the stranger. albert camus. (199)

the stranger has been on my to-read list forever now.  i had a third grade teacher recommend it to me once and people are always praising it.  but what persuaded me was a book i purchased for "california bookstore day" which took place may 3.  (i will have to do a post on it because my purchases were adorable.) i purchased depressed, repressed, obsessed: 3-panel book reviews by lisa brown.  after reading the review for the stranger, i decided to read it.

this is an excellent review.

and now for my review, i am not sure to make of it.  i at first read camus as a nihilist since menursault didn't care about anything.  but then i read on wikipedia that camus was like anti-nihilism, but this work was suppose to promote his philosophy of absurd, in which the wikipedia page described as "the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any." since i got this analysis from wikipedia, i will discuss my initial thoughts after i had finish reading and then my thoughts with this knowledge.

to start, i wasn't sure how to read menursault, i thought maybe he had aspergers because his social and communication skills were poor.  he was unable to articulate how he felt or what he meant, which the reader sees via his conversations and his testimony during the trial.  he had good intentions he was just unable to manifest them in his speech and actions.  for example, he did love marie, but it was as though she was asking him the wrong questions, he was answering her questions sincerely but he was too literal.  he also seemed to lack social graces as demonstrated in his behavior at maman's funeral which was later used against him at trial.

i also do not know how he got involved in the mess that he did with raymond but he did.  but i guess that is the demonstration of the absurd.  things happen and we don't know how or why but there is no need to look for deeper meaning but just take them as the way life turned out.

as horrible and indifferent, menursault sounded throughout the work, he was right.  nothing really matters, well more like everything do not matter.  i get it.  i was disappointed at first because i didn't have this profound "wow" moment like i thought i was (based on others' love of this work), but my lack of one could because my view of life has absurd tendencies.  every time i stress out about something especially regrets, i have to remind myself that in the grand spectrum of things, it doesn't matter because one day i will die and will cease to exist.  its sound horrible and makes me sound depressed but i think it's just a real outlook on life.  especially since i am an insignificant nobody in the grand spectrum of life.  i mean i have meaning to those around me but after my grandchildren die off, no one will really know me, so the decisions that i make day to day don't really matter.  i mean why do i even have this blog.  why do i even read?  i enjoy it so that should be reason enough.  but i think what camus is trying to address is this need to give significance to actions for this an idea of afterlife.  i don't believe in an afterlife, and i admired menursault for refusing to see the chaplain.  i mean he was going to die, god wouldn't be able to save him now.  and really should god be accepting last minute conversions like that?  i feel like god should be more strict about who he forgives and allowed into heaven especially since these conversion come from fear of death versus remorse of actions, but that is a whole other story.

back to the work.  so yes, i do believe in philosophy of absurd, i do have a tendency to be the opposite and also look for signs from the universe, but i recognize that it is absurd.  we shouldn't put some much value and meaning into things that do not have them but there needs to be a balance, you need to find something that makes you happy and it's okay to give that meaning and value, just not everything.  i don't know if this makes sense, but i guess i shouldn't worry because it doesn't really matter if this blog as value or not, since "existance is meaningless."

my brother's book. maurice sendak. (117)

after seeing maurice sendak discuss his love for his older brother jack and his  desire to create a simple but definitive book in the documentary, "tell them anything you want", i couldn't help but be emotional when i read this book.  i was just happy that sendak was able to create a book to honor his brother.

i have never read shakespeare's "winter's tale" so did get any of the allusions, but luckily the forward explained it to me.

the book is the story of two brothers who are separated when a star collides with earth.  one brother, jack (the name of maurice's brother) is sent to a world of ice and is frozen.  the other brother guy tumbles into the middle of the earth where he is captured by a bear.  he tells the bear a riddle which can not be solved and is released.  he then finds his brother, jack who has become a tree.  they embrace and are together again.  

the story is short and sweet but the true story behind it is which is what makes it great.  i do not believe in an afterlife but i do believe in it for my family.  i think heaven is too complicated to truly exist. i mean what age will you be? who will you be with? what will you do? and what about all the gray areas in life, i know religious people who don't deserve to be in heaven and sinners who do not deserve hell.  life is too complex for heaven to exist.  the only reason i would want an afterlife to exist was if i could be my family.  

i was raised mormon and one of their central beliefs is that families should be sealed in the temple so they can be together in heaven. growing up i never questioned this but as an adult, i saw how illogical it was.  we do not chose the family we are born into and they are the ones that install in us morals and help us become who we are.  due to this, i could not understand why god would separate families when we die.  it seems cruel, god sticks us with people on earth, we love them unconditionally and purposely separates us when we die unless we are sealed in a mormon temple.  i could and can not believe in a god that is so demanding and unreasonably cruel.  my loss of faith in this mormon doctrine came when my grandfather passed away.  my grandfather was muslim and very stubborn so though a baptism for the dead was probably performed for him, i doubt he would agree to convert in the spiritual world.  as a result i could not believe in a doctrine that would not allow me to be with my grandfather based on faith and not love.  i would rather be with my grandfather in heaven than with god.  at the risk of sounding blasphemous, i know what my grandfather did for me in my life versus what god theoretically did for me.  i know no one should be before god, but if i had to choose between a family member and god, i would go with the family member.  i would not follow the example of abraham and would have never put issac on the alter.  

due to this, i appreciate how it is guy's love for his brother that reunites them.  love can overcome all and like captain and tennille sang "will keep us together".

also the artwork is lovely:

life after life. kate atkinson. (112)

i had never heard of kate atkinson before but both amazon and barnes and nobles sent out emails promoting her new book "life after life" the week it came out.  since the premise sounded interesting, a woman, ursula todd dies numerous times but is always reborn, i decided to check it out.

i wasn't sure what to expect but i really enjoyed "life after life" like five stars on goodreads.com enjoy.  as the cover informed me, author gillian flynn called it "one of the best novels [she's] read this century", which initially sounded impressive but after realizing that we are only 13 years into this century, i can agree with her.  

"life after life" was enthralling, i had to find out how urusla's lives would turn out and what she would alter or how fate would alter it for her.  though i will admit there was a period when i did get a bit bored with her life (after she purposely killed herself for the first time) but it was

mostly because she lost her psyhic-esque powers.  also i couldn't put it down because i had to find out how it ended!  the book opens with an event that takes place in germany in 1930 and given the time and the place it is foreshadowed that hitler was assassinated!  this kept me reading and searching because i had to find out how would ursula's lives got to that point?

the novel is filled with great characters.  ursula is a wonderful protagonist that the reader becomes invested in.  one of her lives was extremely dark and was difficult to read.  as i read, all i could think about was how i hope she died soon so that she would be taken out of her misery. also i adored her family, her mother sylvie and all of her literary allusions, her sister pamela and their correspondence and of course her brother teddy since everyone adored him.  i also loved her aunt izzie.  she was a wild one but i loved izzie's crazy lifestyle and all of the colorful things she said plus she was alway there when her niece needed help.

atkinson's writing was beautiful.  her characters were poetic and as a result so is her novel.  it is filled with beautiful descriptions.  and as i mentioned before her characters are very literary and the novel is filled with allusions to keats, dante, the brönte sisters, austen and even dickens.  i loved her description of an elderly izzie as "a dipsomaniac miss havisham" (which could be an apt description for me when i get old.)

(spoiler alert:  wait to read this section until you read it!)

i do feel there were one gap i found in the novel.  for example, when ursula did kill herself, she didn't have any recollection of her previous lives yet she still went to the psychologist.  this did not make sense because the reason ursula went to the psychologist was because of peculiar  déjà vu bouts as a kid but if she had no recollection why did she go to the psychologist?  though the novel

did show some things were bound to happen regardless of ursula intervening.  (spoiler alert!!) i was also surprised as to how ursula never went back to the life in which she became a mother.  i guess she was never really one for motherhood and i am just projecting my personal choice on to her but i would have had the kid but gotten out of germany.  another  challenging part was because of the rebirths, characters were introduced before their importance was none so it was difficult to keep track of everyone.

(spoiler alert!)

i appreciated how in the end ursula could not completely alter history.  some things were meant to be a certain way regardless of ursula's interventions. and alas that is life.  people will always wish that events in history, like the rise of hitler and the holocaust never occurred but unfortunately there is no way to change things.  and instead of dwelling on "what if's", people should learn from it and prevent history from repeating itself.  ursula and pamela's son had a similar discussion to this effect. the world (or if you believe in him god) works in mysterious ways and instead of dwelling on the negative you have to continue on living.  

i find it interesting that i read "life after life" just after having read "the great gatsby" because both novel feature individuals trapped by their past. gatsby wants to go back and relive his life the way it should

have been while ursula is thrown back to relive hers.  it seems like ursula has the upper hand because she can do something gatsby can not.  however, even though ursula has the ability to go back into the past and change things, she still does not have complete control over the course of life.  life did not follow one path for ursula.  it is not like the "choose your own adventure" books of my youth in which it follows the same path and all that alters is your choice.  instead different occurrences caused things to change and some to remain the same so you never know what will occur, you can only make a choice that you think is the best and hope that it is.  this is demonstrated in the novel as ursula is often faced multiple times with the same events.  and again this is life, you have to hope your actions are for the best.

as i have gotten older, i have been dwelling on the past and what i would change if i could go back in time.  yes, i am content with my life so far, i have a wonderful set of friends, a supportive family and random adventures (i recently wrote these things down for a simmons class as to what i was grateful for.) but there are things i would change if i could be reborn as myself: i wouldn't have wasted time on certain guys, i would have study aboard, i would have taken spanish class more seriously in high school, lost my virginity at an earlier age, been a better sister/daughter/friend at times, never quit dance when i was young, did more interning, and became an art history major.  but i have no serious regrets.  and there are definitely some mistakes in my life that i would do over again because it has made the person i am today.  there are also mistakes i made that were worth it do there is that too.  

for those you that know me i am

not one for religion and do not believe in an afterlife because living for etenity sounds tedious and draining.  however, i have always found the idea of reincarnation intriguing but not coming back as different things but as the same person.  it's odd because i have thought of this before reading this book.  i could believe in a universe in which existence is a series of cycles, we get one life and we come back and relive it for all of etenity.  and sometimes we make the right decisions and sometimes we make

the wrong ones but life just goes

on and on in a continual circle or a cyhper that keeps moving like a rolling stone (erykah badu reference).  so if there is a faith that believes in that sign me

up! i like the idea of life after life, just like i liked the book.  

(sorry that was so cheesy but wanted to end this post but was unsure how!  lol)