IOP Journal 3

IOP Date: (Wednesday) May 19
IOP Novel & Topic: The Stranger & Society v. Individual
Thesis: TBA

To better structure myself, during this process of working on my IOP, I shall use this (journal 3) to talk on my presentation, I'll use journal 4 to talk on parallels that I find in the text, and I shall use journal 5 to express my difficulties in the process of my IOP.

Rather then talking in front of the class for 10-15 minutes or having a PP, the techniques that I will use my presentation shall include T charts of parallels. My first point will be on the structure that Camus chooses in making a part one and a part two. The first T chart will be why Camus chose to create two parts and on the parallels in part one and part two. The second T chart will be the parallels between Meursault himself. Essentially, his growth.

My presentation will be broken into 3 parts.
1) Establishing context for the structure of the novel. What is the significance of part one? What is the significance of part two? Determine the parallels that create that significance.
2) Establish context for Meursault's growth. Determine the parallels that demonstrate his growth.
3) Ask why should any of this matter. What significance does the creation of the two parts have on me as an individual? What should I get from the text? Anyone who knows me knows that I have difficulty putting opinions on anything or making assertions. I realize that part of the reason why I don't feel that I have the qualifications to have certain opinions or make certain assertions is because I know that there are things that I do not know. So I am beginning to think of the context that Camus was in when he wrote his novel. Having gone through World War 2, (in his biography) Camus writes that many people had the believe that life was merely just existing and that it really had no rational or redeeming meaning. People had to believe in this in order for them to accept all of the deaths that were happening around them. I guess in a way Meursault is like a soldier. In killing the Arab and to have no emotion or thought involved, Meursault was perfect in that he treated life as merely just exisiting. I see that I have gone off a little from my tracks. Basically my 3rd point would be to express my difficultly in trying to make an accurate analysis without context.
I may choose to ask the class to express their beliefs on the meaing of life. Or an individual's purpose in life. If the class thinks that there is meaning to it. And take their answer and put it into comparison with Camus' context. Through the use of Meursault Camus can express to us the mindset of an individal who lived in the war times of WWII. I will make the connection that it almost makes it difficult for many of "us" (people in present day America) to feel empathy toward a character like Meursault because we don't the mindset of those in wartimes. We don't understand as well the need to cope with death because we do not feel it all around us as obvious as people living in WWII. This will transition me into my last point which is that
4) I will go back to how Camus structures his novel into two parts. I will say that he establishes the 1st to give the reader an insight into Meursault's character (an invdivual level) and he established a 2nd to give the reader an insight into the judgement of society on Meursault's character (a societal levlel ). Through Meursault we can see an indivudal with absurdist views who (at the beginning; part 1) does not yet understand his views. He just understands why he does not have other views (his loss of ambition). Then at the end, for a brief moment (beginning of part 2) has in inkling of humanity -is able to be like the rest of his community by looking to the past and future and potentially seeing value, creating one's one meaning- but after that brief moment, goes back to his orginal train of thought -which was the there was no value to things, that life is just existing- and is able to embrace his death in the end (end of part 2). Basically Camus creates these parallels to contrast the absurtist idea to what one might call a (for lack of better wording) "moral" idea (what the society believes as right and good, that there is reason/purpose).