Le Peste - The Plague.

You realize, you could make a great parody called Le Pesto? About the terrible decline of pasta?

Well, my readers, all 2 of you, today is the day we begin examining Albert Camus, and it won't be the last cause I really need to read The Stranger next, which is actually on my list. Anywho, a rundown on someone who is becoming one of my favorite authors:

Albert Camus: Awesome. Is he a nihilist? Existentialist? Absurdist? A conglomeration of all three? Possibly. To give you a clue of his basic philosophy, he once wrote an essay on Sisyphus: The greek legend who was eternally condemned to roll a boulder up a hill only to have it fall back down when inches from the top. That pointlessness, that imposed, deliberate cruelty, is what he called ABSURD. And he pretty much based his work off of it. He was French Algerian and wrote novels and plays and short stories and essays and articles. He ran the underground newspaper during the French occupation and continued to write to the people once they had attained their freedom. I love the first article he writes to France after the German occupation: "Combat Continues." He loved both Algeria and France and hated the conflict between them. This exile because of combat becomes the theme of many of his works including his short story The Guest. In fact, the theme of exile haunts The Plague up and down.

LE PESTE:

Themes. Now the wonderful thing about Camus is that he is very straightforward and obvious in a duh-are-you-listening-now sort of way. He wants you to get the point. And that is why picking out themes is so easy.

EXILE: Now, in the exile the bubonic/pneumonic plague comes and visits a little French Algerian town and they are forced to quarantine the town, effectively EXILING it. Now, is anyone thinking AP essay? It says that the first thing that the people were exiled from was friends and relatives, hope and peace, the future, and the outside world. Suddenly, the town was diseased and no one wanted to go near it though everyone in it wanted to go out. Hey, could disease be a symbol? Hope is also a big deal in the novel, for while the town was mostly exiled from it, the last remnants of hope made them survive and keep on fighting. If I knew this book better, and about 3 months ago, I would've written about it one the AP exam.

LOVE: This is very weird. Camus writes about love in a way that comes out differently in every case. Over the whole town, an apathy fell over love and marriages in general and everyone just figured that if they died, they died and it didn't matter until the quarantine lifted. There were two distinct couples that were separated - man inside the town, woman outside. In Rieux's case, he decided to stay in the town and work ceaselessly to rid the town of it. In his friend's case, I will find the name later, he worked and connived to sneak out of the town to be his sweetheart, then on the eve of his escape, he realized that he needed to help and would lead an empty (absurd alert) life outside the quarantine if he did not sacrifice himself. Guilt led him back. How did this all end? Rieux's wife died because she went away for her health and died just a few weeks before the quarantine lifted. Ironic? Absurd alert. The guy who was going to chicken out got nervous before he met his girl, but it all ended up really well. She just swooned all over him.

So, the fickle man was rewarded while the constant man was punished. So much for a fair universe. Oh yeah, absurdity.

Alright, well, ABSURDITY is a philosophy where the universe is unfair to the point of absurdity. Absurdity, in case you are not getting a clear picture, is ... "tragic, meaningless irony. Usually the inflictor of this tragedy is nature, life, the universe, or some other superior source. Camus states his definition of absurdity: 'Perhaps this notion will become clear if I hazard this outrageous remark: the absurd is sin without God'." Yes, i did just quote my own paper on Camus. And I did get a C on it but that's not really any fault of the reasoning itself (citing error). Can you quote yourself? Anyhow, according to Camus, there is a absurd cycle with several steps. First, you live a totally pointless, absurd life. Next, you realize that your life is absurd and become all depressed and junk. Third, you realize with some sort of joy that yes, your life is absurd, but it really doesn't matter anyhow because everybody's life is absurd!!! Yay!!! Okay, that's the simplified form, but it works for the book. Rieux ends up running the full scale of the cycle from a fairly pointless life, to a life of ceaseless work that runs in circles cause the plague never lets up, to skinny dipping. It's true. Now, the Spaniard and the old guy counting beans have realized the absurdity of life and fully embrace it. Love the old guy counting beans. According to the Spaniard, the ultimate goal in life was to find peace which would eradicate humanity's "plague." Peace could be found through the path of sympathy. Sadly, there is a man who never quite realizes his plight. He is the Sisyphus, but instead of rolling boulders, he is writing a book. Not really a book, cause he only ever got to one sentence which he tirelessly went over again and again to perfect the sentence. Because if he could complete this Sisyphean task, he would somehow get his wife back. He was so dismal in the end, that he burned his manuscript. Shortly to the end, he was full of hope because he had just thought of something else and the burning really didn't matter because he had memorized it and all. And then, he died. Absurdity indeed. There is more to the novel, but I think I will leave you with mere quotes because no one writes like Camus.

Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see if we were not always so much wrapped up in ourselves. ( He mentioned wars in the stupidity category.)

All the rest hung on mere threads and trivial contingencies; you couldn't waste your time on it. The thing was to do your job as it should be done.

In short, we returned to our prison-house, we had nothing left us but the past, and even if some were tempted to live in the future, he had speedily to abandon the idea - anyhow, as soon as could be - once they felt the wounds that imagination inflicts on those who yield themselves to it.

Hostile to the past, impatient of the present, and cheated of the future, we were much like those who men's justice, or hatred, forces to live behind prison bars.

Thus each of us had to be content to live only for the day, alone under the vast indifference of the sky.

But there was also darkness in men's hearts, and the facts were as little calculated to reassure our townfolk as the wild stories going round about the barraks.

For there's no denying that the Plague had gradually killed off in all of us the faculty not of love only but even of friendship. naturally enough, since love asks something of the future, and nothing was left us but a series of present moments.

Can one be a saint without God? (please see above)

I can say I know the world inside out, as you may see - that each of us has the plague within him; no one, no one on earth is free from it. And I know, too, that we much keep endless watch on ourselves lest in a careless moment we breathe in somebody's face and fasten the infection on him...All the rest - health, integrity, purity (if you like) - is a product of the human will, of a vigilance that must never falter, The good man, the man who infects hardly anyone, is the man who has the fewest lapses of attention.

Among them I can at least try to discover how one attains to the third category [healer]; in other words, to peace.

Alright, I'm almost done with The Stranger (which is actually on my list) and I am going out of town on a road trip to my sister's wedding so I'll hopefully be able to finish it within a day! I also picked up 3 books today from second hand book shops (I love those!). I got The Scarlet Pimpernel by Baroness Orczy (I've watched all the film versions!), Ceremony by Leslie Marmon Silko (which is actually on my list as well) and 95 poems, a collection of poems by e.e. cummings. I'm pretty excited. I love that guys. Alright, sorry it took me so long and hopefully I'll return to blogging next Tuesday or Wednesday!

Literature.....? Maybe.

Alright. I saw a movie tonight. Which is NOT a book. Or at least, it was based on a book, but not really literature. BUT. I saw the very cheesy looking Juliet's Wall movie. I know, I don't see movie's in theatres a lot and definitely not chick flicks really, but Ashley wanted to go and I guess I like that girl...

As some may know, I am an affirmed, positively, definitely ANTI-Romeo and Juliet. I mean, it's about on par with Lord of the Flies for subtlety, other plays of his are better written (I think), it's kinda cheesy itself (What light from Yonder Window breaks???It is the east!!! And Juliet - drumroll- is the sun!!!!), aaaaannnd Shakespeare stole the stinking plot from those Italians. Argue Ecclesiastes as you may, but it is on a list of offenses. Come on.

But I'm okay Juliet now. I still think Romeo is stupid, but I'm okay with Juliet. Why? Because I'm a sucker for chick flicks but also because she has turned into this incredible symbol. It is a symbol for true, go-chase-after-her, throw-caution-to-the-winds love. Thousands of women and men have written to her, asking her for direction in love. She has become the patron saint of love. Way to go, Shakespeare. I guess I'm a fan of her now because there is a hopeless romantic inside of me that really really lacks that chasing courage in some cases but also wouldn't mind being Juliet, come what may. It's that kissing in the rain thing.

And yes, Artie, it is a girl thing.

Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see if we were not always so much wrapped up in ourselves.

All the rest hung on mere threads and trivial contingencies; you couldn't waste your time on it. The thing was to do your job as it should be done.

Stargirl: Character Analysis

At first, I thought "I need to finish the Camus novel I just procured, but I really want to blog!" Then I thought "This blog can survive on different material besides novel-review content!!!" Alright, maybe not a brilliant thought, but it worked. I'm going to write today about a character I've kind of discovered in several works and, of course, how she's been ironically used.

Alright, think of a Byronic hero. Now think the complete opposite. There you get Stargirl. She may have other names according to other people, but I'm naming her after the protagonist in the young adult novel by Jerry Spinelli. She is slightly eccentric in her bubbly, agape character and active imagination but one trait stands out in every setting: INNOCENCE. Innocence pivots her character and sometimes leads to her downfall. In my opinion it must be difficult to really pull off a Stargirl in adult literature because totally innocent characters, those guardian angels, can become rather...well...boring. And unbelievable. But they often play vital positions in books as the one who sacrifices something, or sacrifices themselves for the plot or the undeserving. Hello, Christ figure! I'll tell you where I've spotted some Stargirls:

Bridge to Terabithia, Leslie Burke. I'm once again harping on young adult literature, but as this book broke some boundaries and is studied in classrooms all over the world, I think I'm justified in my decision. Leslie works on the life of Jess Aarons and creates an imaginary world to transform the character of Jess from timid to fearless. She and her family, who suits her character, have no TV and generally have fun by painting the house. She is considered eccentric by her school and is kind of liked but avoided because of her difference. She is life changing and ultimately sacrifices her life for imagination. She is so perfect...

Dracula, Lucy Westenra. Maybe I should just blog about Dracula. OOHh. It gives me the shivers. Well, Lucy is the perfect, one-dimensional Victorian woman. Honestly, between her and Mina, it does get a bit tiresome at times. Anyhow, she is a perfect, very beloved woman. Proof: She was proposed to 3 times in one day. Really, Lucy? Her name, Lucy, has latin roots in luz, meaning light. Pure, innocent light. She meets her downfall through absolutely no fault of her own, but her character. Apparently, Dracula is attracted to innocence he can corrupt. Her body (though not her soul) is corrupted and she is sacrificed in the plot for the downfall of Dracula.

A Tale of Two Cities, Lucie Manette. No....Lucie can't be symbolic... The perfect and most boring and yet very important character is Lucie Manette. She saves her father from his wrongful imprisonment by her goodness and light and once again attracts 2 or 3 men to her side. She is innocent to a T and proves it by constantly swooning and yet going to stand in the same place in the marketplace every day. Oh, the sacrifice! *swoon* In this book, she does not sacrifice, she is sacrificed for by Sydney Carton.

Any heroine in any book by Thomas Hardy. At least, the 3 that I've read. The marvelous thing about these Stargirls is that they have one flaw: Vanity, too quick to give their heart away, just existing in Tess. They have flaws, but they regularly attract too many men and have symbolic names (Tess=Summer (Pure), Elfride = Elf (magical, mystic, pure), Bathsheba Everdene = beautiful with a flaw and eternal). They are all beaten and abused by the world and are sometimes misled into existing with the world. But they usually find some sort of salvation at the end. Stupid Angel. Please read Far From the Madding Crowd though!

IRONIC USE: Great Expectations, Estella. Complete with a symbolic name, this Stargirl is a regular little devil! Not kidding. She is set up by her crazy aunt (?) to be a perfect, pure little girl, who regularly leads believing little boys like Pip down the path of destruction. Oh dear. In fact, Dickens plays on the reader's expectation and knowledge of the Victorian Stargirl and uses this to turn her into a demon.

Blast. I forgot Clarisse from Farenheit 451, who was the inspiration for this post. Oh well, she resembles the Spinelli Stargirl more by valuing imagination, having a symbolic name, and generally being eccentric by society. OOh. Without realizing it, I've divided them into two categories: Victorian Stargirl and Spinelli Stargirl. I could so write a book.

NUMBER 40! Someone pop a balloon!

Returning to the original purpose of this blog: counting books. Though the AP use was very useful in the very short time I actually used it. It kind of makes me sad that I didn't get to use One Hundred Years of Solitude, though. It's funny. I printed off my posts about only 3 books and still the went to about 4 pages in size 9 font. That's a lot of writing. Huh.

Anyhow! I finished my 40th book on the list after about 3 months due to school distractions: A Tale of Two Cities! I wish I could have devoted more attention to this book. Obligations left me reading this book at 11 for 15 minutes wishing I could justify staying up till 1 to read. I just couldn't. But today I pushed through and presently need a new book to start summer with (but don't worry, I'm working on that).

I LOVE Charles Dickens. He has gorgeous, thick, rich language which he uses to express subtle, or not so subtle, ideas and create odd yet very credible characters that you can easily envision with your mind's eye. My favorite in Great Expectations was Miss Havisham, of course, but I had several favorites in TOTC. First, there was Cruncher. He is such a minor character and it amazes me Dickens spent so much time developing someone who would be of fairly important, yet minimal use in the novel. Things I know that I didn't need to really know about him. He has a wife who is a good, yet persecuted, Christian. He has a son who for some reason really looks up to his father. He is a grave robber. He is an odd-job guy. Actually the last two have quite some importance in the plot. I also enjoyed Miss Pross. She is genuinely English through and through. These ladies are a marvel in British literature. It is the British recognizing the stereotype of strong spinsters, being proud of it, then making fun of it. Amazing. Miss Pross is amazing and useful in several different ways. Her brother is important, as well as herself and her devotion to "ladybird." I'm not even sure what she looks like, but Dickens describes her so well, I instantly connect her to a character from one of the Britcoms I like. The third is Madame, sorry, Citizeness Defarge, of course. She is one of the prime characters of the novel and appears again and again, accompanied by her knitting. She even elevates to an angel of death in her last scene. Dickens and characters go together.

Dickens also knows how to make an entrance and an exit. The first line is still slightly hokey to me because of its overuse (juxtaposition? Nah.) but the last line which is also frequently quoted has garnered so much more respect because of the ending scene. But I'll let you decide for yourself:

- It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it ws the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way.

-It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

Ah. The last quote just hits me. It means more than one thing and is sentimental and heroic and touching as all get out. Please. Read the book. But DON'T be an idiot and read the last few pages. Grr.

Though there is so much more to the novel, I will limit myself to the views it takes on female strength. But you cannot have female strength without mentioning the strength of the common people in this book. They go together. I will examine the dynamics of two relationships. First, the relationship between Citizeness Defarge and Citizen Defarge. There is a reason that everyone remembers Madame Defarge over her husband. To put it in perspective, they are the common man in France and the movers of that bloody revolution. They own a wine shop. She is always the stronger one over her husband. He is impatient and seemingly weak of character. He sympathizes with the plight of the Manette's. He is weak next to her. She is the true mover of the Revolution and at first mainly works through her husband, though she reveals herself more and more as time goes on. Second, lets move to Miss Pross and Cruncher, of all people. Pross is strong. In fact, in a show of love vs. hate, she triumphs over Madame Defarge. When push comes to shove, Cruncher starts blithering about his wife and child in England and Pross is the one evaluating the situation and figuring out a logical solution. In this book, it is always the female that has the clear head, logical mind, resourcefulness, and generally strength of character. Correction - it is the lower class women who have these virtues. For example, "Ladybird" does not have any of this strength of character. Now she is a lovely, patient, virtuous lady, but lacks the nitty gritty that the other two have. In fact, the Darnays are so nice, that you just know something is going to happen to them. Now, it seems that Dickens celebrates woman's strength of character. He also values the value of the "common man," but with the latter comes a warning encapsulated in the character of "Vengance." Revenge became a huge part of the novel, and Dickens has a great quote concerning it. For now, I will end with some quotes.

-Sadly, sadly, the sun rose; it rose upon no sadder sight than the man of good abilities and good emotions, incapable of their directed exercise, incapable of his own help and his own happiness, sensible of the blight on him, and resigning himself to let it eat him away.

-I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss, and, in their struggles to be truly free, in their triumphs and defeats, through long years to come, I see the evil of this time and of the previous time of which this is the natural birth, gradually making expiation for itself and wearing out.

-Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind.

-Waste forces within him, and a desert all around, this man stood still on his way across a silent terrace, and saw for a moment, lying in the wilderness before him, a mirage of honorable ambition, self-denial, and perseverance. In the fair city of this vision, there were airy galleries from which the loves and graces looked upon him, gardens in which the fruits of life hung ripening, waters of Hope that sparkled in his sight. A moment, and it was gone. Climbing to a high chamber in a well of houses, he threw himself down in his clothes on a neglected bed, and its pillow was wet with wasted tears.

-I have sometimes sat alone here of an evening, listening, until I have made the echoes out to be the echoes of all the footsteps that are coming by and by into our lives.

-I have sometimes sat alone here of an evening, listening, until I have made the echoes out to be the echoes of all the footsteps that are coming by and by into our lives.

I know they are a bit out of order, but something has come to my attention: I have failed to expound the wonderful character of Mr. Sydney Carton. Sigh. He is a tragic hero. I love him very much. That's not so much expounding as rambling, but there it is.

My next books:

Nonficiton: How to Become a Writer. It looks very...interesting. Almost like the Strunk and White of writing.

Fiction: Hopefully, The Plauge, by Albert Camus. Technically, it is not on my list, the Stranger is. But I find myself craving his writing. I got sucked into some post-war essays at the book store the other day and realized it was my signal that I needed to read Camus, who has beautiful writing. I have opportunity once more to stay up till 3 in the morning just to read and I feel it is high time already. Welcome, summer. I may read now.

DYSTOPIAS!

Alright, so, since this nice little "100 book list" blog has morphed into an AP English study tool for now and the AP test is, oh yeah, THIS THURSDAY, I need to rush things a bit. So here goes a crash course and Fahrenheit 451 and 1984. Their main similarity (besides numbers in the title)? They are both dystopian novels. Meaning that it's like a perfect world. Except not.

Now, George Orwell is a whole lot darker than Ray Bradbury in these novels. It is like comparing Mary Wollenstone Craft's works to Pride and Prejudice, or juvenalian to saturnalian (???) satire. One is a whole lot more harder than the other, though they both do the same thing. 451 introduces a world where everyone is glued to the television screen and is not allowed to expand their minds by means of books. Cause they're all banned. In 1984, everyone is watched all the time by telescreens and their freedom to EVERYTHING is restricted. Orwell's world is darker and harsher.

Each book has a male protagonist that, despite their soul-quenching environments, start learning the truth via some inner conscience and some outer source (Julia, Faber). They both have someone who betrays them (The Antique Shop Man, Montag) who they previously trusted. They both have some sort of woman issue: they have their estranged wives and their side interests that help them rebel and is all about freedom (Julia, Clarisse). Of course, they girls themselves are entirely innocent.

Hey! I'm going to elaborate now. Also, the societies are very much the same. First, they center around the city. The wild outdoors, the variable of nature, scares these overwhelming systems because they cannot control it. It is where our rebellious protagonists go to ... rebel. Or escape. It was while taking in the night through an unprecedented walk that Montag meets that girl and starts (*gasp*) thinking. He also finds his way in the wilderness again at the end in the book circle. Winston finds his way in the wilderness at the very beginning of his rebellion when he and Julia commit their "political act." From then on, they find places of seclusion "outside" or in other various symbols of uncontrollable strength. For example, they often find themselves in churches. Religion is like the wilderness, in that it is powerful and difficult to control, even though Insoc destroyed them. They still manage to live on in some ways.

Each book also holds the presence of a "protecting" force that also serves as destroyer. In 451, that is served by the firemen, but more specifically, the fantastic dog robot. Since it is a robot, it is also devoid of all human feeling and becomes a tool in the hands of a society that has similarly lost its humanity. In 1984, Ingsoc is the society that has lost its humanity, but the telescreens serve a parallel to the robot dog. It serves a protective feature in society and yet also betrays Winston and Julia in the upper room.

Technology is also a big part in each book. In 451, the televisions that take up a wall spur the wife (and the whole society) into a want for more and more and more mindless diversion. Since there is something to replace books, it is easier for the government to control. The telescreens in 1984 serve a similar purpose.

The complete opposite to this mindless diversion is books and writing. Both rebellions in 451 and 1984 have to do with reading and writing and books. Montag kept a book. Winston wrote something in a diary. Montag started reading. Winston obtained THE BOOK. Clearly, education is the key to mind-numbing activities.

Now, before I start in on differences, think of something. Is this just a bit scary? And which is scarier?

The destructive nature of the societies differ greatly. Though, in a way they can just be taken as different parts of the same cycle. 451's society wishes to usher their citizens into a mindless state induced by technology and lack of books. Force is used. But such things as thinking and taking long walks is seen as odd and is discouraged but not forbidden. In 1984, there are strict rules and the citizens live in constant fear. Even the patriotic Mrs. Whats-her-name with dust on her face lives in constant fear. Extermination is wholly possible. They government controls every aspect of people's lives and does not relent or give grace. At all.

The class models also differ. 1984 has two classes: the regular people and the proles. 451 seems to live in a constant state of suburbia. I'm going to stop talking now because honestly, I need to study up more on both books before I state a definite list of differnces. But you get the point.

In characters, there are also several differnces. For example, Montag is a guy you might possibly want to take home to your parents - he is a true hero. His only flaw is really one introduced by his society. Winston is yucky. His only redeeming quality is the fact that he is the last man in Britain who has a stinking conscience. Perhaps the amount of flaw in the man is influenced by the degree of flaw in the society. But I still like Montag better. And also, Montag pulls through in the end. Winston falls in Room 101. Clarisse and Julia differ the most though. Julia is hard headed and uncaring and rebels simply to rebel. She is a teenager of Ingsoc. So pretty much just a nonserious side effect of Ingsoc. She has been to the extremes of dirtiness but finds a bit of redemption finally in her relationship with Winston. Clarisse is...Stargirl. Which is how I'm going to name these types of characters from now on. They are wholly likeable and INNOCENT. They are curious and delight in the oddities of life. They thrive on social attention but also are content with solitude. But in the whole, they are innocent. Julia and Clarisse's roles in the novels are the same but their characters are completely different.

The last difference here, the endings are different. 1984 ends with "two gin-scented tears" and a totally broken down The Last Man on Earth. The Dystopia has won. 451 ends with Montag finding other crazy kids just like him out in the wilderness. There is Hope. There is a counter society that could one day rise up and school that dystopia.

The question is....which one is scarier?

Despite the hope at the end, I think 451 is scarier. It resembles our own society the most.

In the movie Stranger than Fiction, the main character wanders around for a couple days and keeps 2 tallies in a little notebook: signs that he is in a comedy and signs that he is in a tragedy. Every once in a while, as you are watching the news or thinking about the omnipresence of technology in our society, make a little mark in your mental book...

are we living in a utopia, or a dystopia?