Stranger

In the novel The Stranger by Albert Camus I had a different view point on the main character Meursault. I did not see him as a soulless monster but instead a guy that had little passion about anything, not really a big talker but he wasn't a complete introvert considering he had a girlfriend and several acquaintances. I saw Meursault as he presented himself, there was no ambiguity no false pretenses. Although I though it was foolish of him to shoot a man simply because of summer heat he had no other motives beside that. In present day or in many other literature works a killer usually has a motive, if The Stranger had been written like that Meursault would have killed that man to stand up for Raymond or to finally let out his repressed emotions about his mother's death on this innocent man but no it was just a hot summer day. I suppose that is why the whole trial is ridiculous, the prosecutor tries to find reasoning behind Meursault's crime and like a leach sucks out all the evidence that could be found in the day of Meursault's mother's funeral and in Meursault's daily life. Meursault does seem to embody the existentialist state of mind and this way of living and being is what causes his death, in the eyes of the judges, jury, and prosecutor he is a soulless monster. I think in society we never really get to know a person that is in the public eye or on a famous trial. We take in all the magazine headlines, interviews, and public opinions but we don't get a one on one with these people that are being analyzed everyday for our entertainment. Also if they don't measure up to our standards we label them as evil or strange. If Meursault was a celebrity in present day I highly doubt he would lie about his personal life or if he was caught in a scandal he wouldn't make excuses that his publicist would urged him to say like his lawyer tried to do in the novel. Meursault would be the most honest celebrity, I'm sure celebrities lie all the time but for Meursault he wouldn't see any reason to not tell the truth. 

The Price

In the Socratic seminar we briefly had a discussion about immortality and what one would sell their soul for. I think that many people would give their soul for immortality if they had the chance, especially famous people because they would stay beautiful forever if they never aged. I also think scientists would jump at the proposition because they could study a subject for years without having to face death which would mean the end of their research, they could live long enough to get to the end of their research and maybe even find a cure. I think that the loss of someone's soul is a very serious subject but I also think that everyone has a price. The only man in literature that would not sell his soul to the devil because he would not give up his name was John Proctor. However in real life I don't think that everyone would be as honorable as John Proctor. In Dr.Faustus Dr.Faustus gives his soul to the devil to gain knowledge about dark magic and things that a common man could not know. Dr.Faustus did have his moments of doubt if he could sell his soul but after being tempted by Lucifer in the end he gave in. Dr.Faustus lost his soul but his price was knowledge. He was already intelligent but his greed for more got to him and he willingly gave up his soul. Today in media we put celebrities on a pedestal and admire how they look and dress. However we have to remind ourselves that they spend hours in makeup, have personal trainers and some even have Botox, plastic surgery, or Lipo. I think that if a celebrity was offered immortality and everlasting youth they would sell their soul right away. It would personally take a lot for me to sell my soul and if I had to go against the people I love I would say no even if I was offered immortality and I do realize the people I love would die before me but I would still say no. 

Empathy

The essential question that I would like to discuss is, "What nature of human being would you describe as monstrous?" I answered by saying that the nature of a psychopath is truly monstrous because they lack emotions or remorse. I think the question is thought provoking because what kind of person is truly monstrous, has no good in them, or they are practically a savage. I think this example of a psychopath can be found in Dorian Gray when he kills Basil by savagely slitting his throat. Dorian Gray is a man that can commit any sin and it will not show on his face, he in a moment of passion kills Basil. Basil was only trying to save Dorain from his sins and in return was killed. I think Dorian's nature in that moment was monstrous but unlike a psychopath he does have remorse about killing Basil later. Dorian earlier in the literature is to blame for Sybil's suicide but through the detached words of Lord Henry he feels less remorse about her suicide. I think the lack of empathy that Dorian and Lord Henry both show is a quality that is truly monstrous. In the show Vampire Diaries there is a witch named Kai and he is part of the Gemini Coven. When he was an adolescent he killed several of his brothers and sisters in an attempt to kill the second set of twins to someday rule the coven. His sister and him were the first set but Kai could only absorb magic he didn't have his own. Fast forward to the present day time in the show and his brother from the second set of twins forced him to merge with him instead of his rightful merging twin. Kai wins and the other twin dies but becomes a part of Kai. When Kai killed his brothers and sisters and was banished to a prison world all those years, he never felt remorse about what he had done but instead planned to get out and then kill everyone in his coven. However when he merged with his brother he also gained empathy from him. He begins to care deeply about others and tries to apologize to his sister that lost her twin and then to Bonnie who he had emotionally harmed. Kai was a psychopath but then he gains empathy and remorse from his brother. I strongly believe that the lack of empathy in the nature of a human being is monstrous. 

A Crime

In A Thousand Splendid Suns it is clear women from lower classes are not given rights in Afghanistan. The fact that Mariam's mother is banished from the city after she becomes pregnant with Mariam reminds me of The Scarlet Letter. The most heart wrenching part of the book so far is Jalil's inability to stand up for his daughter when his wives want to give her away, and Mariam pleading with him not to make her do it. The issue in Afganistan which I understand is part of that culture is that young girls the age of Mariam are given away by their fathers to men three times their age. That part of the book was terrible, for girls my age and younger to have to leave their homes and become a wife and give themselves to a stranger is sickening. In my past blog posts I have commented on other cultural differences and I have understood that some cultures are different and that is how they live but in the book Mariam did not want to get married, they forced her. The strangest thing is my mother was telling my sister and me that when she was younger before she met my dad and lived with her cousin in Miami she was proposed to by a guy that had the same culture in A Thousand Splendid Suns and she said she would have never accepted but if she had and would have still had me hypothetically speaking I would be apart of that culture too. If I had been apart of that culture I do not think I would have been okay with an arranged marriage but that would have been my life. If my dad right now tried to get me to marry some old man I would run away from home and never come back. The saddest part is since Mariam had a difficult upbringing even though she did not want to be with Rasheed, her husband she ends up trying to make him happy and then he beats her. I think the fact that these girls don't have the right to deny this from happening is a crime and I hope by the end of the book Mariam is freed and able to live the rest of her life happy. 

Cultural Differences

The article brings an interesting light to the subject of morals in different societies. When the article talked about the differences between the Greeks burning their fathers and the Callatians eating their fathers it reminded me about my view point on Okonkwo and his society. I was horrified about how carelessly Okonkwo would beat his family. The article made me realize that if Okonkwo and I sat down and had a conversation he would be stupefied to my objections. It makes sense that neither way is right or wrong because every society has their own morals. In our society when we see something being done differently and it goes against our morals, we simply can not believe a culture would be like that. For example the Eskimo's that do not value life sound like criminals but in that society they find it perfectly normal. What is normal to others seems ludricous to an outsider. The only reason Okonkwo was reprimanded for his actions was because he committed this act during a week of peace. If it had been any other week he would have not been reprimanded because even though not everyone in his village would beat their wives it was still a norm in their culture. With that being said  the article also brings up the problems with culture realistivism. Which is even if it is someone else's culture how could we not stop ourselves from stepping in when a society starts killing one of their own. For example a genocide, the Eskimos would not care but in our society there is always a debate. Is it right to step in and order another country wrong because there morals are not like ours? I believe it isn't a matter of right or wrong when it comes to innocent people being killed. The article has gotten me to look at the other side of things but one can only lean over so far. There is definitely a limit to understanding and putting up with how another society works. I think completely being mellow with everything is not the way to go. Throughout history if one person had not stood up and yelled for a change in a society, the world would be very different today. 

Different View

When we talked in class about how Ophelia supposedly kills herself by drowning in the river, the general view in the room was that people are hesitant to kill themselves because they are unenlightened to what will happen to them after they die. I considered that that view is true for people that never go through with it, like Hamlet for example and his famous soliloquy "To be or not to be-that is the question". Hamlet contemplates if he should continue to suffer or take charge of his torturous life and just end it. If Opehlia did decide to kill herself I don't think she was worried about her afterlife when the life she was living was hell; with her father dead and her lover's banishment due to his hand in her father's death. I think that if someone's life already feels like hell they will not be worried about their afterlife but instead will find the choice of death as a life raft, leading them to peace. I thought about this weeks ago and recently after the tragedy in our small town. When I heard the news my heart was heavy, I would always see this person at parties but I would have never guessed what he was going through. Every time you hear about someone making that decision I know I think about a few things: why did they think this was the only solution, if only they would have said something, and it is never anyone you would have guessed. I think that the worst part is most times it comes as a complete shock and even if you couldn't of helped you wish there had been a way to reach out to that person. I strongly believe suicide should be made a more prominent issue in today's society. I think there are a lot of issues that need to be tackled in the United States but due to the severity I figure suicide should be high on that list of issues. The main problem is I don't think most people that think about suicide are afraid of what will happen after and once they come to that conclusion being enlightened or not isn't a barrier. 

It Will Never Be Okay

    I grew up in a loving household where any form of violent discipline was deemed as unacceptable. My mother grew up in the same type of household, her father left when she was in her teens but even as an Italian man with a strong temper; beatings as punishment never occurred. My dad also has a fiery temper which I guess can be linked to his upbringing or his no crap tolerating personality. However he never laid a hand on my sister or me as kids and we grew up quite fine. I don't believe physical punishment is the way to go in a discipline situation, it can have emotionally damaging effects. The education system is no longer allowed to hit us with a paddle or have us wear a dunce cap. I believe both punishments destroy a child's self esteem and dignity and frankly why should teachers be spanking kids with a piece of wood. I am very thankful I was born when I was and grew up with the parents I have.

    A different parent might say, well it's my child and if they won't listen I'll straighten them up with a slap or a punch. When that child goes to their room they cry their eyes out and scramble the next day for excuses regarding their marks and bruises. A strong character trait of mine is simply to not tolerate injustices, it lights a fire in me. I mean honestly society teaches you that if your boyfriend or girlfriend hits you, leave him. If a spouse or partner hits you it isn't a healthy relationship, leave them. I strongly agree with both but shouldn't the refusal to put up with physical abuse start at an early age and couldn't it even be argued that a child that did get abused could not know what to do or even accept physical punishment from someone later in their life. I understand that in Things Fall Apart the culture in Africa and in that tribe is that a man is allowed to beat his wives and children at his free will, except during the Week of Peace of course. At one point the main character Okonkwo almost kills his second wife when after beating her he tries to shoot her, luckily he has a bad aim and misses. This treatment is something I could never stand for if I was an outsider and I just walked in on this happening. If I was in that culture I hope that I would rebel against everyone but I can't be for sure that I would, different countries have different cultures but concerning the culture I live in I don't agree with laying a hand on your child. When kids are little maybe a slight spank on the bottom would be warranted but I can't 100% say I would do that either.