In a lot of literature and our society, marriage is seen and viewed as a happy thing, a sign of love and togetherness that will last for a long while. But in many of the novels that we've read in class this year, the portrayals of marriage given are anything but positive. With the exceptions of The Mezzanine (on account of it being more focused on staplers) and The Metamorphosis (on account of its main character being a cockroach, and thus unable to marry), marriage plays important roles in the novels that we've read.
In Mrs. Dalloway, The Sun Also Rises, and The Wide Sargasso Sea, we see marriage happen not so much out of love but as a move for status or money. And in all these cases, we see rather unhappy endings or results. Rather than going off into the sunset, deep in love, we see Clarissa Dalloway ponder suicide as a good thing, by ending an unhappy life on one's own, and on their own terms. Brett fails to find true love, having already gone through two unhappy marriages for money and possibly going into a third with Mike Campbell, instead settling for quick flings and failed attempts at love, as seen with Romero. Antoinette is renamed Bertha Mason, goes crazy, and spends the rest of her days in the attic of her husband's England home, where he rarely resides.
In The Stranger, while marriage does not play as large of a role, we see Meursault treat the concept of marriage as fairly light and not so serious. While he is attracted to Marie, there is no real deep attachment, stating that either married or not, it makes no difference to him. This trivializes the concept of marriage, seen as an important and proper step in many societies, and undoubtedly in the society of Meursault.
Not only are these not just positive outlooks on marriage, they're actually nightmarish results of what can, and in these cases, did go extremely wrong with marriage. It's interesting to pick up on this trend throughout the novels we read. I'm not sure if it was done intentionally or not as part of the class curriculum, representative of general 20th century literature or not, but it's been a trend that I've picked up on recently, and has really fascinated me, and wondered if it might fascinate others as well.
Jacob
Friday, November 13, 2015
Monday, November 2, 2015
In the Name of Who?
"In fact, I had no time to look, as the presiding judge had already started pronouncing a rigmarole to the effect that 'in the name of the French people' I was to be decapitated in some public place."
In the name of the French people, Meursault is to be put to death, having murdered an Arab. But, it does not seem to be this murder which is at the heart of the reasoning behind his execution. It merely serves as a preciptating event which brings Meursault to trial, along with his rather detached, uncaring mindset, which is what is really scrutinized throughout the trial.
How can I say that a penalty of death for the murder of the Arab, and only for the murder, was done in the name of the French people? Because to the French court, the Arab (and his family) are neither seen as Frenchmen, treated like Frenchmen, or given the respect Frenchmen would be given in a French court of law. In fact, as one panel presentation pointed out, the Arab is never mentioned after Chapter 6. Not only does the court forget about the Arab as a minor component to the proceedings, but so does Meursault, and even Camus.
We never see anyone related to the Arab at the trial, nor do we ever hear their side of the story. Instead, the trial focuses on Meursault's actions following the death of his mother, which the prosecutor finds him "morally guilty of. Seen as "heartless" and as a "criminal devoid of the least spark of human feeling", Meursault is put to death for not being a part, to any extent, of the then-contemporary society. Meursault operates completely isolated from that, and is therefore not only a part of it, but a threat to its functioning. His lack of compassion towards his mother's death indicates a potential disregard for human life, indicating that Meursault could potentially be a threat to murdering others. And while this may be a case in the eyes of the court, I saw Meursault as just being indifferent towards the passing of his mother, rather than as becoming happy as a result.
The flaws of the court system are shown quite clearly, even beyond this focus on a completely separate event than the one leading to him being tried. Meursault is accused of premeditated murder, of someone he had never met (or even heard of!) prior to the violent encounters of that day, someone who he killed as an adverse and ill-advised reaction to the glinting sunlight of the beach, possibly also suffering from heat exhaustion or another condition leading to him not being present in a complete mental state. To accuse Meursault of premeditated murder doesn't seem to make any sense at all in my eyes, even if one hasn't seen the story from Meursault's perspective. While there are details which would obviously be obscured or completely hidden if they weren't observed from Meursault's perspective, premeditated murder seems to be a rather large leap, once again as an excuse to put Meursault to death, for his danger to society, seen through the death of his mother. His mother's death could be seen as a moral patricide, being tried before the case of an actual patricide, potentially influencing the way that the case is looked at.
Meursault is not put to death for the murder of the Arab, nor in the name of the French people who he supposedly endangers, but is put to death for being seen as emotionless, uncaring, and as an overall threat to the society in which he lives, showcasing major faults in a court system, and in the death penalty, given to a man who had no intention of killing anyone, or causing societal or widespread harm.
In the name of the French people, Meursault is to be put to death, having murdered an Arab. But, it does not seem to be this murder which is at the heart of the reasoning behind his execution. It merely serves as a preciptating event which brings Meursault to trial, along with his rather detached, uncaring mindset, which is what is really scrutinized throughout the trial.
How can I say that a penalty of death for the murder of the Arab, and only for the murder, was done in the name of the French people? Because to the French court, the Arab (and his family) are neither seen as Frenchmen, treated like Frenchmen, or given the respect Frenchmen would be given in a French court of law. In fact, as one panel presentation pointed out, the Arab is never mentioned after Chapter 6. Not only does the court forget about the Arab as a minor component to the proceedings, but so does Meursault, and even Camus.
We never see anyone related to the Arab at the trial, nor do we ever hear their side of the story. Instead, the trial focuses on Meursault's actions following the death of his mother, which the prosecutor finds him "morally guilty of. Seen as "heartless" and as a "criminal devoid of the least spark of human feeling", Meursault is put to death for not being a part, to any extent, of the then-contemporary society. Meursault operates completely isolated from that, and is therefore not only a part of it, but a threat to its functioning. His lack of compassion towards his mother's death indicates a potential disregard for human life, indicating that Meursault could potentially be a threat to murdering others. And while this may be a case in the eyes of the court, I saw Meursault as just being indifferent towards the passing of his mother, rather than as becoming happy as a result.
The flaws of the court system are shown quite clearly, even beyond this focus on a completely separate event than the one leading to him being tried. Meursault is accused of premeditated murder, of someone he had never met (or even heard of!) prior to the violent encounters of that day, someone who he killed as an adverse and ill-advised reaction to the glinting sunlight of the beach, possibly also suffering from heat exhaustion or another condition leading to him not being present in a complete mental state. To accuse Meursault of premeditated murder doesn't seem to make any sense at all in my eyes, even if one hasn't seen the story from Meursault's perspective. While there are details which would obviously be obscured or completely hidden if they weren't observed from Meursault's perspective, premeditated murder seems to be a rather large leap, once again as an excuse to put Meursault to death, for his danger to society, seen through the death of his mother. His mother's death could be seen as a moral patricide, being tried before the case of an actual patricide, potentially influencing the way that the case is looked at.
Meursault is not put to death for the murder of the Arab, nor in the name of the French people who he supposedly endangers, but is put to death for being seen as emotionless, uncaring, and as an overall threat to the society in which he lives, showcasing major faults in a court system, and in the death penalty, given to a man who had no intention of killing anyone, or causing societal or widespread harm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)