So I guess that really the only thing that I can talk about for this blog is Albert Camus'  The Stranger. Now, I have to admit, I did not fully understand this book as much as the others. Anyway, here goes. Final blog commencing now.

It is stated that Mersault's most existential and triumphant part of the novel is the ending, right before he is executed.  He basically decides to face his execution and whatever else society throws at him because nothing truly matters. He's not acting like that to be a martyr or anything; to him, the existentialist, he lived and now he is going to die. There's no meaning, hidden or otherwise, no plot twists, no surprise endings. He's gonna die and that's pretty much it. This is his triumphant moment because he still sticks to his ideals and does not give in to what society thinks he should be.

I can't really think of much to connect this to the modern world. The only thing that comes to mind is the constant joke surrounding an "existential crisis." I say that it is a joke because kids say "Oh I just had an existential crisis...what does my life mean...hahaha." But, an existential crisis is a real thing, defined as when an individual questions their life and whether it has any meaning at all. I personally am not an existentialist. I believe that my life has some sort of meaning, but I just don't know what that is as of yet. This greatly contrasts from Mersault's views, but he would never shame me. My beliefs don't affect him and mine don't affect his. Mersault and his fellow existentialists can go on believing that their lives are what they are and that they end, and I can go on searching for my "meaning," whatever it may be.

Since we just finished reading Dr. Faustus, I started to think about what I would "sell" my soul for. It's a tricky question to answer without sounding either like a completely selfish or completely stupid person. So, I'm not going to care what people think and come out and give my opinion because this is my blog and I do what I want on it. Rant over. Proceed.

So Faustus gave up his soul to Lucifer for knowledge and this is a very common motif throughout literature. There are always characters that want to know everything. I personally would not give up my soul for all the knowledge in the world because I would probably go insane (well, more than Sarah already has).

I feel that the only thing I would give my soul up for would be to save myself. It is conditional, though. If I knew that once I was saved by a demon or something and I was coming back to live in a world that is a living hell, I probably would not sell my soul. If I knew that once I came back that I would be okay and then could do some good in the world, I would consider selling my soul more.

Many people in today's world would sell their souls for money and power. The thing about giving up your soul for that stuff is that those things have an end. Someone will eventually have more money and you and someone will eventually have more power than you.

I think that this is one of the main themes from Dr. Faustus: material things have an end and giving up something as precious as your soul for them is just, well, pretty stupid. The work does not condone the selling of your soul, but it says that if you do sell your soul, make it worth something.

On Middle Eastern Culture

So I know I have already discussed culture. But, I didn't really get to delve into the Middle Eastern Culture as much as I wanted to. So, obviously, this post will relate to A Thousand Splendid Suns, specifically question 24 from the Socratic Seminar.

As stated previously, my parents lived in Saudi Arabia for three years (1987-1990). This is right before the Desert Storm operation took place, and coinciding with the novel between the time that Jalil dies, the Soviets invade Afghanistan, and then sign a treaty to leave Afghanistan in peace. I've obviously heard countless stories about the Middle East, and my opinion about it is and was that it was just another place in the world with people that were different from me. That is a key point though: they were and still are people, no matter what a few radicals have done.

In today's world, opinions about anything are usually formed by what is seen in the media. For example, if someone sees on the news that terrorists from Iraq brutally murdered hundreds of people, many viewers will immediately jump to the conclusion that all people from the Middle East or people that are Muslim are terrorists.  My opinion was only further strengthened by this novel because it proved the point that most people in the so-called evil Middle East are innocent.

Mariam and Laila were just two people that wanted to live their lives as happily and as safely as possible. They did whatever they could to make this a reality. They fought the minority that ruined their lives. I believe that these are great people because of this, and they are just people, just from a different place than me.

I would like to discuss question 21 in The Awakening Socratic Seminar questions. I am supposed to either support or refute the statement "Edna has never loved her husband." I believe that Edna felt a form of love toward her husband, if only because he was the father of her children. She also felt a bit of love for him when they were first married and first knew each other. But, it never progressed past "puppy love," if you will. She never felt true love for the man she called her husband. She also never would be able to become her own person if she still believed that she loved him.

This can be related to today's world with young marriages. Many young adults straight out of college get married because they think that they are with "the one" and that this person is the thing that will complete their lives. Most of these marriages end in divorce or are just unhappy. It is the fact that some people believe that they have to be with another person to be complete that strengthens Edna's actions.

Edna knew that to be her true self she needed to be apart from the man she never truly loved. It was the only way that she could be free. The people that marry without much thought obviously do not realize this and cannot be their own person. Now, I'm not negating love, but it is a shame (and shames the idea of self actualization that Edna represents) that people would degrade themselves so far as to believe that a person they don't truly love will complete them.