Comments for French Literature and Civilization at UCONN

Comment on Question of the week by focusedmit

focusedmit — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:55:42 +0000

Mersualt in the 21 st century represents the individuals who society deem as “abnormal.” They are deemed so because they do not fit into the usual constructs set up by the varying opinons and general concensus. While it is true that Meursault shows no emotion, nor attachement to his genreal surroundings, his behaovir is not so destructive that he is a danger to society. Meursault’s indifference is one that allows him to accept what would seem to be irrational. In comparing this to the general population, his state of being is not so different. Consider that many people get up day in and day out to go to a job which they absolutely hate. Some may do it becuase they have to, but what about the individual who goes just for the sake of going. People have varying degrees of what they are willing to sacrifice. One willing to sacrifice their life for woth of not living is not statistically usual, but it is importnat to assess why one would do so. Although he did not have ambition, Meursault did not express the will to explicitly take his own life. In this sense he reflects the mentality of some to move to the pace of their enviornment around them, without setting their own beat.

Comment on Question of the week by Michelle Jones

Michelle Jones — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 02:43:16 +0000

I think it is interesting to note that the technology that most Americans enjoy today affects how connected we are to our lives. The media has such an immense impact on what people buy and value. The control that this exerts on people is mostly overlooked but I agree that we are most likely to be detached emotionally to our own lives because we are bombarded with outside influences.

Comment on Question of the week by ajoel

ajoel — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:48:17 +0000

I think that in this 21st century, Mersault would be labeled as a cold blooded psycho. He has or shows no emotion towards anybody significant in his life. He didn’t cry when his mother died or doesn’t care about the only other female who has feelings for him, Marie. He only socializes with people when it is convenient for him to do so. This behavior is very unorthodox and is why he is a stranger to society. He is the kind of person that if I knew, I would do everything in my power to stay on their good side in fear of what they would do if they didn’t like me.

Comment on Question of the week by yova4ever

yova4ever — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:14:30 +0000

In the 21st century, Mersault could be seen as a sociopath. A person who exhibits anti-social behavior and lacks emotional connection with other people. Mersault was never close to anyone and that didn’t bother him, even taking a life didn’t seem phase him. Most Sociopaths are seen as selfish and unable to have empathy for other people or feel guilt. He knew he didn’t fit in his own society, and lacked the moral compass that most people have. In this age, people would see him as a sociopath or a person with a chemical imbalance that is need of medication or therapy or put into confinement for the safety of the general public.

Comment on Question of the week by gwnfkt12

gwnfkt12 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:48:53 +0000

I think that Mersault, in reference to the 21st century, represents the idea that people don’t really care about things like they used to. Children today are brainwashed by television, school shootings are more and more frequent, and the general quality of life has declined for many, as cost of living has been rising steadily in particular since the time The Stranger was written. Today, people grow up to be disconnected from the world they live in, and by this process become more and more like the character Mersault.

Comment on Question of the week by Michelle Jones

Michelle Jones — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:22:46 +0000

In the 21st century most people want to find concrete answers to the motives of people and how they can be helped. Mersualt never cried at his mothers funeral and then killed an Arab by shooting him four times. I would argue that if he did these acts in today’s society people would ostracize him as a mental patient and keep him locked away becuase he is a danger to society. Today people hope that they can rehabiliatate the insane and help them with drugs and medical attention to erradicate their harmful behaviors.
The other idea that may have been proposed if he had done these acts in the 21st century is labeling his killing as a hate crime. Today’s society is highly aware of who people kill and why. If you are caught killing someone maliciously and they are a different race then you it is often labeled a hate crime. Thus if Mercualt had lived in the 21st century these are two possiblilities that might occuer to him based on his actions and the modern public’s reactions to similar situations today.

Comment on Question of the week by shawnmirmina

shawnmirmina — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:55:42 +0000

Everyone has their own thoughts as to whether or not Candide has changed throughout his journey. Everyone’s reasoning makes sense and I enjoyed reading everyones responses.

Comment on Question of the week by shawnmirmina

shawnmirmina — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:53:44 +0000

I believe Candide did in fact change throughout the novel. At the beginning of the story, Candid followed Dr. Pangloss’s teachings in everything he did. By the end of the novel, though, and after all the misfortune Candide had came across he openly states numerous times the failings of Pangloss’s teachings. However, often times he comes back to believe in Pangloss’s philosophy, seemingly whenever something makes him return to the “best of all possible worlds” belief. By the end of the novel, however, I believe Candide has realized that philosophy is not a math and cannot be proved to hold true in all circumstances. By choosing to work the earth, Candide is choosing to not be in touch with the world, so he won’t be in touch with evil. He no longer relies on philosophy to solve his problems and has discovered that the entire world is not his to worry about. The farmer with his twenty acres was doing what everyone should do, what is pleasing and fulfilling to oneself. Working in the garden allowed Candide to eventually achieve happiness with his friends in their simple lives and has helped him overcome his tragedies, enabling him to live peacefully and content.

Comment on Question of the week by gwnfkt12

gwnfkt12 — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:19:08 +0000

I think it’s very interesting to see how the rest of the class views Candide’s journey. As with any other story, readers tend to interpret and understand based on their own life experiences. What would Candide have thought about his life if he had read about it versus having lived through it? (or perhaps even more interesting would be to consider what he would have thought about this story of his life AFTER having lived through it.)

Comment on Question of the week by soccergurl

soccergurl — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:31:43 +0000

From viewing responses, it seems that whether Candide changed hinges on the fact of how you interpreted the ending of the novel. In my case I did not view the ending as favorable for Candide and thus do not believe that he has fundamentally changed. Yet if you view the ending of the novel as a positive step in the right direction for Candide than your sure to believe that he has changed more dramatically.