Camus wastes no time in conveying the feelings (or lack thereof) of Meursault at the start of The Stranger. For the first part of the novel, Meursault is shown as unfeeling and uncaring, taking what most would consider the ups and downs of life (Love, his mother’s death, etc.) only by going through the motions. Yet Meursault also makes no bones about making his actions seem legitimate. Instead, he is candid about his lack of emotion and refuses to lie about it. However, Meursault’s character changes dramatically at the end of the novel. While throughout the novel Meursault has hints of emotion, by the time the trial begins he starts to feel the hatred of the jury and almost seems to enjoy their hatred, refusing to mitigate his dire situation. This transformation to a more emotive state is fully realized when he is finally condemned to death. Meursault spends the time left in his life reminiscing about the details of his life, finding solace and genuine happiness just as he is called to be executed.
Meursault’s change in personality ultimately spawned from abandoning the nonchalant existence he lived prior to his murder. Camus has a cynical view on the ruts men seems to be stuck in and believes that, until man breaks free from monotony, man cannot find emotion (including happiness) even in the extremes of death and love. While events that send Meursault out of his rut occur in the first few chapters, for a majority of his days the reader gets the impression that he is entrenched in routine and is truly apathetic towards what he is doing. Yet Meursault also wishes to live his life to the fullest, knowing sooner or later that we are all going to die anyways. In the last chapter of the novel, Meursault states that, “there was nothing more important than an execution,” and it was “the only thing a man could truly be interested in.” For the common man, a public execution is the only chance one has of witnessing death; the inevitable end of one’s existence that “all would be condemned [to] one day.” Meursault’s knowledge of his death is best exemplified by the use of the sun. The sun appears throughout the novel as the force that “pushes” Meursault through his mother’s funeral, the murder, and the trial. The strongest example of this meaning, however, occurs while he is in prison. Meursault knows that the guards will come at dawn to take him to the guillotine and he waits through the night for the sun to rise, signaling his doom. Although Meursault does not give much thought to his death before his sentence, he does realize that his life is short and, as shown through the use of the sun, he is willing to go to extremes to break through the confines of conformity and live his days like they are his last.
Once one broke through the monotony, one could truly find happiness in every aspect of one’s life. While Camus is critical of the routines man locks themselves into, he also believes that the second we break away from our Sisyphus-like fate society can realize what a good life we live in spite of the routine. For instance, in the first part of the novel Camus uses the relationship Salamano and his dog as comedic relief, halting the serious tone of the novel to mock the insane routine and anger-filled relationship these two beings have. It is clear that the man hates the dog the first time the two are brought up, yet the second the dog has gone missing, Salamano misses the dog, remembering that, in spite of the feuds that they would enter, “he was a good dog just the same.” Meursault has similar revelations while incarcerated. When his mind is not focused on death, his thoughts are directed towards the little pleasures he experienced prior to the murder. The room that he complained was “too big” for him in Part I, Chapter 2 soon became a preoccupation, spending days remembering every small detail of his abode. The feeling of being submerged in water that he held in indifference before the murder soon became a desire for him within the walls of the prison. The time that Meursault is in prison gave him an appreciation for his former life that he could not have gained otherwise. Although Meursault viewed his life as meaningless, his experiences of abandoning the routine of his life gave him a greater appreciation for everything in his life and, by the eve of his execution, he was ready to “live it all again.”
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Crime and Punishment
Dostoevsky’s view of 19th century Russia is anything but positive. Most characters in the story are poor and weak. Characters that are richer (the pawnbroker and Svidrigaylov) and those with a significant amount of power (Luzhin and Porfiry) are portrayed as antagonists and often abuse characters who do not wield the same level of power. This is best exemplified in Luzhin’s abusive treatment of Sonya who only gets some monetary compensation in return.
For most characters in the novel, money is the only way characters can find happiness. In a society that can barely afforded to rent out a subpar flat, what would be considered greed becomes the only hope to maintain any standard of living. Escaping these conditions is a goal for many characters; a goal that is only accomplished through money. The overwhelming poverty that each character faces forces many into shady behavior. The most obvious two are Sonya, the woman who is forced to become a prostitute in order to bring in some income for her family, and Raskolnikov, who murdered the pawnbroker in order to earn enough cash to get him out of poverty and into college again. However, their actions are not motivated by greed. Raskolnikov constantly states that he planned to take only enough money to get him back on his feet and nothing more.
In spite of the dire nature of Russian poverty, pride ultimately prevents the poor from reaching economic happiness. Although Katerina and Raskolnikov are poor, they believe that they are above the trappings of poverty and are higher in society than they are in reality. At her husband’s funeral, Katerina attempts to use nice place settings in order to give her humble abode some aristocratic regality in hopes that she will not be “criticized by [her neighbors]” for her lack of class. Even Raskolnikov has the “pride of the poor” and, although he receives plenty of money from others, he refuses to spend the money properly and throws out economic opportunity in order to uphold his “extraordinary” image. Characters receive many opportunities to escape poverty, yet pride blocks any opportunity to escape their situation in life and achieve happiness.
That is, assuming economic success actually equates to happiness. Although economic success seems to guarantee happiness, even the aforementioned “rich” characters did not obtain happiness through their wealth. Instead, their happiness (in addition to income gains) comes from abusing the poor. Since the lower classes of Russian society are desperate for money, the upper classes can easily manipulate these characters by promising them monetary gains in reward for helping them. Svidrigaylov was easily manipulated by his Marfa Petrovna in order to get himself out of debt, yet once he murdered her Svidrigaylov attempted to use the money he earned to manipulate Dunya into not marrying Luzhin. Although poor characters seek money in hopes that they may find happiness, money does not grant rich characters happiness and instead gives the wealthy the ability to attack the poor.
Economic happiness is a near impossibility in Russian society. Pride and abuse from upper society keep the wealth in the hands of the rich. However, even if the poor found wealth, money does not guarantee happiness for the character.
For most characters in the novel, money is the only way characters can find happiness. In a society that can barely afforded to rent out a subpar flat, what would be considered greed becomes the only hope to maintain any standard of living. Escaping these conditions is a goal for many characters; a goal that is only accomplished through money. The overwhelming poverty that each character faces forces many into shady behavior. The most obvious two are Sonya, the woman who is forced to become a prostitute in order to bring in some income for her family, and Raskolnikov, who murdered the pawnbroker in order to earn enough cash to get him out of poverty and into college again. However, their actions are not motivated by greed. Raskolnikov constantly states that he planned to take only enough money to get him back on his feet and nothing more.
In spite of the dire nature of Russian poverty, pride ultimately prevents the poor from reaching economic happiness. Although Katerina and Raskolnikov are poor, they believe that they are above the trappings of poverty and are higher in society than they are in reality. At her husband’s funeral, Katerina attempts to use nice place settings in order to give her humble abode some aristocratic regality in hopes that she will not be “criticized by [her neighbors]” for her lack of class. Even Raskolnikov has the “pride of the poor” and, although he receives plenty of money from others, he refuses to spend the money properly and throws out economic opportunity in order to uphold his “extraordinary” image. Characters receive many opportunities to escape poverty, yet pride blocks any opportunity to escape their situation in life and achieve happiness.
That is, assuming economic success actually equates to happiness. Although economic success seems to guarantee happiness, even the aforementioned “rich” characters did not obtain happiness through their wealth. Instead, their happiness (in addition to income gains) comes from abusing the poor. Since the lower classes of Russian society are desperate for money, the upper classes can easily manipulate these characters by promising them monetary gains in reward for helping them. Svidrigaylov was easily manipulated by his Marfa Petrovna in order to get himself out of debt, yet once he murdered her Svidrigaylov attempted to use the money he earned to manipulate Dunya into not marrying Luzhin. Although poor characters seek money in hopes that they may find happiness, money does not grant rich characters happiness and instead gives the wealthy the ability to attack the poor.
Economic happiness is a near impossibility in Russian society. Pride and abuse from upper society keep the wealth in the hands of the rich. However, even if the poor found wealth, money does not guarantee happiness for the character.
Henry IV, Part I
This is a story of rebellious men attempting to get what they want. In a society fragmented through Henry IV’s murderous usurpation of power, there are naturally those who felt disenfranchised by the new leadership and wish to (yet again) put a new king in power. This faction puts their faith in Hotspur to lead a rebellion that would force out the current king and satisfy their grievances.
Of course, Henry is forced into keeping his kingdom in order. However, his own house is also coping with Hal’s “rebellion” from the court life Henry wishes him to live. Much like Hotspur and the rebels he leads, Prince Hal wishes to secede from his father’s wishes and, for most of the novel, Hal spends most of his time at the pub with Falstaff; a seedy character that Henry does not want his son associating with.
Both “rebellions” failed. Hal gradually started associating himself with his father rather than Falstaff and, although the decision was mostly Hal’s, his rebellious behavior stopped at a halt. Once Hal gave up his “rebellion,” he could focus on helping his father crush Hotspur’s rebels with Hal killing Hotspur himself.
For Hotspur and Hal, rebellion is their attempt to achieve happiness. Hotspur’s dissatisfaction with Henry’s rule led him to rebel, hoping that his wife’s line would be restored to the throne after Richard II’s death. While he held several grievances towards Henry IV’s rule, Hotspur has a stake in Henry’s demise; if the rebellion succeeds, then he and his wife had a chance to rule. Hotspur rebelled for large personal gains; gains that would ultimately grant Hotspur happiness. However, physical rebellion is much easier to crush and Hotspur was killed by Hal, ending his dreams for happiness alongside his life.
Hal’s rebellion also spurted from desires to gain happiness. Throughout the pub scenes early in the play, Hal constantly shows contempt towards the life his father lives. Although Hal claims his behavior is to make his kingship seem much more dignified, the true reason Hal came to the pubs in the first place was to escape court life. His rebellion is successful up to the start of the novel; while Hal does not hold a completely flattering view of Falstaff and pub life in general, Hal found happiness in the ignorant and ignoble environment of the pub. However, as Hal’s view of Falstaff starts to worsen after he attempts to rob travelers and the demands Henry IV places on Hal grows, Hal’s definition of happiness changes from escaping his father to embracing his father. Hal then rebels against Falstaff. Hal starts escaping pub life and contemplates killing Hotspur on the field of battle in order to regain his honor in the eyes of his father.
While Shakespeare makes it appear that the success of the rebellion determines whether or not an individual finds happiness, both of Hal’s rebellions did create both positive and negative consequences. Whether Hal was rebelling from his father or Falstaff, the act of disobeying the two polarized father figures in his life created a near-schism between them and Hal. Although Hal found happiness in pub life, he also found that his father disapproval, going as far as to wish Hotspur was his son over Hal. Conversely, as Hal starts migrating away from the pubs Falstaff warns Hal that, by completely banishing the pub from his life Hal would lose ties to the world itself.
In this Part of Henry IV, rebellion is the only way for characters to truly find happiness and, although the success of the rebellion ultimately determines how much the character find, rebelling always produce a negative effect on the rebel’s happiness.
Of course, Henry is forced into keeping his kingdom in order. However, his own house is also coping with Hal’s “rebellion” from the court life Henry wishes him to live. Much like Hotspur and the rebels he leads, Prince Hal wishes to secede from his father’s wishes and, for most of the novel, Hal spends most of his time at the pub with Falstaff; a seedy character that Henry does not want his son associating with.
Both “rebellions” failed. Hal gradually started associating himself with his father rather than Falstaff and, although the decision was mostly Hal’s, his rebellious behavior stopped at a halt. Once Hal gave up his “rebellion,” he could focus on helping his father crush Hotspur’s rebels with Hal killing Hotspur himself.
For Hotspur and Hal, rebellion is their attempt to achieve happiness. Hotspur’s dissatisfaction with Henry’s rule led him to rebel, hoping that his wife’s line would be restored to the throne after Richard II’s death. While he held several grievances towards Henry IV’s rule, Hotspur has a stake in Henry’s demise; if the rebellion succeeds, then he and his wife had a chance to rule. Hotspur rebelled for large personal gains; gains that would ultimately grant Hotspur happiness. However, physical rebellion is much easier to crush and Hotspur was killed by Hal, ending his dreams for happiness alongside his life.
Hal’s rebellion also spurted from desires to gain happiness. Throughout the pub scenes early in the play, Hal constantly shows contempt towards the life his father lives. Although Hal claims his behavior is to make his kingship seem much more dignified, the true reason Hal came to the pubs in the first place was to escape court life. His rebellion is successful up to the start of the novel; while Hal does not hold a completely flattering view of Falstaff and pub life in general, Hal found happiness in the ignorant and ignoble environment of the pub. However, as Hal’s view of Falstaff starts to worsen after he attempts to rob travelers and the demands Henry IV places on Hal grows, Hal’s definition of happiness changes from escaping his father to embracing his father. Hal then rebels against Falstaff. Hal starts escaping pub life and contemplates killing Hotspur on the field of battle in order to regain his honor in the eyes of his father.
While Shakespeare makes it appear that the success of the rebellion determines whether or not an individual finds happiness, both of Hal’s rebellions did create both positive and negative consequences. Whether Hal was rebelling from his father or Falstaff, the act of disobeying the two polarized father figures in his life created a near-schism between them and Hal. Although Hal found happiness in pub life, he also found that his father disapproval, going as far as to wish Hotspur was his son over Hal. Conversely, as Hal starts migrating away from the pubs Falstaff warns Hal that, by completely banishing the pub from his life Hal would lose ties to the world itself.
In this Part of Henry IV, rebellion is the only way for characters to truly find happiness and, although the success of the rebellion ultimately determines how much the character find, rebelling always produce a negative effect on the rebel’s happiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)