The Stranger and History

What is most curious about Albert Camus' The Stranger is the extreme lack of history.
As the book is read hardly anything is known about the main character Meursault, which is extremely significant whether one realizes it or not.
When someone reads a book they judge characters based on their past, and on their actions. But with Meursault all of that is taken away, and all that we have to judge him by is from the actions of his present. We cannot assume that he had a bad childhood, or was abused or somehow was changed to become to emotionless, for all we know he could have been born like that. We have no idea if he had a good relationship with his mother or father or what kind of man he was before the funeral.

He is the stranger.

It's almost like randomly meeting a person and knowing them for only a day. You know little to nothing, and therefore cannot assume anything but can imagine everything.
There are many interpretations of Meursault, one that he is completely heartless is disconnected from the world. There are some that say he lives a simple life and has a passion for the absolute truth. However, I personally cannot agree with either interpretations. I cannot say that Meursault is completely heartless and I cannot say that he has a passion for the truth. I would say that Meursault can feel, he just chooses not to and he doesn't have a passion for the truth but is more so cursed (or blessed) with the inability to lie.
But again, I could very well be wrong. I could find all kinds of evidence from The Stranger to support this view, however, the fact that I know little to nothing about the character still remains. Perhaps it is to send the message to readers that who you think a person is may not be who they are. Perhaps it's to say that history is pointless to tell people as one can never really know someone. Perhaps it is to show how society shuns those who are truly individuals.
What makes a person an individual? Some who thinks differently than society? But what about the statistics that say that no one can have an individual thought? With the amount of people in this world there is bound to be at least a handful of people with the same idea. But what about the thought that society's ways were once individual thoughts? Can anyone be an individual in this world of copiers?

On another note this story begs the question of whether or not we can really know someone. Or how about this: are our actions purely our own? For instance a person could argue that the sun made Meursault kill the Arab but others could argue that he himself chose to take the gun and go back to where the Arab was. But also, Meursault never would have agreed to marry Marie if she hadn't brought it up. Can people make decisions without the conscious or subconscious influence of those around them?

So many questions! So little answers! As is life.

Yes I will be coming back to this one as well.

Crime and Punishment and History

So "Crime and Punishment," the book about a crazy man who is handsome and decides to commit murder for an "experiment." (Being handsome is an important fact as being pretty lets you have leverage with the "less pretty" people). Really he calls it a "theory" but it truly is an experiment. His name is Raskolnikov, and let me tell you why his history is important: because it makes you have mixed emotions about him. In his past he lived with his sister and his mother (see you're feeling sorry for him because he has daddy issues); now he went to a university to learn and would teach to earn money... until he decided to leave. He became a bum and really just did a bunch of nothing besides think about killing... and then killing (feeling less sorry for him now, eh?). See how much back ground knowledge can change how you view/react to things? Yes, yes, this is a point I have made several times now what can I say? A lot of books demonstrate this point and I feel the need to point out their point. (And yes, I did find it necessary to say "point" that many times. XD )


Another character that shows how history changes things is Dunia. Dunia was a governess (nanny) for a family. The parents were Marfa and Svidrigailov. Now Svidrigailov began making advances on Dunia and even got to the point where he offered to give her a house and money and so on if she would become his mistress. Creepy I know. Now, Dunia wrote this letter saying "no" (though in a more emotional and touching way) and sent it to Svidrigailov. However, when his wife Marfa found out Svidrigailov didn't bring it up therefore slandering Dunia's name (because Marfa had no idea how Dunia reacted). Little facts like that can change everything. Had society known from the beginning about Dunia's letter Dunia and her mother wouldn't have to go through all that torturous time of being criticized everywhere they went. Not to mention, Svidrigailov would have been punished quicker and so on. Not to mention Dunia's fiancé (for a part of the book) Petrovitch Luzhin would not have used her past to try and guilt trip her into marriage... he would have just stuck with the "I have money, you know you want it" scheme. However, the one plus of Marfa not knowing about the truth right away is that Marfa felt so guilty about it afterword that she gave Dunia money.


The last character that I'm going to talk about for now is Porfiry, the guy investigating the murder case. When he was talking, well interrogating, Raskolnikov he talked about his past experience with criminals and how many he was able to "crack" so to speak. By stating his past and giving proof to his capabilities he plants a seed in Raskolnikovs mind to make Raskolnikov nervous and feel like no matter how hard he tried he would not be able to escape Porfiry. History, a great asset when blackmailing and manipulating others. Something that politicians know very well. Zing! Not really though as that has been overused.


Anyway, I will come back to this at another point.

Henry IV Part 1 and History

What is the importance of history?


Henry IV is based on history, and if those historical events hadn't happened then there would be no Henry IV play. It's not completely accurate, however, without historical inspiration for plays and stories, like this one, they wouldn't exist.


The importance of history is furthered by the characters and the plot of the play. You see, what happens in history is quite a big deal as it changes how things happen in the future. How so? Well, let's start at the beginning. Henry IV did a very bad thing and stole the crown to become king, thus he interrupted the line of heirs. He wasn't that great of a king and many people hated him, not to mention he had a poor relationship with his son Prince Hal. Now, if he hadn't usurped the throne would he have had a good relationship with his son? Or would he have just become a bitter old man? What would have happened to the people? Would there have been mass chaos had he not taken the throne?


Now, being the rebelious son he is Prince Hal would disgrace himself and his father by hanging out with the pub crawlers (you know those drunk people that earn their living by stealing). Would Hal have been a "respectable son" if his name wasn't already plagued by his fathers deeds? Would he still have his "political thinking" mind? (Though, here's a side question: in our modern day world does what our parents do reflect on us? Do we take on their reputations?) Anyway, continuing on with Prince Hal's character. Hal has this monologue where he talks about how people see him and what he plans to do about it. He more or less says, "because of my mischevious history my 'reformation' will be all the brighter." This demostrates how history influences how people view others. Had Hal been a good boy he wouldn't really have been noticed, and neither would his deeds. However, by having a negative past it takes people by surprise when he does something good and thus becomes a legend.


It's like with Falstaff (a pubcrawler). Because people knew of his... scandelous past they never took him seriously (even though he had some profound thoughts and insight).
Ah prejudice, isn't just funny?


Anyway I am running out of steam for this piece, but I will try to come back to this.

Oedipus Rex and History

The story of Oedipus Rex is a tragic tale where a man unknowling kills his father and marries his mother. Upon finding the truth about his past his wife and mother murders herself and he gouges out his eyes, exiling himself from his kingdom to cure them of the plague. The story of Oedipus shows that history is important to know, even though it can be painful and brutal. The truth hurts. He could have foregone this hunt and lived ignorant but happy, however, it would have led his people into ruin. It took a lot of courage on Oedipus' part to continue searching for the truth, even though everyone kept telling him to forget it and move on in life. Furthermore he chose for himself the most miserable life to make up for the horrors of his past. It is easy to die, but to live blind and in shame... that is a torturous life.
Most people would say that Oedipus' outcome, though terrible, is the right ending for his story to have. It shows that you should think about others before yourself and that everyone should be knowledgable of their past to make the most of their future. However, had the situation been on a smaller scale would it have been ok to ignore the truth? At what point is the truth so big and terrible that it has to be known?

The Odyssey and History

In Greek society history is extraordinarily important as it show where you come from, and if you and/or your family are highly esteemed, a value that is shown in "The Odyssey." In this epic by Homer, Odysseus comes into contact many times with the past by talking to the spirits of the dead and also talking about his past and all the struggles he had to face. Because of his glorious past he earned hospitality from many people, and gained information from the dead spirits to get home. King Alkinoös answered to Odysseus' woeful tale, "When you came here to my strong home, Odysseus, under my tall roof, headwinds were left behind you. Clear sailing shall you have now, homeward now, however painful all the past" (Book 13 lines 4-9). Granted it is part of Greek culture to be hospitable to people, however, once people have found out that they have a war hero in their midst they become more than happy to do anything for the said hero. Ergo your past can change how people treat you, but learning from the past can also make you a stronger person. When I say "learning from the past" I don't just mean learn from the experience of ghosts, but also learning from the mistakes of the past. Had Odysseus not gone through the mistakes such as allowing to make camp on the island of Helios when he was strictly warned not to, his personality would not have changed as drastically. As they say "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger."

The Magus and History

Throughout "The Magus" the past plays of utmost importance. Not only in the way that Conchis and Julie used stories of "their past" to sway Nicholas' opinion, but it plays into who each character is, it is a fundamental piece in their identity. As Conchis so well put it, "All that is past posseses our present" (pg 311). It's like Nicholas's relationship with Alison. He had left her behind physically when he went to teach in Greece, but the relationship never really left him. Conchis used Nick's past with Alison to manipulate him for his psychological study. It also made Nicholas really think about Alison, what she meant to him, and how his past behaviour influenced her suicide. Because he fell in love with another woman and told her that he was leaving her despite everything she killed herself. Nick narrated when he learned of her death, "It was as if at this moment, when I most wanted to be clean, I had fallen into the deepest filth; most free for the future yet most chained to the past" (pg 399). The past will always be there to haunt people and remind them of everything they had gone through, the good, the bad, and especially the ugly. However, the history of a person also shapes the reality of your relationship with them, of how you see them. As Nicholas got to know "Lily" more (a helper in Conchis' "project") the more he saw Conchis as a wicked person, as the antagonist who needed to be shot down. Nicholas thought with overconfidence, "He might carry on with some comedy of intense disapproval, but he would be there; and his other puppet would also be there to help me finally call his bluff" (pg 384). More or less what "The Magus" states about history is that it is the genetic make-up of reality, of people, and of the relationships between people.

The Creation of this Blog

The big question I have chosen is "What is the importance of history?"

To be perfectly honest this wasn't what I first thought my "Big Question" was going to be. I predicted that I would end up with something out there like "What is reality?" However, the question of reality isn't always present in literature, so I decided that if I could find the common trait between "The Magus" and "The Odyssey" that that would bring up a universal and interesting question. It took me a little while to think of, however, I realized that history could be interpreted as the DNA of reality and explain the Greek importance of history (both of which I will point out later).
In thinking about it more I guess what appealed to me about this question was that it was one that I can pull into multiple directions, perhaps creating something new and interesting.