User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 33

  1. #11
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    Now you're saying that I'm "dishonest" for disagreeing with you?
    Wateva

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hacbad macbar View Post
    Wateva
    I thought about it some more.

    I think what you're registering about the two characters is the fact that they're both early versions of the modern "anti-hero": They're both alienated from society, lone wolves, drifters, martyrs for not fitting in, etc.. But that also describes pretty much every male anti-hero in modern books, films, gaming, etc. You might as well compare Meursault to Holden Caulfield in "Catcher in the Rye" or to Harry Haller in "Steppenwolf" or to pretty much every character played by Clint Eastwood in his movies, and so on, and so on. It's just a trope: The lone wolf/drifter/martyr. Writers have been repeating that same trope for male anti-heros in one form or another for 150 years.

    Meantime, there's a lot that separates Meursault and Raskolnikov.

    Meursault is schizoid and genuinely disconnected from the world around him. The demands of the modern world are a burden on him, and he just wants it all to go away. If he gets sucked into a murder, it's because he's bored and doesn't see why he *shouldn't* kill people in a modern world that's full of suffering and death.

    By comparison, Raskolnikov *wants to be* disconnected from the world, but in fact he's a histrionic, oversensitive little diva who gets pulled into every petty drama happening around him in the world. Raskolnikov wants to prove that he's a superman by pulling off a splashy murder, but his conscience and guilt get to him and he turns himself in. Hence the sin-and-redemption theme.

    Raskolnikov murders for glory and to prove that he's above the laws of the world. And then when the detective Porfiry gets on his trail, Raskolnikov prances around in front of Porfiry and taunts him and plays head games with him and dares Porfiry to make a case against him. IOW, Raskolnikov is a diva and a drama queen.

    Anyway, I can't imagine two characters who are more different than Meursault and Raskolnikov: The schizoid vs the neurotic. The true nihilist vs. the diva/drama queen.

    You like them both because they're anti-heros and alienated from the world around them. But to me, they are very different characters. I always kind of liked Raskolnikov because he's a colorful character. He fails in the end, but he fails in a splashy, drama-queen way that I find entertaining. Meantime, I never liked Meursault. He's just too flat and one-dimensional. That schizoid thing robs him of life and makes him a bore, in my eyes. To me, he's just a convenient vehicle so that Camus can present a philosophy: Life sucks, people suck, and in the end you die. I agree with Camus, but that doesn't make for an interesting book or an interesting character.

    Oh well, *now* I'm done with the subject.

  3. #13
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    I thought about it some more.

    I think what you're registering about the two characters is the fact that they're both early versions of the modern "anti-hero": They're both alienated from society, lone wolves, drifters, martyrs for not fitting in, etc.. But that also describes pretty much every male anti-hero in modern books, films, gaming, etc. You might as well compare Meursault to Holden Caulfield in "Catcher in the Rye" or to Harry Haller in "Steppenwolf" or to pretty much every character played by Clint Eastwood in his movies, and so on, and so on. It's just a trope: The lone wolf/drifter/martyr. Writers have been repeating that same trope for male anti-heros in one form or another for 150 years.

    Meantime, there's a lot that separates Meursault and Raskolnikov.

    Meursault is schizoid and genuinely disconnected from the world around him. The demands of the modern world are a burden on him, and he just wants it all to go away. If he gets sucked into a murder, it's because he's bored and doesn't see why he *shouldn't* kill people in a modern world that's full of suffering and death.

    By comparison, Raskolnikov *wants to be* disconnected from the world, but in fact he's a histrionic, oversensitive little diva who gets pulled into every petty drama happening around him in the world. Raskolnikov wants to prove that he's a superman by pulling off a splashy murder, but his conscience and guilt get to him and he turns himself in. Hence the sin-and-redemption theme.

    Raskolnikov murders for glory and to prove that he's above the laws of the world. And then when the detective Porfiry gets on his trail, Raskolnikov prances around in front of Porfiry and taunts him and plays head games with him and dares Porfiry to make a case against him. IOW, Raskolnikov is a diva and a drama queen.

    Anyway, I can't imagine two characters who are more different than Meursault and Raskolnikov: The schizoid vs the neurotic. The true nihilist vs. the diva/drama queen.

    You like them both because they're anti-heros and alienated from the world around them. But to me, they are very different characters. I always kind of liked Raskolnikov because he's a colorful character. He fails in the end, but he fails in a splashy, drama-queen way that I find entertaining. Meantime, I never liked Meursault. He's just too flat and one-dimensional. That schizoid thing robs him of life and makes him a bore, in my eyes. To me, he's just a convenient vehicle so that Camus can present a philosophy: Life sucks, people suck, and in the end you die. I agree with Camus, but that doesn't make for an interesting book or an interesting character.

    Oh well, *now* I'm done with the subject.
    Yes, last night I saw a Russian movie called The Fool.

    As you say, the protagonist was a classic anti-hero fighting corruption at City Hall and betrayed by the very people he was trying to help. The Russians do this very well as they have a seriousness, as well as a dark view of life. The movie was so good I could see myself in the Fool.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Yes, last night I saw a Russian movie called The Fool.

    As you say, the protagonist was a classic anti-hero fighting corruption at City Hall and betrayed by the very people he was trying to help. The Russians do this very well as they have a seriousness, as well as a dark view of life. The movie was so good I could see myself in the Fool.
    It becomes easier to relax and just go with the flow when you realize that no matter what you do in life, the epitaph on your tombstone is going to be the same: "It was all for nothing."

  5. #15
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    306

    Default

    think what you're registering about the two characters is the fact that they're both early versions of the modern "anti-hero": They're both alienated from society, lone wolves, drifters, martyrs for not fitting in, etc..
    No. I see them as a 'dialectical' approach to the world around us. They are literary ideas. Very reflective though.


    You like them both because they're anti-heros and alienated from the world around them.
    I didn't say I like anyone. Why importing sentiments. If someone like characters, it doesn't interfere with my interpretation.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hacbad macbar View Post
    No. I see them as a 'dialectical' approach to the world around us. They are literary ideas. Very reflective though.

    I didn't say I like anyone. Why importing sentiments. If someone like characters, it doesn't interfere with my interpretation.
    Whatever. It's your thread.

    Just to explain why I'm making such a fuss: Judging by the OP, I thought the thread was going to be primarily about Camus and Absurdism. I have a lively interest in the subject, having read a lot of Camus and Sartre. My own philosophical position is pretty close to Absurdism. But I figure that Absurdism is a deep enough topic by itself that I don't really see the need to bring into the discussion random and unrelated literary works from previous centuries. So when you started making everything about Raskolnikov, I'm thinking to myself, "...the eternal scheme of schisms within the human soul? WTF is he talking about?"

    But if you want to write literary essays comparing Camus's characters to Raskolnikov or King Arthur or Beowulf or "Little Women" or Dirty Harry or Flash Gordon or whatever, then that's fine with me. I'm done here. It's your thread.

  7. #17
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    Just to explain why I'm making such a fuss: Judging by the OP, I thought the thread was going to be primarily about Camus and Absurdism. I have a lively interest in the subject, having read a lot of Camus and Sartre. My own philosophical position is pretty close to Absurdism. But I figure that Absurdism is a deep enough topic by itself that I don't really see the need to bring into the discussion random and unrelated literary works from previous centuries. ,
    Wow, you re so special.
    Did you specifically subscribed to absurdism, so that the rest of us do not make a mess.


    Sorry, I did not recognize you.


  8. #18
    Senior Member cm81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    714 sx/sp
    Socionics
    infj Ni
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hacbad macbar View Post
    Is Mersault amoral, or just true to his nature: There is no God, and I don't make the leap of faith in order to escape from meaninglessness, I do not live according to the Divine Plane. This world is absurd, and I am guided by the invisible hand of randomness.

    What do you think? Do absurd philosophy is a recipe for life, or just escapism defeated rationalism of the 20th century?

    Mersault kills the man with no regrets, was charged, with no remorse, his mother dies, he is indifferent. "The mother is just a woman who gave me birth", says one of the absurd heroes.

    There is an interesting parallel with Dostoyevsky's Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov kills the old woman and suffer from the consequences of Christian morality. He was tortured by extraordinary guilt. Mersault, in contrast, is indifferent - the world is absurd. No need to look for morale when everything is meaningless. The world can not be rationally explained.

    What do you think?
    Solomon asked these questions. And wrote the book of Ecclesiastes, since you mentioned Christian morality. It's actually one of my favourite books, there's a ton of wisdom in it.
    "The true genius shudders at incompleteness, preferring silence to everything that it should be." Edgar Allen Poe

    "There's a magic inside,
    Just waiting to burst out.
    There world is a goldmine-
    That will melt tomorrow."M83
    Likes hacbad macbar liked this post

  9. #19
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cm81 View Post
    Solomon asked these questions. And wrote the book of Ecclesiastes, since you mentioned Christian morality. It's actually one of my favourite books, there's a ton of wisdom in it.
    Nice mention. Never tought about that. I always liked Solomon. I need a little flick through the book of Ecclesiastes.

    I remember one story of Solomon. I read it when I was younger. There he found a solution, I think it was about a child. About fraudulent mother and real mother, both claiming that the child is theirs.

    Or it's not about Solomon. : thinking:
    Likes cm81 liked this post

  10. #20
    Senior Member cm81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    714 sx/sp
    Socionics
    infj Ni
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hacbad macbar View Post
    Nice mention. Never tought about that. I always liked Solomon. I need a little flick through the book of Ecclesiastes.

    I remember one story of Solomon. I read it when I was younger. There he found a solution, I think it was about a child. About fraudulent mother and real mother, both claiming that the child is theirs.

    Or it's not about Solomon. : thinking:
    It was Solomon. And yeah, the thief had responded in guilt. I think her desire was to at least share the child, not to actually kill him. But Love > death. And Solomon saw that.
    "The true genius shudders at incompleteness, preferring silence to everything that it should be." Edgar Allen Poe

    "There's a magic inside,
    Just waiting to burst out.
    There world is a goldmine-
    That will melt tomorrow."M83
    Likes hacbad macbar liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Albert Camus "The Stranger"
    By Niaurus in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-24-2013, 04:42 PM
  2. [INFP] Questions for INFPs about INFPs
    By marm in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01-02-2010, 01:48 AM
  3. It's about damn time!
    By Rajah in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 05-01-2007, 03:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO