This Book written by Graham Greene is one of much complexity. There are two things that make it hard to understand which are some of the words and the fact that advancing to the second chapter just makes the problem bigger but there is a great mistery surrounding everything.
In the first chapter, we have the perception of Mr. Tench who is a dentist living in Mexico, in a very wrecked town. There is an doubt I have and this is if Tench is American or British. We know he is not mexican because he says so, but when he asks the stranger is he english, that is typical for a Brit to do. The word american referring to the people from the US exists from long ago and if this man were and american, he probably would have asked if the priest was american. Later on, Tench is meandering in his thoughts and thinks about the US and wants to be there but he knows that the town he is in is his home, so this makes it all even more confusing. I made an analogy but after ending chapter two because in the first part there is a description of the town having vultures on the roofs looking over them. After knowing that the town had heavy conflict and was invaded with army I thought to my self, why wouldn't the vultures be the same soldiers which never look away and are always there looking over them? Maybe the vultures are a way for Greene to show us that the town is a mess and vultures know death rounds the place so they have to be there awaiting for their next meal. I believe my first interpretation is much more open to future events.
It is pretty weird that Tench had invited this stranger just because he wanted him to wait in his home while the boat left. Nobody would do such a thing for good nature, and less when the person is in fact a stranger. After chapter two you understand that this man was a priest and now the invitation has more meaning. Priests get invited everywhere because people like to talk to them, for them to bless their homes and lives, etc. This priest is kind of a drunk because he carries a bottle of brandy around and is the first thing he takes away before leaving to help the kid's mother. He even forgets his book written in latin because he was a little tipsy and was angry at Tench for treating the situation the way he did.
In chapter two we learn that priests and those in higher ranks are being murdered by a group called the Red Shirts but with the presence of the army. The lieutenant was present during the killing of the monsignor. This makes me wonder if the Red Shirts are a group, or are really a militia that is part of the government. I don't understand what bastards these men are. First the governor for ordering all priests to get married and second the lieutenant and the chief for contemplating the idea of killing the people who wouldn't rattle out on the stranger priest. We really don't know from where are these two soldiers because they get a lot of mixed feelings, so their nationality would be another great thing to find out.
viernes, 28 de septiembre de 2007
jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2007
Kapuscinski
Frankly, I was not aware of the death of this great journalist. Ryszard Kapuscinski died early this year but lived long enough to live forever. On this show, the guest is Lawrence W., a great friend of Ryszard. He talks about him as if there was no man alive that looked like him. He told the lady that R.K. was everywhere, even in places no one thought about or no one knew existed. He was always sort of undercover because he tells a very funny anecdote in which R.K. was surrounded by Africans and he, the only white male in a 500 mile radius, was not seen by many. He then reads a small part on The Infer, R.K.'s most famous book but it is no very clear for a person who is unfamiliar with such book. The funniest part of the interview is when they talk about Gabriel Garcia Marquez. I would have never related these two great writers but they do have some things in common. Gabo is en escense a journalist and he will too remain always in our lives and hearts, making us look for a place that never existed but in the minds of the priviledged readers of Cien Años de Soledad. These two old guys were budies and even taught a seminar for latin americans, something I never knew of. That would have a been a fabulous experience. Even though he "seemed to be a nobody", as the poem tells us, he was actually a somebody and a great somebody.
SOCCER WAR - (Algeria Hides its Face pgs 95-119)
The Soccer War is a strange book up till now. I bought the copy and started reading over the very end of the summer, I was not able to reach much. I do remeber I started from the beggining, page 3 I believe. It talked about a hotel Metropol and about some men who lived in 8 rooms. This was quite confusing and I was not anxious to keep on reading. In class, however we began in the middle and I am getting to understand why. This is much more of an introduction to a topic than the first chapter.
Algeria is a country that has been dominated throughout its history. It had never actually been free until 1962 when Ahmed Ben Bella took over and freed the country from a French rule of 132 years. I believe it weren't for Charles de Gaulle, the revolutionary fight for freedom would have lasted longer. I cannot help but seeing a major reference to Colombia with this story. In Colombia we also have revolutionaries forming guerrillas supposedly to get their freedom. Although their views have changed drastically and are not supposed to be those of revolutionaries, the thought of guerrillas makes me make the connection. With Colombia, there are some people from the outside like some Europeans who think the guerrillas are fighting for a right cause and Alvaro Uribe Velez is a dictator and we are prisoners. This is not true but it its the conception for outsiders. I think this is what was really happening in Algeria with the French. The Algerians were tired of being slaves to others, of being chained to people who weren't from around. They really needed the guerrillas while we really need to stop de guerrillas. It is the exact opposite also because maybe the French, the outsiders, thought they were saving the country and the people and viewed the guerrillas as terrorists, which is what we think of our own guerrillas. When you think about it, the French coloners were the ones maintaining the country: they ran everything and owned every single company. When they left, nothing was actually left for Algerians but things they couldn't hold on to. They were in control of the money and the property when they were there so everything was a bit shaky when independence was achieved. I know from history that Boumedienne's government was much better and he got Algeria to become a little more stable economically. Something that may have ruined or not the book is the fact that I already know that Ben Bella was inprisoned during his opponent's reign. I don't really know how this will affect me but I will just have to read on and see what Kapuscinski, a journalist from the time, wrote.
Kapuscinski has a terrific way of writing because not only does he get your attention but he changes things and appears with news ones in such a subtle way. First he introduces the main event which is the coup. I thought that Ben Bella was a terrific leader, the man who got Algeria its independence, a simple man with a simple life, a simple attire and a very simple car. This is great in a leader I belive because they are not wasting time on material stuff and on how they look. I also thought of Boumedienne as a bad person and friend for having betrayed his friend with the coup. This is when we don't know much about the characters. Afterwards we learn a little bit about Algeria and its severe crisis, something unknown to the world because of Ben Bella's great words and actions. The country is actually suffering and bleeding to death. When we least expect it, we learn that Ben Bella is a power monger who may not care about his physical looks but wants everybody to like him and to look as a good man to others. He would lie by the minute to every person who encountered him and thought he could run the government of such a complicated nation on his own. This is a dictator and a country who is just a small baby in the world needs a strong leader but not this kind of strong. The country needed a person down to earth, who knew what he was doing. This is when we pivot completely our perspective on Boumedienne because he is actually a hero for taking Ben Bella away and freeing a wholle country. This man, who does not care about his look also, actually does not care what others think of him. He knows what is best and this is what he does, obviously with the army. This man was a 33 year old teacher when he threw the coup! He was a man of few words who did not have much of a social life. This was not at all like Ben Bella who was all about the "friends" and was elocuent and a tremendous liar. I prefer people of few, concise words because these are the ones who are actually listening. People who talk all the time do not listen because when you talk, they are only thinking what are THEY going to say next. I cannot believe the reaction of the people. Maybe they knew the public Ben Bella, the talkative, international man who saved them. They felt they were too cult to have a coup; that it only happened in other Arab countries. The confusion may be normal but the fear and the weird ideas of what was going to happen is not normal. This may be the reader's opinion because we don't know what it was to live there in that time. This is what journalists can never tell us, and less when they are not from around. Maybe it was because of the silence in which the country entered and the lack of organization and planning it all had. They were tired of Ben Bella but they didn't really know what to do inmediately. A plan would have worked just fine. I really hope there is not another coup, although I already know that. Anything can come up and I trust Kapuscinski as a journalist but in Africa anything can happen. It is the land of unstability and this probably makes it so interesting.
Algeria is a country that has been dominated throughout its history. It had never actually been free until 1962 when Ahmed Ben Bella took over and freed the country from a French rule of 132 years. I believe it weren't for Charles de Gaulle, the revolutionary fight for freedom would have lasted longer. I cannot help but seeing a major reference to Colombia with this story. In Colombia we also have revolutionaries forming guerrillas supposedly to get their freedom. Although their views have changed drastically and are not supposed to be those of revolutionaries, the thought of guerrillas makes me make the connection. With Colombia, there are some people from the outside like some Europeans who think the guerrillas are fighting for a right cause and Alvaro Uribe Velez is a dictator and we are prisoners. This is not true but it its the conception for outsiders. I think this is what was really happening in Algeria with the French. The Algerians were tired of being slaves to others, of being chained to people who weren't from around. They really needed the guerrillas while we really need to stop de guerrillas. It is the exact opposite also because maybe the French, the outsiders, thought they were saving the country and the people and viewed the guerrillas as terrorists, which is what we think of our own guerrillas. When you think about it, the French coloners were the ones maintaining the country: they ran everything and owned every single company. When they left, nothing was actually left for Algerians but things they couldn't hold on to. They were in control of the money and the property when they were there so everything was a bit shaky when independence was achieved. I know from history that Boumedienne's government was much better and he got Algeria to become a little more stable economically. Something that may have ruined or not the book is the fact that I already know that Ben Bella was inprisoned during his opponent's reign. I don't really know how this will affect me but I will just have to read on and see what Kapuscinski, a journalist from the time, wrote.
Kapuscinski has a terrific way of writing because not only does he get your attention but he changes things and appears with news ones in such a subtle way. First he introduces the main event which is the coup. I thought that Ben Bella was a terrific leader, the man who got Algeria its independence, a simple man with a simple life, a simple attire and a very simple car. This is great in a leader I belive because they are not wasting time on material stuff and on how they look. I also thought of Boumedienne as a bad person and friend for having betrayed his friend with the coup. This is when we don't know much about the characters. Afterwards we learn a little bit about Algeria and its severe crisis, something unknown to the world because of Ben Bella's great words and actions. The country is actually suffering and bleeding to death. When we least expect it, we learn that Ben Bella is a power monger who may not care about his physical looks but wants everybody to like him and to look as a good man to others. He would lie by the minute to every person who encountered him and thought he could run the government of such a complicated nation on his own. This is a dictator and a country who is just a small baby in the world needs a strong leader but not this kind of strong. The country needed a person down to earth, who knew what he was doing. This is when we pivot completely our perspective on Boumedienne because he is actually a hero for taking Ben Bella away and freeing a wholle country. This man, who does not care about his look also, actually does not care what others think of him. He knows what is best and this is what he does, obviously with the army. This man was a 33 year old teacher when he threw the coup! He was a man of few words who did not have much of a social life. This was not at all like Ben Bella who was all about the "friends" and was elocuent and a tremendous liar. I prefer people of few, concise words because these are the ones who are actually listening. People who talk all the time do not listen because when you talk, they are only thinking what are THEY going to say next. I cannot believe the reaction of the people. Maybe they knew the public Ben Bella, the talkative, international man who saved them. They felt they were too cult to have a coup; that it only happened in other Arab countries. The confusion may be normal but the fear and the weird ideas of what was going to happen is not normal. This may be the reader's opinion because we don't know what it was to live there in that time. This is what journalists can never tell us, and less when they are not from around. Maybe it was because of the silence in which the country entered and the lack of organization and planning it all had. They were tired of Ben Bella but they didn't really know what to do inmediately. A plan would have worked just fine. I really hope there is not another coup, although I already know that. Anything can come up and I trust Kapuscinski as a journalist but in Africa anything can happen. It is the land of unstability and this probably makes it so interesting.
martes, 4 de septiembre de 2007
Part Two
As for the murdurer, Meursault is arrested so you can be tranquile; there is not a murdurer loose in the streets. In this part two, the book gets really great although not many events take place. When his lawyer is first interviewing him to know more about his personal life, he asks Meursault if he was sad about Maman's death. Although I was sort of ready for a cold answer (A simple No), his answer was worst than him shooting the arab. He says maybe he could have loved her but that didn't matter. That everybody, at some point wished their relatives were dead! What is this? I think the lawyer knew at that moment that they would loose the trial because he was dealing with a person who wanted his own mother to be dead. Why would a simple arab make any difference?
Another extremely shocking news was that he didn't believe in God. I'm just kidding because this came to me as if it were old, past news. I knew a man of such values and of such life style would not be interested in religion and less in the existance of a God. I personally believe religion gives people a direction and a way of life that is correct. Meursault also never met his father which is the lack of another important figure in his life. I think that the lawyer could have used these two arguements in court and they would have been of importance to the case. This knowledge od his lack of these two things made me consider Meursault's case and sympathize for him. It is not his fault so we kind of have to understand why he is an asswhole. This happens regularly in Colombia where children rarely meet their fathers and have a destroyed family which leads to drug abuse, or theft. I think the guerrilleros have had terrible childhoods without the example of a working father and mother. Maybe in some rare cases it would have been better for children not to have met their fathers because of abuse to them and to their mothers but there is really no way of preventing this until it happens. Either way, Meursault came from a home with an absent father figure (I know he was dead, but technically he was not there). The lawyer calls Meursault the antichrist and this is the most accurate description I've heard of him yet. When relating him to Jesus there is only two things I can say they have in common. First of all, they didn't meet their fathers but to Jesus this was a relationship from beyond. He was the son of God and he knew exactly where his father was. Even though, God always makes things right and gave Jesus and adoptive father who is Joseph. For Meursault it meant the opposite, it meant missing a grand part in his life. Secondly, their lack of fear for death and the fact that they would be sentenced to death and killed publicly. Jesus lacked this fear because he did it outof pure love towards humanity because his death saved us all. Meursault was just careless and had learned to accept the things that came along as they came along. This is actually somewhat of an admirable characteristic because he is not tied to anything but can advance and adapt to new circumstances.
Meursault says something that is very interesting when he is in prison. He says that at first his thoughts were those of a free man. He would still think about the outside pleasures and experiences instead of living and thinking in relevance to where he was. It is funny that all inmates have trouble at first thinking about women all the time. Non of them think about their wives or girlfriends as humans whom they love and charish, but as bodies who they want to literaly have sex with. They think about all women, and this is reasonable not being able to see one and being surrounded entirely by men. I think I would also have these troubles if I were in prison, because even if you are not in a relationship you still miss them. We can't live with them, can't live without them. This is the only thing Meursault kind of complains about because other than this sexual desire, he seeks nothing. He does not complain about the food he is getting or the bed, or the showers which would be things I would hate about prisons. The thought of these aspects makes me go mad, and think things through before because ending in prison would be my worst nightmare. Prison does have a strong impact on Meursault because he starts grasping the small details in life, not like before when he was just cruising through. This is why everything was so meaningless to him, because he never stopped and looked at things closely. Now even a small piece of old paper makes him interested. This story of the Czech is amazing and I think is put there by Camus so Meursault's crime or story doesn't look as terrible.
During the trial, we learn a new set of characteristics to Meursault which makes us change the way we view him. He refuses a cigarette which is an amazing advance. Dropping an addiction such as that is the hardest thing to do, I've been told. Also, in prison cigarettes are like gold and they can buy your life. This is just an interesting fact because although Meursault didn't have any problems in prison, he could have become very important if he was able to get cigarettes. The funny thing is that it happens in prison as it happens in the army.
Meursault's attitude during the trial was typical Meursault. He was absent, as if he were a stranger to the case. He did not listen closely to his defense and didn't really care much for it, although his lawyer did an incredible job. The prosecutor tried to use the funeral and Meursault's indiference towards it as an arguement to prove they were dealing with a senseless person. If was in the jury, I would condemn this man just for his attitude towards life. They also tried to frame him with Raymond because everybody knew he was not really a guard. Even after the incredible defense of his lawyer which we missed because of Meursault's day dreams, he was pleaded guiltyas charged. This is fair because he did kill a man, and although the law does accept some counter arguements which may show the murdurer as a person who didn't have a clue to what he was doing. This may seem good about our justice system but in the end they should face the facts, count the bodies and charge the killer.
When Meursault is in his cell, he remembers some of the lessons he recieved from Maman. They show her as a wise person, who lived much things and knew how to adapt to them, taking something out of them every time. She said that at the end of the day you could always find something to be happy about and Meursault agrees with her which is weird but heart warming. I agree with Maman too, and not only can you find something to be happy about, but you should look back through your day and mark those happy moments and realise that your life is not as miserable as you think. You just don't acknowledge the happy moments. Marie was no longer in his thoughts because she really didn't have an impact on him. He was not in love as I supposed earlier; she stopped writing and he stopped loving her.
After the priest comes and tries to make Meursault come to his senses, he gains this new inner strength to face his death. Before he was just accepting the fact that we will all die some day, maybe sooner than others and others will live on past you, but he had not seen it as something ti his advantage. After screaming at the intense priest and letting go of that represed anger in his heart, Meursault starts thinking like a phylosopher. Like Socrates, he desired death and seeked that moment where he will finally be liberated from that body that opressed him. The thought of death being so close gave them, as well as Maman the idea of rebirth. A new chance to start over.
To conclude this loong part two, and the end of the book for that matter, we end this book with a totally different feeling from the first one. At first we may become a cold reader as our character but as we learn he is indeed human, who has thoughts and ideas, you get comfortable with his actions and reactions and you learn to love him. You understand this troubled man and actually learn something from the book. I learned many valuable lessons from Maman and some from his lifestyle, of which I never approved. Camus presented an amazing character who was indeed a terrible human being, the lowest in society, but he makes you understand such a man and not hate him as much as you would with simple appearances.
Another extremely shocking news was that he didn't believe in God. I'm just kidding because this came to me as if it were old, past news. I knew a man of such values and of such life style would not be interested in religion and less in the existance of a God. I personally believe religion gives people a direction and a way of life that is correct. Meursault also never met his father which is the lack of another important figure in his life. I think that the lawyer could have used these two arguements in court and they would have been of importance to the case. This knowledge od his lack of these two things made me consider Meursault's case and sympathize for him. It is not his fault so we kind of have to understand why he is an asswhole. This happens regularly in Colombia where children rarely meet their fathers and have a destroyed family which leads to drug abuse, or theft. I think the guerrilleros have had terrible childhoods without the example of a working father and mother. Maybe in some rare cases it would have been better for children not to have met their fathers because of abuse to them and to their mothers but there is really no way of preventing this until it happens. Either way, Meursault came from a home with an absent father figure (I know he was dead, but technically he was not there). The lawyer calls Meursault the antichrist and this is the most accurate description I've heard of him yet. When relating him to Jesus there is only two things I can say they have in common. First of all, they didn't meet their fathers but to Jesus this was a relationship from beyond. He was the son of God and he knew exactly where his father was. Even though, God always makes things right and gave Jesus and adoptive father who is Joseph. For Meursault it meant the opposite, it meant missing a grand part in his life. Secondly, their lack of fear for death and the fact that they would be sentenced to death and killed publicly. Jesus lacked this fear because he did it outof pure love towards humanity because his death saved us all. Meursault was just careless and had learned to accept the things that came along as they came along. This is actually somewhat of an admirable characteristic because he is not tied to anything but can advance and adapt to new circumstances.
Meursault says something that is very interesting when he is in prison. He says that at first his thoughts were those of a free man. He would still think about the outside pleasures and experiences instead of living and thinking in relevance to where he was. It is funny that all inmates have trouble at first thinking about women all the time. Non of them think about their wives or girlfriends as humans whom they love and charish, but as bodies who they want to literaly have sex with. They think about all women, and this is reasonable not being able to see one and being surrounded entirely by men. I think I would also have these troubles if I were in prison, because even if you are not in a relationship you still miss them. We can't live with them, can't live without them. This is the only thing Meursault kind of complains about because other than this sexual desire, he seeks nothing. He does not complain about the food he is getting or the bed, or the showers which would be things I would hate about prisons. The thought of these aspects makes me go mad, and think things through before because ending in prison would be my worst nightmare. Prison does have a strong impact on Meursault because he starts grasping the small details in life, not like before when he was just cruising through. This is why everything was so meaningless to him, because he never stopped and looked at things closely. Now even a small piece of old paper makes him interested. This story of the Czech is amazing and I think is put there by Camus so Meursault's crime or story doesn't look as terrible.
During the trial, we learn a new set of characteristics to Meursault which makes us change the way we view him. He refuses a cigarette which is an amazing advance. Dropping an addiction such as that is the hardest thing to do, I've been told. Also, in prison cigarettes are like gold and they can buy your life. This is just an interesting fact because although Meursault didn't have any problems in prison, he could have become very important if he was able to get cigarettes. The funny thing is that it happens in prison as it happens in the army.
Meursault's attitude during the trial was typical Meursault. He was absent, as if he were a stranger to the case. He did not listen closely to his defense and didn't really care much for it, although his lawyer did an incredible job. The prosecutor tried to use the funeral and Meursault's indiference towards it as an arguement to prove they were dealing with a senseless person. If was in the jury, I would condemn this man just for his attitude towards life. They also tried to frame him with Raymond because everybody knew he was not really a guard. Even after the incredible defense of his lawyer which we missed because of Meursault's day dreams, he was pleaded guiltyas charged. This is fair because he did kill a man, and although the law does accept some counter arguements which may show the murdurer as a person who didn't have a clue to what he was doing. This may seem good about our justice system but in the end they should face the facts, count the bodies and charge the killer.
When Meursault is in his cell, he remembers some of the lessons he recieved from Maman. They show her as a wise person, who lived much things and knew how to adapt to them, taking something out of them every time. She said that at the end of the day you could always find something to be happy about and Meursault agrees with her which is weird but heart warming. I agree with Maman too, and not only can you find something to be happy about, but you should look back through your day and mark those happy moments and realise that your life is not as miserable as you think. You just don't acknowledge the happy moments. Marie was no longer in his thoughts because she really didn't have an impact on him. He was not in love as I supposed earlier; she stopped writing and he stopped loving her.
After the priest comes and tries to make Meursault come to his senses, he gains this new inner strength to face his death. Before he was just accepting the fact that we will all die some day, maybe sooner than others and others will live on past you, but he had not seen it as something ti his advantage. After screaming at the intense priest and letting go of that represed anger in his heart, Meursault starts thinking like a phylosopher. Like Socrates, he desired death and seeked that moment where he will finally be liberated from that body that opressed him. The thought of death being so close gave them, as well as Maman the idea of rebirth. A new chance to start over.
To conclude this loong part two, and the end of the book for that matter, we end this book with a totally different feeling from the first one. At first we may become a cold reader as our character but as we learn he is indeed human, who has thoughts and ideas, you get comfortable with his actions and reactions and you learn to love him. You understand this troubled man and actually learn something from the book. I learned many valuable lessons from Maman and some from his lifestyle, of which I never approved. Camus presented an amazing character who was indeed a terrible human being, the lowest in society, but he makes you understand such a man and not hate him as much as you would with simple appearances.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)