (I.e. physical relief)


Other Posts:

Anthony N.
1) The conclusion that I am begining to come to is that the real focus is on the light that the sun provides and how it illuminates the things he either does or does not want to be seen (esp in regard to meaning). Note that it does not bother him when he thinks he is enjoying something and that at other times it makes him tired (the pressure shown through heat)

2) To some extent I agree with Mrs. Wecker in that Meursault is not simply an irrational human being, although I do not go so far as to say that he is by any means 'normal'. In fact, I think he does a very good job in mirroring Camus in the sense of a similarly rational person who simply has a different perspective than everyone else. To us that appear irrational, from a literary standpoint, it's genius.

3) I think the answer lies in the middle. Even Camus pointed out that he was neither and Absurdist nor an Existentialist. He creates a netherworld where he critically analyzes all the different aspects of Existential theory and concludes in an Absurdist leaning viewpoint with key limitations that include still finding meaning.

Anthony Q.
1) It seems to me to be 1 part racist, 1 part literary. It extends throughout the book the portrayal of flat characters with nameless faces using ethnic classification (the reason it doesn't just happen to 'Arabs'. Kinda like a caricature? Whatever that Lit term was)

2) Raymond plays all sorts of parts. He is the catalyst for plot development and is a mirror of how Meursault acts with other people. Therefore all of the things that Camus demonstrates through Meursault are emphasized when there is a split between his thinking and his actions with Raymond.

3) I think that is the main part she plays, but the lady also defines purpose, hence the reason she intrigues Meursault. She is so directed that he can't keep up with her (symbolically, being left recognizing the Absurd). This shows that the world isn't inherently Absurdist, but rather that Absurdity is only necessary when one recognizes that somethings PURPOSE is meaningless (like Sartre's classic hammer analogy)

4) In this case, I think Camus simply uses Meursault to mirror himself.

6) "Don't play games" is a parallel to don't pretend something that is not. The idea is that when you do (in reference to finding a life purpose) that you only give the possibility to hurt yourself. The mother and sister come to represent that even in such a system, self-responsibility and INTERNAL punishment can still function. 

Isabel H.
3) While I agree with Kellsie, I have another theory as to why Camus gave it so much focus. I think that discrimination continues to emphasize Camus' point on the absurdity of external justice. (Esp. the scene where Raymond gets off with little more than a warning and Meursault's statement isn't even read)

Matt M.
1) I think the sun transcends something so fickle as mood and instead focuses on Meursault's perception of what is being valued.

5) I don't think that the lack of emotion is an attempt to characterize Meursault personally, just to highlight the focus on physical value in contrast to emotional value.

Kylee R.
2) My current theory on that is that the sun (and the contrasting night) are a symbolic representation of how illumination is affecting Meursault. When things are illuminated (with the sun) he sees the lack of meaning and is upset by it. When he thinks he sees a meaning like when he is with Marie, the sun is a positive force. The dark allows him the ignorance to recognize the futility of the searching but also the danger that poses (like the "night in prison"). Eventually his epiphany centers around the darkness.

3) I think this is done to further show that meaning only lasts in so far that we live. Past that, meaning doesn't matter.

Stranger Journal #5

I think there are a couple possible reasons why Camus splits the book into two parts. Firstly, it seems consistent with his constant use of 2s or multiples thereof (Significance still remains to be seen). In terms of changing literary style a few things seem to occur. First, while Part 1 largely focused on the description of other characters from Meursault's mind, Part 2 is much more heavily focused on Meursault's internal thought processes. One potential reason for this is to demonstrate his transition from defining his life based on the Other's perception of him and begins more of a self-judgment phase. Secondly, Camus may do it simply to help emphasize the effect of the trial. While most of the 'plot' actually occurs in Part 1, separating the court scenes into a Part 2 emphasizes that it takes up a whole half of the book. This brings the reader's attention to the symbolic significance of this portion of the book. Additionally, being trapped in jail gives Camus the perfect pretext to begin analyzing different aspects of Existentialism and more generically, philosophical thinking. These include:

Freedom: "Well, yes - freedom [...] Otherwise, what would be the punishment" ( 78)

Purpose of Punishment: "why they had taken them away when they didn't harm anybody. Later on I realized that that too was part of the punishment" (78)

Contradicting views on Justice: "human justice was nothing and divine justice was everything. I pointed out that it was the former that had condemned me." (118)

Acknowledgment of others' fulfillment: "'Every man I have known in your position turned to Him.' I acknowledged that that was their right." (117)

Capital Punishment: "How had I not seen that there was nothing more important than an execution, and that when you come right down to it, it was the only thing a man could truly be interested in." (110)

Another separation between the parts is Camus' use of imagery. While in part one he very heavily relies on descriptions of details like bright color (for example, at the beach (49)) but in part two, those colors become more muted and details are focused more on people and shapes (like Meursault's observation of the jail cell). This could help show that such a change really is meaningless as Meursault even concludes that seeing too many things can detract focus from what already exists. "once I learned to remember things, I wasn't bored at all. [...] I realized then that a man who had lived only one day could easily live for a hundred years in prison. [...] In a way, it was an advantage" (79) This could help demonstrate the point that if we can let go of the things we feel we need to fulfill, the less we suffer (also shown with the cigarettes and his need for women).

Stranger Journal #4

Q1: Does it seem like Meursault actually do his best to avoid conflict with the Arabs? If so, why?

Q2: What about these dichotomies that Meursault creates (esp. shoot vs. not shoot) makes the second option the same as the first (like, what is the motivation?)

Q3: Why does the sun have so much affect on Meursault? Is the sun literally affecting him, or does it have a more symbolic meaning. If it's literal, why doesn't he just leave the beach. If symbolic, what does it stand for?

Q4: After he says "As far as I was concerned, the whole thing was over" (58), why does he proceed to watch the Arab for two hours and then get worked up about it.?

Q5: Meursault steps forward knowing 'the sun wouldn't get off of him' (59) so why does he do it?