Thx Cambridge!

#WhenYouWriteAt6AMButCan’tFindGifsTill10PM

To be honest, I didn’t find any of these three criticisms great. Maybe I’m just becoming an angry writer. Maybe it’s just my “voice.” Who knows.

The first criticism definitely embodied my view of the play and, even then, I wasn’t even quite sure what the first line was trying to achieve! “Southern Gothic horror story.” What exactly is Gothic or horrific about this play? I definitely see the Southern aspect, with Boss Finley trying to protect the “pure blood” of their town by castrating a black man or the mere politics involved in general seem to be the stereotypical problems of the South. Nothing exciting happens down here unless it’s sex! Thanks Tennessee Williams!

But, back to the first criticism, there were parts I agreed with. When Hirsch writes that “As [Chance Wayne’s] name blatantly indicates, though, his chances are waning.” That may be one of the lines I agree most with out of the three criticisms and it was in the first paragraph! However, it then proceeds to go over my head with comparisons to “Val Xavier in Battle of Angels” and by bringing in the criticism of other critics, like Robert Brustein’s puzzled response to Chance’s character. Uh, Foster Hirsch, isn’t this supposed to be your opinion?

Hirsch goes on to then claim William’s said he was unsuccessful with Finley because he just hated him so much. But I feel like that’s what made him so terribly great. Everyone hated Boss Finley, or at least almost everyone in my class did. Boss “believes” that he was called by the Voice of God to serve his town, which is a complete contrast that Williams did a great job setting up. An awfully evil medium for which God can speak through and rectify change through? I don’t think so, Boss. All holy and loving of all but controlling his daughter, castrating a black man, completely opposing Chance’s embodiment of Christ himself, and, to quote Chance, “preaching hate.” Maybe that’s why Boss has such a twisted personality.

However, Firsch did the best job, of the three blogs, touching on the fact that the Sweet Bird of Youth just wasn’t good. It was alright, for sure. It held my attention… sometimes. When Princess wasn’t rambling on about something at least. But there was not enough character development in this play. As Jenna says, everyone seemed so shallow. And I wholeheartedly agree. I feel like the play had weak structure, little to no flow from one act to the other, and it was overall disconnected. None of the criticisms seemed to touch much on that, except for the first one. After an entire paper, he ends with claiming it was “carelessly constructed.” But, despite that negative criticism, he does attempt to end on a positive note which I see no need for. Trying to justify the shortness of the play, the unconnected acts and unsupported characters. But why? This play was no good, that’s ok to admit, no positive justification is needed.

However, I feel like the second criticism didn’t even read the play, they just watched the movie or something and made up all the rest of their critiques out of thin air to hit a word count. How do they know he “only got as far as the chorus of a Broadway production of Oklahoma?” How are they so sure that Chance contracted a disease from a wealthy woman through his work as a gigolo? I feel like there is a lot left unsaid, given that there is only three acts, but Tennessee Williams was so picky about how the entire play was set up, why would he leave the reasons behind why things happen up to interpretation? I feel like the second criticism will gladly make up parts of the story in order to have the puzzle pieces connect, but how can we be sure that Tennessee wanted that to happen? What if the entire play was just that, the play? There is no deeper meaning than that.

And where I feel like the second criticism discredits itself with the huge amounts of interpretation, the third criticism wasn’t much better. The third criticism is longer than the play! Where do they even gather enough information to write that much? In the third criticism, I don’t think they accurately portrays the play in a way I agree with. And Griffin states that Princess and Chance are the two best characters. Uh no? I definitely disagree because Boss was the best character Williams was able to display, despite his awful characteristics. He’s a complete stereotype, mistress and all, and he makes the most sense out of anyone in this short, drawn out play! Finley is a complete contradiction, loving on Miss Lucy in a hotel room but hating on Chance for the exact same actions! How does Griffin know Lucy wanted Chance to leave to protect Heavenly? She doesn’t seem to be too fond of the Finley family that day. And, honestly, I think the third criticism has too many quotes, too much summary, and not enough evaluation.

Overall, I don’t think any of the criticisms touched on my biggest question: WHY? Why was this play written? Why does this entire town CARE so much? Why were they all awaiting Chance’s return? I just don’t understand. And these three criticisms did not help me better understand the reason why this play was written.

More First Impressions About 4 New Characters

The Sweet Bird of Youth: Act 2 Scene 1

5.) Aunt Nonnie ain’t slick.


So, not only does Nonnie just come barreling up to the front porch, or the veranda if you want to use fancy Tennessee Williams lingo, but she also “inconspicuously” rummages through her purse for who-knows-what. SMOOTH MOVE, LADY. She’s so turned up that she claims she doesn’t even notice Boss Finley standing by the open front door. So, honestly, my first thought was, “Is this chick addicted to drugs and hasn’t popped any pills yet?” And it was also, “Is she just hiding communications with Chance or is there more?” And, “Does she have a thing for Chance or is she just looking out for Heavenly?” But with only 10 lines, I guess it’s hard to get a sound first impression.

However, in her short appearance on stage, she did have a point I appreciated about violence. “[Violence] never solves young people’s problems.” Presumably hinting at both Tom Finleys. And just giving good advice. So maybe this lady isn’t completely crazy after all.



6.) Could there be a more stereotypical son?


Tom Finley Jr. What a guy. That’s about as much as I thought when I first caught his vibe. Next thought? I don’t like this kid. Sketchy, ungrateful, spoiled, nosey, unnoticed rich kid. With a whiny tone. Has a, “But, daddy, I said I wanted a pony, not a puppy!” feel, from what I can tell up to this point. I started to get that feeling when he first started talking about Dan Hatcher and Chance Wayne and his “inside” knowledge on the Royal Palms Hotel. Then he’s all “[Heavenly is] lyin’ out on the beach like a dead body washed up on it.” Is he defensive that his dad is still more interested in Heavenly, even though TFJr. has alllllllll the inside gossip hookups? Or is he just weird? He’s basically saying “Hey dad I’m smart, look at me! I just dug up all this dirt! Give me attention!” Did someone say butt-kisser?

Honestly, maybe he’s feeling pretty neglected since the press and his own father seem to favor his sister over him and he feels the need to find ways to earn him some attention. Like a teenager who wants some attention, negatively or positively, TFJr. has tried and is willng to try just about anything to get some love from his old man. Whether that means just mooching on the attention his sister already gets from the press and their father or if that means forming a cult that actively promotes disobedience, he seems to be participating. And he seems to choose mooching off of his sister’s current attention. Smart kid. A tried and true, through and through male Gossip Girl. 

7.) But I can’t figure out the sister’s deal either.


Heavenly Finley. One confusing lady. At 15, she let Chance Wayne take naked pictures of her and apparently, “she loved him,” or whatever. Even though I have lowkey suspicions that she’s more in love with the idea of him. She’s embarrassed that “George Scudder’s knife had cut the youth out of [her] body.” So she’s embarrassed that she had an abortion, or a, “whore’s operation,” as referred to by her father, and the intense press presence that knows all about her personal life story. Through the diction she uses, like “cut the youth out,” and, “old childless woman,” we’re led to see Heavenly in a derogatory light and a negative tone. She’s hinting depression and suicide to the audience, especially when she says, “I feel as if I ought to rattle like a dead dried-up vine when the Gulf Wind blows.” The physical abortion she underwent mentally destroyed her; the literal cutting of life from her body figuratively sucked her youth away. Heavenly often times repeats a line about when she “used to be” alive inside. So now she’s dead inside? But she’s hanging out by the water? Which is a direct contrast, given that she is describing herself as death and surrounding herself with life.

But back to my lowkey suspicions that she loves the idea of him more than she loves Chance himself, it could make sense. She’s going against her dad with a sneaky relationship, and we know from her father’s line, “Oh, I know, …in your heart you always wished to defy me,” that she butts heads with the guy often. Isn’t that the stereotypical teenage ideal? Break your parents rules, rebel against them, do something just because they don’t want you to. And Chance wiped away Heavenly’s picture of purity. He took something away from Heavenly that Boss couldn’t control, and Heavenly is in love with the idea that her father had no control. Boss wants Heavenly to dress in all white like a virgin and display her pureness to the entire town. But does Heavenly want that? No. And Chance Wayne was her first taste of rebellion, which started an addiction she can’t get enough of. She’ll always be looking to hit that first high she had with Chance but she’s not going to find it.

And hopefully this isn’t one of those Catcher in the Rye pieces of literature where Holden and Jane never actually see each other.

8.) So that’s why he’s the Boss.


Maybe this is just a stereotypical family. Boss Finley is, as the name employs, bossy, controlling, deceptive, slightly creepy (despite Tennessee’s side note that Boss looks at Heavenly in a non-romantic, fatherly way), obsessed, rude, fake, whiny (I see where his son gets it), grumpy, possessive, slimy, and those were just my initial thoughts.

He’s OBSESSED with Heavenly. I get it, your wife passed away and your daughter is the spitting image of your wife in her youth. However, still feeling that way and looking at your daughter like the picture of perfection when you host a mistress at a local hotel? (Fake) And spend more money on this secret lady than on both of your kids combined? (Fake) Or how about shoo-ing your son under the table for five grand after driving drunk? (Fake) Trying to portray an image of perfection and brushing negativity under the rug rather than addressing the problems at its root? (Fake) I feel like Boss has this sort of me-against-the-world mentality and it shows through in his aggressive diction. Like when he’s talking to Tom Junior about Miss Lucy and he goes from, “What’re you talkin’ about?” to, “That is a goddam lie. Who says Miss Lucy says that?” I see you, Boss, all defensive and whatnot. You’re real SMOOTH too, buddy. Or when he has that “ultra-power” feeling when he’s just ungrateful and smack talking their manservant Charles, later admitting to Heavenly, “I have power, which is not an illusion.” Well congratulations, sir.

Maybe I just don’t like this guy. He has zero respect for females. Cheating on his wife with a mistress, only giving a crap about his daughter when she’s causing bad publicity, treating Aunt Nonnie like she’s a straight up moron and telling her to her face that she’s as “gullible as [his] wife was.” He’s demanding and straight up rude. But maybe that’s just because I wouldn’t respond to the way he has spoken to any of the women seen thus far. And, even though Tennessee claims that his “affection” for Heavenly is purely fatherly and not romantic, I feel like his possessiveness and control over her is creepy nonetheless. Boss can’t get over the fact that he wasn’t in control of the time and place and age and way Heavenly lost her virginity. So not only is he all up in her personal business, he’s also judging her for it rather than providing guidance or lending her a hand. She’s going through a rough time and he’s more concerned with the image she’s putting out than the hardships she’s facing.


But maybe I’m wrong. They’re called first impressions for a reason.

4 First Impressions About 2 Main Characters

The Sweet Bird of Youth: Act 1 Scene 1 

1.) How OLD is Princess?!

Soooooo, based on the background we already know prior to reading, Princess is middle aged but her career is based on her youthful looks and mannerisms. She’s a sex addict, so she’s made her way around the block a few times, if you know what I mean. Maybe that gives her some wisdom? In a weird way? But another thing that stuck out to me, other than her fancy illegal Moroccan drugs, was the way in which she spoke. She sounds like an overdramatic grandmother to a snobby, dependent grandson. If I didn’t have the background and I never saw an actress playing her role (as an actress ha-ha), I would probably instead picture a much older woman, solely because of her diction.

First, a huge bell-going-off-in-someone’s-head is definitely when she freaks out without either of two things: her breathing machine and her glasses. Uh, OK, so she can’t breathe or see I guess. When she says to Chance, “Wouldn’t that be pretty? A year in jail in one of those model prisons for distinguished addicts. What is it? Don’t you know what it is you beautiful, stupid young man? It’s hashish, Moroccan, the finest,” she throws up a few red flags. The biggest one is when she calls him a stupid, young man. She obviously knows he’s younger, but I’d assume most other women in her position would be at least somewhat ashamed to admit they just slept with a man half their age. Then again, she even admits to Chance that she’s “not common.” But also, back to my earlier exploitation of her dialogue, she then depicts an entire, dramatic image for being caught with her illegal substances, overdramatizing the event in a way that any regular woman wouldn’t do and any youth just wouldn’t care to take the time to do. But I guess back to her whole spiel of “In all respects I’m not common,” line. To me, however, the whole useless imagery she paints makes her sound pretty darn old. And definitely not middle aged having existential crises every few hours. Like nearing her deathbed old.

2.) Princess talks. A LOT.

Honestly, right after I realized Princess talked with ancient language, I decided she uses way too much of it. Her dialogue takes far too long to explain far too little. She could easily condense her thoughts into a couple of words. But I understand she’s in the acting career and she has to add some flair to what she has to say in order to get any respect as an actress. And after being successful and in the industry so long, it most likely is just ingrained in her consciousness to use as much space as possible to say as little as possible.

For example, when she had that huge “remembering” of how she was so embarrassed that people saw how she was losing her youthfulness that she tripped over her dress trying to run away from the audience. She used twenty sentences to say what I could in two. “I was so embarrassed when I tried to come-back to acting with a youthful look and people in the audience audibly gasped that I ran away from them and tripped over my over-elaborate ball gown. Then I was more embarrassed because I fell.” Maybe it just doesn’t have the same dramatic effect she did. But, all talk of dramatic effect aside, Princess takes up far more lines than Chance does in this scene. Which left a huge impression on me right off the get-go that Princess likes to have the spotlight on her… Literally and metaphorically.

And honestly, maybe I’m a culprit of using so much space to say one statement right now in this blog. Using 296 words to say what realistically could be done in seven; “Princess talks a lot more than Chance.” But where’s the dramatic effect in that?

3.) Is Chance just dumb?

I was struck with the impression that maybe Chance is just an idiot. Maybe 65% of the way through the reading I was hit with that realization. Right at the time where he’s all smug about busting her drugs with the tape recorder and then she counters him with her (might I add lengthy) speech about how bad he is at playing the villain. She says, “You are trembling and sweating… You see, this part doesn’t suit you, you just don’t play it well, Chance,” drawing out his insecurities and calling him out for poorly executed acting. She’s pointing out that, despite his tough face and strong attempts, he just isn’t cutting it. Which could potentially spiral Chance into a black hole of thinking he wasn’t good enough and that’s why his acting never took off, etc. showing how Princess knew exactly how to manipulate him (maybe her wisdom does come with her sex addiction).

Then, after realizing that maybe Chance was not intelligent, through reading the rest of the play and skimming back through the beginning to test my theory, Princess somehow convinces him that she needs to “forget” through the “act of love-making” and that the only person she “wants” for such a deed is him. Chance was so ready to lock her down and force her to sign his contract to get him on a super-talented-and-respected acting career but the second she started to chip away at his exterior, he melted straight into a puddle of pure puppetry, his every thought being controlled by Princess. Is he dumb or is he just insecure?


4.) Why’s Chance such a weenie?

“Oh, I’m so cool I can blackmail older women and sleep with them in the same day. I’m so cool for being a male prostitute and then also trying to force the women I’m with into signing me for a record. Oh, it’s so cool that I’m such a great, undiscovered actor who does drugs and probably has a drinking problem. Ohhhhhh, I’m sooooooo cool for being so sneaky about bringing this older woman who can’t even remember what she had for dinner last night to St. Cloud so I actually can just hook back up with my old high school sweetheart I ditched a bunch of years back. Ooooo I can get mad at my old friends for getting engaged to my ex-girlfriend after I ran away from town and left everything behind. So cool.”

I feel like Chance is a big weenie. I started getting that feeling when he called Princess a, “plump lady,” and when he wanted, “the Bromo first,” when Fly was at his hotel room and when he was only focused on Heavenly, even after finding out his mother had passed away (but seriously how did he not know that?!). He’s vibing straight rudeness half the time, a condescending attitude half the time, and clear ignorance the other half of the time. Maybe I’m just feeling negative about this guy but I really am not painting too good of an image. Might I restate the fact that he didn’t even know his MOM DIED, yet even after he did find out he still NEGLECTED TO CARE. Uh, if he doesn’t spell out W-E-E-N-I-E, I don’t know what else does.

"And this is a glimpse into my take on poetry..."

SO I love poetry and I love blogs. SO MUCH. And I’m SO EXCITED to be blogging again. (Half sarcastic but actually half true) But also poetry really confuses me 10/10 times.




And so what makes a poem good?


Well, of course, all the basics. Imagery, tone, diction, symbolism, other words that make you sound smart, etc. Throw in some deeper meaning and some other pizzazz, finesse the reader a bit. That makes it good. But great? That’s another story.


To me, great poetry has all of the qualities I mentioned earlier (obviously). But what separates good from great is the vested interest of the poet. How well can the writing be related back to their lives? How passionate is the poet’s diction? What is his/her main purpose in constructing a published work of literature? Can we tell how powerful the poem was to the poet?


And I think great poems are pretty dang hard to find.







Concerning Robert Frost, I think his best poem was “The Road Not Taken.” Not for any of the cliche reasons, like it’s probably one of the most common poems seen and schools use it in yearbooks and stores print it on bookmarks, but because it umbrellas all of the other poems he writes. In every other poem we’ve read by Robert Frost, there’s been at least one line (or even one word) that relates to his theme of traveling a different path than what was expected.


Even though he has poetry dating from before and after the 1916 published date of “The Road Not Taken,” I feel that his writing in that poem constructs a theme that relates all of his other works of literature together. For example, in “The Axe-Helve,” despite the strong metaphor for two men exploring each other’s sexuality, also represents taking a different path. In the early 1900’s, was homosexuality acceptable in society? Only in more recent years are people beginning to open up to how they really feel and through societal standards aside. Also, in “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening,” Frost seemingly mimics the exact writing style of “The Road Not Taken,” with his use of four stanzas and rhymes at the end of the lines. The only difference is that each stanza is four lines in Snowy Evening where there are five lines in Not Taken. 

And, given that traces of his words in “The Road Not Taken” can be widely found in other works of literature, given that this was an extremely powerful poem to Frost, given that he has a powerful passion for what he wrote, I think that “The Road Not Taken” was Robert Frost’s best poem.


But, if I were to go on and begin describing what makes a bad poem, well, who really am I to judge from a poet’s perspective? All I can do is make determinations from a reader’s perspective. And, to me, other than lack of connection, lack of at least a small hint to guide the reader on the path to what the poem is possibly about, lack of care for the future reader, poetry really can’t be “bad” if it means something to the author. It shouldn’t be up to me to determine “great” from “bad” when I feel like we should at least try to find the good? What makes me the who-says on a piece of work a poet probably spent days, weeks, or months on? Who says my opinion as a reader is even valid?


Because why should I be judging the value of a poem that belongs to someone else?





But, if I had to, I’d probably say “The Death of The Hired Man” was my least favorite that we’ve read as a class. (Kudos to Mackenzie L. for banging that poem analysis out!!) It might’ve been the fact that I had a headache that day, or the fact that I was up later that night before and had a hard time focusing while in class, or any combination of any factors that could possibly contribute to that poem being my least favorite (like maybe it was just because it was soooooo long and my brain shut off). To me, I felt like Frost used way too many words to try to convey one meaning, which I don’t entirely get in the first place. There was way too much dialogue, to the point where I couldn’t tell what was what and who was talking when. I feel like I couldn’t connect this to any of the Frost experiences I know of, I couldn’t take any hints as to what the poem was really about, and I didn’t think Frost really wrote this for readers to understand.




Now, maybe in his eyes, this is his best piece of work. But, from my perspective as a reader, I believe this was his worst.


And this is a glimpse into my take on poetry.

Some Fun Responses to "The Stranger: Part 2"

Right early on in the trial, the emphasis was shifted from an examination of the crime itself to a condemnation of Meursault’s personality and behavior. The trial that officially started on page eighty-five was officially switched to discussing his personality and Maman on page eighty-nine, after only a few questions on whether it was Meursault’s “intent to kill the Arab,” on the previous page. The number of times they even discussed Meursault in relation to the Arab in the trial (three times to be exact) can be counted on one of my hands!

The prosecutor seemed very much interested in Meursault’s personality rather than his crime, as he called all of Meursault’s “closest” friends in to speak and asked only one of them, Raymond, about the crime itself. With every other testimony, more information concerning Meursault’s behavior was deemed more important than his crime. The prosecutor (successfully) attempted to connect Meursault’s lack of emotion to the idea that his murder was premeditated, however this theory confused me because I don’t quite understand the correlation between “emotionless” and “pre-planning the plot of a murder.” I understand that Meursault helped Raymond write a letter to his mistress to make her feel guilty and to help Raymond get revenge, but from what we’re told in the book, there’s no mention in the letter of Meursault’s “premeditated”  intent of hurting and killing an Arab. And, despite the few times Meursault’s lawyer objected and interjected whether Meursault was on trial for murdering a man or burying his mother, the rest of the court and the jury seemed to be following the prosecutor’s exact train of thought. Or else they were in a state of confusion, like I am, and the prosecutor took it upon himself to pounce at that moment and convince the confused crowd that his behavior proved he planned the murder.

I honestly do not know whether justice is served by the verdict. I feel like Meursault almost has an unclear mental state, as he is always thinking about something else other than what is actually going on. Like when his lawyer was defending him, all he could think about was how hot and tired he was and how much he wanted to go back to his jail cell. There was just something about him that is unlike most other characters you read about in other books, even different from Holden in Catcher in the Rye. If death is the proper punishment for murder, then I believe yes, justice has been served. But if death isn’t the punishment or if his mental state can be credited with the incident, then I believe no, justice was not served and I believe it to be up to Meursault and Meursault’s lawyer for not finding a good way to combat the prosecutor’s argument.

Meursault, at the time and day that this trial took place, probably could not be given a fair trial. Meursault has a completely different mental capacity than anyone around him, including the caretaker at his mother’s home, the director of his mother’s home, Marie in her desire to marry him but his indifference, Salamano’s sadness about his dog. Meursault just does not care and that puts him so at odds with society and society’s conventions and morals. A man like Meursault cannot be given a fair trial, given the setting and his actions. He, like Holden, needs psychoanalyzed and probably needs some sort of a mental therapist to help just understand the whys behind his actions, his thoughts, his relationships with his friends, and et cetera.

I do not believe Meursault is truly judged by a jury of his peers. How can these people understand the way Meursault’s brain works if he is not defended or explained by his lawyer? How are these people expected to understand that something is potentially off balance in Meursault’s chemical makeup of his brain if Meursault’s own lawyer doesn’t see it? The people on the jury are not expected to know anything other than what the prosecutor has told them because they weren’t getting sufficient information from any other source.

“Nothing was more important than an execution.” Watching the specifics on how it goes down. Seeing the guillotine in action. Looking for the one case who was able to escape. Meursault’s mind starts to rake the possibilities of escape and avoidance and how he can potentially not get killed for his crime. He remembers the story his mother used to tell of his father, how he went to see an execution and threw up the rest of the morning because he was so disgusted with the entire thing. One of Meursault’s most fleeting emotions was wishing he could be in the angry crowd, watching the execution, then having the luxury of throwing up the entire morning afterwards. Not being the one executed. It relates to his present circumstance in almost an ironic way because he tends to feel more emotion about this than he does in any other situation in the book.

The chaplain does his best to sway Meursault to accept God in his heart but Meursault resists, like he does at the hearing and like he does to just about anyone else trying to persuade him something. The immensity of Meursault’s refusal was so much that it thoroughly angered the chaplain and successfully generated frustration within himself. Eventually, the calm appearance of the chaplain seemed to have a negative effect on Meursault and caused him to verbally lash out and attack the chaplain. Meursault’s words were so derogatory and his vehement disagreement in the idea of God was so immense that the chaplain was reduced to tears. Tears because he couldn’t change Meursault’s heart. Tears because he was thoroughly terrified of what went down. Tears because he felt that he knew Meursault’s fate awaited him in Hell.

I thought hard about this question when I read the last sentence of the book. Who wants an angry crowd anytime they’re put on the spot? It didn’t make sense to me at all and I completely had no ideas as to why Meursault would crave that, other than the fact that he’s just crazy. Maybe he feels like since so many people hate him for killing the Arab, he wants a whole bunch of people there so that they can see justice being served. Maybe Meursault wants all the people there in anger because, in a weird, sick way, he wants them all to see him when he’s dead, completely opposite Holden in Catcher in the Rye and his dislike of the “rubbernecks” who would look at him when he’s all gory. Maybe he just wants to feel an emotion. Maybe Meursault still feels nothing for his crime and for his lifestyle and he just wants the opportunity to feel regret or guilt or sadness for his mistakes in the past. And maybe for him an angry crowd at the time of his death would do it.

Camus’ discussion of these ideas seems to give off the belief that Meursault is an existentialist. He is living in an irrational world, trying to make rational decisions for himself. He needs to define his own meaning for his own life and, before his execution, he does that. On page 114, he more evidently discloses his ideas on the “everybody knew life is not worth living,” theory, claiming that, “Whether it was now or twenty years from now, [he] would still be the one dying.” Meursault took away all the meaning to life in general and all the meaning to his life specifically. He no longer, nor did he ever, put a strong definition on his own life. He is branded an existentialist in this regard, trying to define his life yet rendering it useless and unimportant. Camus presents this idea of existentialism through Meursault and draws attention to a belief that is conventionally untraditional from what most other people believe, also giving Meursault the power to decide his life isn’t worth anything.

Somethin' Strange

Despite alllllllllllll the Catcher in the Rye reading we’ve been doing up until this point, The Stranger was a nice but very different change in comparison. Meursault doesn’t seem to allude or give much to symbolize and the story as he continues to live seems clear cut. He introduces us to a lot of the characters so far and here’s what I think so far:

Meursault and Maman seemed to have a very interesting relationship. The only family they seemed to have was each other, yet Meursault had to check his mother into a nursing home. Her death within the first few pages of the book are so surreal to Meursault and make him feel almost as if he is caught in a fog. However, he details specific instances concerning her funeral but he never seems to face his emotions on Maman. He avoids seeing her, thinking about her, and discussing her to others, like when he replies with “No” everytime he is asked if he wants to see the casket. He couldn’t even remember his mother’s age. (pg. 25) This relationship is the most sad and simultaneously uninteresting one in the book.

Maman and Perez seemed to have the tightest relationship between the six brought up. They were “inseparable” (pg. 13) and they used to be teased before the death of Maman. Chants like “Perez has a fiancee,” (pg. 13) were common among the other residents. Perez was the only resident allowed to attend Maman’s funeral, which makes me believe that this relationship was most rooted in friendship and companionship. It’s interesting to think that within the few years Maman spent in the nursing home that she found another person who she just understands naturally, and that this man was more loyal to her than her own son had been. This was the most loyal relationship in the book so far.

Meursault and Marie may have the most sexual relationship in the book, given that he seemed to have an unwavering obsession with the woman’s breasts. He ran into her at the beach and continued to hang around with her the rest of his time at the beach. They proceeded to go to a movie that evening where he was still, “fondling her breasts.” (pg. 20) She came back to his apartment for the night and left the next morning. At a later date, he had plans set with her where he instantly thought of the “firm shape of her breasts,” (pg. 34) when she showed up in a dress. The duo does a lot more kissing than they do talking and I think that contributes to the strong sexual relationship between them. They definitely aren’t serious in Meursault’s eyes yet Marie keeps trying to push for more, asking about marriage, love, etc. Meursault doesn’t seem to really have emotions or reactions yet, which is an extremely odd character trait. I’d consider the play of events decently shallow for the moment, given that we have no prior understanding to his relationship to Marie other than the fact that they used to have “a thing.”

Salamano and his dog have what is seen to me as a unique relationship (however just after reading the bottom of page 26 I believed it to be the sweetest relationship because of all the time they spent together) (maybe that’s just because my heart melts a little at the thought of all dogs). However, Meursault goes further into detail then on how Salamano refers to his dog as a, “Filthy, stinking bastard!” (pg. 27) When asked what the dog did, Salamano states that he’s always there. A statement which really saddens me to hear because it proves that the eight years Salamano and his dog have spent together actually drew them apart rather than bringing them together.

Meursault seems to find Raymond very interesting. He doesn’t quite seek Raymond so as to spend time together, but he does enjoy when they are together. They have the most indifferent relationship, where it seems that Meursault would’ve had the same night whether Raymond stopped by or not. However, Raymond admits that he has a “short fuse,” (pg. 29) and tells a story about how he got in a fist fight on the side of the road. Raymond doesn’t appear to have many friends because no one is very interested to hear what he has to say, however Meursault finds himself time and time again extremely interested in what Raymond has to say, whether it is about his fight or his mistress. This relationship might be the most interesting, just because of how interested Meursault is the entire time the two men are together.

However Raymond and his mistress have by far the most interesting relationship. After small piece of evidence after small piece of evidence, Raymond decided that he had enough to believe that she was cheating on him. So he proceeded to yell at the woman, “You don’t see how good you have it with me,” (pg. 31) and battered her until she bled. It was honestly no surprise that the woman and him didn’t make it because he was a jerk. But Raymond was still bothered by her because he still had “sexual feelings” (pg. 31) for her. He has a nasty form of vengeance though, because he beats her again on page 37. I don’t believe that this relationship is attributed as most sexual because we aren’t give any good instances or recounts, there are no positive words exchanged. Only negative thoughts and reactions.

Now, that is only my first half understandings and a provincial view on the story and I am enjoying the book to an extent - - but I can tell it must require more of an acquired taste.

Seminar? Yes. Attendance? No.

November 10th, 2017. I woke up in a hotel room and changed into a pair of warmer clothes with running clothes underneath. Leaving the room, a venture began across the city for a place to eat breakfast. After settling down and eating, I met up with my coach and we practice ran the state cross country course in Tallahassee, Florida.

However, my morning differed than that of most of my classmates. Despite my lack of presence at the latest class Catcher in the Rye discussion, I have gathered some general insight on the seminar and the process.

One of the most prominent comments I heard about the seminar was Josiah talked. A lot. Which I can see in a positive light; he must’ve really had a lot of critical analysis, understanding, and passion about the book. Go you, Josiah, for being prepared to discuss! But on the other hand, I heard that some students didn’t feel always comfortable butting in and speaking when another student was in conversation. So I can understand if there was some frustration for quieter students concerning the talk time Josiah got.

Continuing on, I also heard word that the seminar was super uncomfortable. Students reported to me that they didn’t feel like they could be themselves exactly. But I understand why. Given that the seminar counted as a test grade, it was pretty important that rules were followed and processes were performed traditionally. And it’s only the first time we’e done a seminar. So, naturally, when everything is new and sometimes unclear and one discussion can change a student’s overall grade, it would lead to discomfort.

And, finally, I heard evidence from both sides that students were appreciative of the seminar and learned a lot from it and that students didn’t feel like they learned anything they didn’t already know. I’m not sure what I feel like I would’ve gotten out of it, but I do wish to be a part of an activity such as this sometime. From everything I heard, it sounded like everyone did a great job “policing” themselves and keeping a certain coolness to the seminar. No extreme battles were fought nor were voices raised in argument from my understanding.

Also PS huge shoutout to Caitlin, Mackenzie, Danya, Kayla, and Brenden for having blogs done by 10 PM so I could use your information in your post as reference!!!!!!!!