"It doesn't matter" or does it?

One of the largest points that Camus tries to get across is the idea of neutrality and meaningless. Meursault's character is the definition of this point. At face value we see this as being the main point of the article. The argument that “Nothing, nothing mattered and I knew why”. Meursault knows that his life is going to end no matter what. He makes the argument that society will go on just the same as it always has which means individual life has no meaning.

“But everybody knows life isn’t worth living. Deep down I knew perfectly well that it doesn’t much matter whether you die at thirty or at seventy, since in either case other men and women will naturally go on living – and for thousands of years. Whether it was now or twenty years from now, I would still be one dying.”

It obvious that on the Meursault is indifferent to the time of his death. I always figured him as one of the people that when asked the question “Do you want to know the exact time of death?” he would answer “I guess, but it doesn’t matter”. The information wouldn’t matter at all to Meursault because he knows it would come anyway. I think we are all a little disturbed by his indifference and neutrality. Having individual thoughts and opinions is part of human nature.  When we see Meursault thinking about his own life we feel uncomfortable that he doesn’t care to preserve it. Or at least that’s what we think at first.

I may be reading a little too far into the book but I like having some sort of logical reason for everything. I like to impose a little more logic that “it just happened” or “it doesn’t matter”. When I read the passage above my attention was drawn to the one right below it.

“At that point, what would disturb my train of thought was the terrifying leap I would feel my heart take at the idea of having twenty more years of life ahead of me. But I simply had to stifle it by imagining what I’d be thinking in twenty years when it would all come down to the same thing anyway”

In the first line we see Meursault have a small realization that his life could have been so much more productive and eventful if he wasn’t in this situation. But then right after this realization he “stifles it”. My panel presentation in class talked about alexithymia, I don’t want to dive into it too much, but the gist of it was Meursault stores all his feelings and emotions behind a wall of no emotion. I think this part where he finally realizes his life could have amounted to something but then “stifles" that thought is a good example of some of those subconscious feelings trying to break through and manifest themselves.

I just don’t like the argument of “nothing matters” and I would rather have some sort of reason to justify all of Meursault’s actions. At the same time that I wish for a reason, I understand that it sort of defeats the entire purpose of the novel. 

Science behind "The Metamorphosis"

By definition metamorphosis means "the process of transformation from an immature form to an adult form in two or more distinct stages". The key idea that I am getting at is the idea of transformation through stages. When Gregor first wakes up he is still able to communicate and speak with his family, even though his speech is affected with an “irrepressibly painful squeaking”. This is the first stage of his transformation.

The next stage in metamorphosis is when Grete brings him food and he begins to lose his ability to communicate. His speech becomes hissing and squeaking and he can’t communicate verbally with his family. Grete continues to bring him food and Gregor takes joy in eating, and discovering his new bodily functions (like climbing on walls). This stage is like a larva in metamorphosis. The primary function of a larva is to eat. They eat continuously so that they have enough energy to develop into the next stage.

The next stage in metamorphosis is the pupa. In this stage the larva changes into a stationary chrysalis. The pupa does not eat or move. It just preforms the changes necessary to develop into an adult. Gregor in his case also becomes stationary in the stage. He has the apple lodged in his back which causes him to have minimal movement. He also does not eat in this stage. Grete puts food in his room, but he doesn’t even touch it.

After a while Gregor leaves his room to listen to his sister play the violin, I believe this moment is where the adult Gregor is manifest. This is one of the only moments where we see Gregor have some sort of human interaction. He comes out of his pupa stage and everyone is horrified at the “adult” form. In fact even Grete has had enough, this is the stage where she no longer sees him as her brother. This is the stage where the metamorphosis is complete. Gregor’s family no longer sees him as a human, because Gregor has completed his metamorphosis. He has changed from his human form to an insect form. Adults in metamorphosis often have the shortest life-span. This also makes sense in Gregor’s case. He dies shortly after he completes his metamorphosis.

I believe Kafka named this book very intentionally. Not only does it follow similar stages to the scientific version of the metamorphosis. It also can be interpreted as the way Gregor thoughts change throughout the novel. 

Analyzing Hemingway's Characters

This book totally got on my nerves but sort of in a a good way. Don't worry this won't be a blog ranting on about why each character sucks and how The Sun Also Rises is a terrible book or anything. This is just my opinion about Hemingway's Characters. The characters are very realistic and therefore very annoying and subject to a lot of judgement and dislike.

To start off lets begin with the character I dislike the most; Robert Cohn. It seems that I am not alone in the loathing of Cohn. In fact just about everyone in this book hates Cohn. Even Brett who showed some initial interest in Cohn began to dislike him.

 "Was I rude enough to him?" Brett asked. Cohn was gone. "My God! I'm so sick of him!" 

"He doesn't add much to the gayety."

"He depresses me so."

"He's behaved very badly."

"Damned badly. He had a chance to behave so well." (p 185)

In this conversation both Brett and Jake express their dislike for Cohn. He had the chance to be a really cool nice character but he blew his chance. He blew it for me multiply times when he would get too serious when insincere comments would be made, or at least comments that where casual. Like when he picks a fight with Jake when Jake is telling Cohn things about Brett.

"Well," I said, "don't ask me a lot of fool questions if you don't like the answers."

"I didn't ask you that."

"You asked me what I knew about Brett Ashley."

"I didn't ask you to insult her."

Oh, go to hell."

He stood up from the table his face white, and stood there white and angry behind the little plates of hors d'oeuvores (p 47)

Like what the hell Cohn . Take a flippen chill pill. Really though this scene gets on my nerves. I really dislike people (or characters) who take everything way too seriously. Jake did nothing wrong he is just telling Cohn the facts about Brett. Cohn then has to jump to the rescue and defend his ladyship. Really is that necessary Cohn? His prewar values are completely different than everyone else's values in this book, and it makes everyone have a bad time.  

Next lets move on to Micheal. We all know Cohn is a little annoying but Mike just tears Cohn apart. When Mike gets drunk he gets very brutally honest. He says the first thing that comes into his mind.

"Shut up," Cohn said. He stood up. "Shut up, Mike."

 "Oh, don't stand up and act as though you were going to hit me. That won't make any difference to me. Tell me Robert. Why do you follow Brett around like a poor bloody steer? Don't you know you're not wanted? I know when I'm not wanted. Why don't you know when you're not wanted? You came down to San Sebastian where you weren't wanted, and followed Brett around like a bloody steer. Do you think that's right?" (p 146)

Ouch. I mean I was thinking all those things about Cohn in my head, but to go say them out loud to his face is a little over the top. Mike is just too mean to be likable. When he is not drunk he's a pretty funny character and a lot like Jake. Jake and Mike are basically in the same boat. They both like Brett but Brett just finds new people to love and flirt with.

Brett just has a unquenchable thirst, she can't ever settle down and she just lives in the fast lane. She claims to love Jake but is engaged with Mike, goes off to San Sebastian with Cohn and then falls in love with Romero. She is a person that sees something and will do whatever she wants to attain it. These type people are almost never satisfied. They think they will get satisfaction from something but when it doesn't come they move on. Brett is a perfect example of this and is never happy just with one person. I don't loath her, like I do Cohn, but she is just doesn't know when to stop and got on my nerves a few times.


Jake and Bill are obviously the best characters in the book. The best part in the book is when Jake is feeding Bill lines and he is just going off on random ideas.

"It wasn't a bicycle," I said. "He was riding horseback."

 "I heard it was a tricycle."

 "Well," I said. "A plane is sort of like a tricycle. The joystick works the same way."

 "But you don't pedal it."

 "No," I said, "I guess you don't pedal it."

 "Let's lay off that," Bill said.

 "All right. I was just standing up for the tricycle."

 "I think he's a good writer, too," Bill said. "And you're a hell of a good guy. Anybody ever tell you were a good guy?"

 "I'm not a good guy."

 "Listen. You're a hell of a good guy, and I'm fonder of you than anybody on earth. I couldn't tell you that in New York. It'd mean I was a faggot. That was what the Civil War was about. Abraham Lincoln was a faggot. He was in love with General Grant. So was Jefferson Davis. Lincoln just freed the slaves on a bet. The Dred Scott case was framed by the Anti-Saloon League. Sex explains it all. The Colonel's Lady and Judy O'Grady are Lesbians under

their skin." (p 120-121)

This banter between Jake and Bill is hilarious and actually made me laugh out loud. Even after Bill called Jake impotent he was still able to get going again and make me laugh. Jake is the serious "straight man" who asks all the questions and facilitates the banter while Bill just rambles on and on about random things that make people laugh. Jake and Bill are also both out of the loop in Brett's man-chasing game which makes them a little more likable. 

Overall the characters are very real. They are so real that they make me laugh and cringe when things happen in the book. Hemingway did a great job making his characters have a certain level of depth, he didn't give away too much at one time; we only got bits and pieces. As those pieces came together we got a deeper sense of the characters personalities and how they fit into the novel.

Who needs Septimus anyway

We briefly discussed the way in which Woolf wraps up this story. I believe we were all a little confused at the sub-plot of Septimus and Rezia when it was first introduced. It was difficult to determine if they were important characters and if they were going to keep appearing throughout the novel. As we read on we learned of Septimus and his story, but the question was still in my mind; What is Septimus doing in this novel about Mrs. Dalloway?

There are a lot of parallels that can be drawn between Clarissa and Septimus. It was mentioned in one of panel presentations that Septimus embodies Clarissa's dark impulses and thoughts. I find this quite an engaging idea. The first thought that comes to my mind is the connection with windows. Clarissa first mentions windows in the scene with Miss Kilman and Elizabeth. After Miss Kilman leaves with Elizabeth for the stores, Clarissa looks out the window (p 126). She sees the old lady next door walking upstairs and go to her bedroom. In the midst of Clarissa's hostile thoughts towards religion, love, and Miss Kilman she takes a moment to realize the solemnity of the moment. She respects her in a way that is unknown to us. She sees the lady and thinks how peculiar it is that she moves away from the window as soon as Big Ben strikes "as if she were attached to the sound"(p 127). She realizes there is a connection between something "gigantic" and the "midst of ordinary things".

We see that she has some sort of almost subconscious connection with this neighbor and she feels connected to something bigger. Woolf uses this idea to articulate the relationship between Clarissa and Septimus. Towards the end of the novel Clarissa finds out about the suicide of one of Mr. Bradshaw's clients. Somehow she recounts the events in almost the exact way they happened. I believe Woolf used this to re-articulate the idea of this broader connection. The connection is supported when Clarissa looks out the window again during the party. She sees the old woman, but this time the woman looks back at her. The woman pulls the blinds in response to the sound of Big Ben. By thinking of this gigantic vs ordinary connection she somehow connects with Septimus. She thinks of his suicide and realizes his situation and we get a sense of contrast between Septimus and Clarissa. "He made her feel the beauty, he made her feel the fun." (p 186) I think this shows that Septimus was the dark side of her thoughts, the suicidal insane part, and by connecting with these darker idea she was better able to appreciate the beauty and fun of life.

Following Footnote's Footsteps

"Awww Crap. I still have summer reading to do. There are only  a few weeks of summer left. Well, I better get it over with." I open to page 1 of The Mezzanine by Nicholson Baker. "... undulating outer edge of LP. ¹ " "Hmm a footnote, what stupid vocab or explanation do I get to learn about today?" I jump down to the bottom on the page and read "I love the constancy of shine of the edges or moving objects".  "What?? This isn't a footnote, there most be something wrong." Weird.

That about sums up exactly what was going on in my head the day I started reading The Mezzanine. It probably sums up the internal conversation everyone had when they first opened this Baker novel. As I continued reading the novel I was shocked at the way the footnotes were used. It was something that Ii had never seen before. It wasn't an editor explain complex concepts or abnormal vocabulary. It was the actual author of the book using them as an opportunity to digress from the actual substance of the book. Baker goes off on these wild tangents ranging from paper vs plastic straws to people's eyebrows (p 97).  It was quite entertaining most of the time.

It was nice to have a change of pace for once. Most books just roll right along never pausing to allow time for thought. They just impose a strict plot that follows a linear path of events until the climax. This novel was fun to read because it encouraged digressions and time to think. When I was reading I could space out for 5 minutes just to think about what I read and how I had never thought about/noticed it in my own life. While this change was nice it was also very annoying at times. In addition to the fact that it took forever to read -- because I would space out randomly -- sometimes Howie would rant about stuff that I didn't care about what so ever.

When I started writing my pastiche to demonstrate this same technique in the footnotes I found it really difficult. I made an outline to direct my thoughts and sort of planned out digressions and ideas. However, when I actually started writing I found opportunities for much better digressions that I hadn't intended. This is the sort of tangents that Baker is after. The kind that one can just write about -the kind that just keep going and going- and then have a problem coming to a stop.