The Plague Read-Along Update #2

I'm reading The Plague by Albert Camus as part of a read-along with Bookstooge.

Part II

Camus examines the experiences of different people when faced with disease and death.  Some ignore the obvious, some, who are in the throes of love affairs are nearly oblivious to the plague's effects, some seek pleasures without limits, some profit from the disaster, and some attempt to escape the quarantine.

The plague becomes pneumonic and can now be transmitted by air.  Not good.  A sermon is given by Father Paneloux stating that the plague has been sent from God to punish the citizens for their sins and, oddly, Grand is writing a book and agonizing over the perfection of the first sentence.  Rambert, the journalist, is desperate to escape and enlists Cottard for help, as Cottard is now benefiting from the plague through smuggling.  We find that Cottard had committed a crime earlier in life and that is what lead to his suicide attempt. With his escape delayed, Rambert finally agrees to join the sanitation committee who keep the town clean, in perhaps a futile effort to stay the pestilence.

The Fifth Plague of Egypt (1800)
William Turner
source Wikiart

Thoughts:  I can see how Camus lets us examine the effects of the plague through an examination of certain characters of the town and their reactions to it.  Rieux is the calm in the storm of the disaster and is a sort of anchor for the story.  Cottard is rather fascinating.  He has at some past time committed a crime for which he, early in the novel, attempts to escape the ramifications of it through suicide.  He is on the outside of the community with this secret and his internal conflict pushes him to an extreme action.  Yet with the advent of the plague, it is as if the community has been brought to his level with their suffering and Cottard, I'm afraid to say, appears to almost feed off this suffering and carves a rather satisfying life for himself within the hurricane of despair around him.  And what's with Grand and his story?  His battle to write the perfect sentence is obviously going to be a failure.  What was Camus doing here?  Was he trying to show that perfection is never to be found, but we should struggle for it in any case?  Hmmm ......

The Plague Read-Along Update #1

Bookstooge's Update #1

Bookstooge's Update #2

Persuasion Read-Along Update #1

Read-along hosted by Heidi from Literary Adventures Along the Brandywine who, I must say, is doing an amazing job with her chapter updates!

Book I - Chapters 1 - 6

Sir Walter Elliot, widower, and the father of three young ladies, Elizabeth, Anne and Mary Elliot, is the proud owner of Kellynch-Hall in Somersetshire.  Due to financial difficulties and, perhaps a too liberal economy, Sir Walter is forced to come to the realization that the family must tighten their purse strings in order to retain their respective position in society and avoid ruin.  Through a manipulative type of convincing by Lady Russell, an old family friend, and Mr. Shepherd, his lawyer, Sir Walter abandons his principles and agrees to let Kellynch to Mr. and Mrs. Cole, a mere admiral and his wife.  It just so happens that the brother of Mrs. Cole, Captain Wentworth, at one time had had an understanding with Anne and they were set to marry.  Yet when both Sir Walter and the respected Lady Russell rejected the match, Anne backed down and the engagement was broken.  As we reach chapter 6, Sir Walter and Elizabeth have removed to Bath to find a new lodging, Anne is visiting Mary who is ill (it seems perpetually ill), the Coles take possession of Kellynch Hall and there is the impending visit of Captain Wentworth to his sister.

Thoughts:

I use the word "manipulative" in describing Lady Russell's and Mr. Shepherd's behaviour, but honestly, nothing less would work with Sir Walter.  His wife had been a model of tact, economy and amiability and her beneficial character traits had tempered Sir Walter's trying ones, but since her death his vanity and pretentiousness had not only re-emerged, but grown to gigantic proportions. His value is for outward appearances, and inner qualities are completely discounted in his arrogance.  He is not a pleasant person.

Anne is not yet well-sketched.  We sense she is quiet and moderate but she gives us little insight into her private thoughts or emotions.  In fact, I find that the other characters act as a foil to hers:  Sir Walter's selfishness and elitism, Elizabeth's snobbiness and sense of entitlement, Mary's ill health and complaining, Mr. Shepherd's manipulation, etc.  In comparison, Anne is set in a golden halo of goodness.  Sadly I have not quite bought into her character yet. And heavens, it doesn't help that I had watched the movie years ago, before I'd read the book, and was so disappointed with Amanda Root's portrayal of Anne.  I had hoped that Anne would have some unique qualities that set her apart but, aside from being an extremely good person, I'm still waiting to find that true and special flower among the weeds of her companions.

Lady William Henry Cavendish Bentinck
Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres
source Wikiart

A Grief Observed by C.S. Lewis

"I never knew that grief felt so much like fear."

In A Grief Observed Lewis shares his thoughts and emotions with regard to the death of his wife, Joy Davidson, and it is perhaps one of the most powerful books on suffering that I've ever read.  As a reader, you are drawn into his grief and, contrary to what the title suggests, you can feel and experience Lewis' anguish right alongside him, at times almost against your will.  Lewis is pain personified, and it's raw and it's shocking.

In his book, The Problem of Pain, Lewis deals with suffering from an aspect of reason and pragmatism, but in A Grief Observed, he is a broken man, on one hand calling out for sense and understanding to apply to a situation that is beyond comprehension, and on the other, resisting examining his situation. Lewis' faith was shaken but not broken.  He does not deny God, yet he does ask what kind of God is He?  What type of God would allow something like this to happen?  He asks hard questions, makes brutally honest statements, and you wonder if this man is on his way to losing his faith.

“Talk to me about the truth of religion and I'll listen gladly. Talk to me about the duty of religion and I'll listen submissively. But don't come talking to me about the consolations of religion or I shall suspect that you don't understand.”

Yet why can't we ask hard questions of our Maker?  Why can't we storm and rage against the injustices of life?  Lewis kicked and stormed against the door of Heaven and instead he found an opening into his own soul.

“God has not been trying an experiment on my faith or love in order to find out their quality. He knew it already. It was I who didn't. In this trial He makes us occupy the dock, the witness box, and the bench all at once. He always knew that my temple was a house of cards. His only way of making me realize the fact was to knock it down.”

After long endeavouring to remember his wife's countenance, it is only when he stops struggling to see Joy, that her face suddenly returns to his mind. Lewis finally realizes that we need to seek God for Himself --- for who He is ---- and not for what we can get from Him.

“You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death to you. It is easy to say you believe a rope to be strong and sound as long as you are merely using it to cord a box. But suppose you had to hang by that rope over a precipice. Wouldn't you then first discover how much you really trusted it?”

Madeleine L'Engle writes in her introduction to the book:  "I am grateful to Lewis for having the courage to yell, to doubt, to kick at God in angry violence. This is part of a healthy grief which is not often encouraged.  It is helpful indeed that C.S. Lewis, who has been such a successful apologist for Christianity, should have the courage to admit doubt about what he has so superbly proclaimed.  It gives us permission to admit our own doubts, our own anger and anguishes, and to know that they are part of the soul's growth."

courtesy of Dawn Huczek
source Flickr
Creative Commons

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C.S. Lewis Project

The Cabin Faced West

Author:  Jean Fritz

Illustrator:  Feodor Rojankovsky

Era:  1784

Published:  1958 (G.P. Puntam's Sons)

Award:  none known 

Age Range:  3 - 12 years old

Review:  ★★★★★

Fritz relates the wonderfully poignant story of Ann Hamilton, a young girl who has moved west with her family, which include her parents, and two brothers. Her father, in his wisdom, emphasizes that the family must "look west" now, and that there should be no looking back.  Ann, however, finds this resolve difficult.  She misses her family, especially her cousin, Margaret, who was her best friend.  How will she be able to carve out a new identity for herself in this new unfamiliar land.  Who is this new Ann, who is now a pioneer girl?

Eventually, through various interactions with her family, other settlers, and George Washington himself, Ann learns the value of this new land and her place within it.

Set during the late 1700s, this story is based on a true one which happened to Fritz's great-great-grandmother, Ann Hamilton.  George Washington did indeed stop at the Hamilton's for dinner on September 18, 1784.  His diary reads:  "Set out with Doctr. Craik for my Land on Miller's Run.  Crossed the Monongahela at Devore's Ferry ---- bated at one Hamilton's about 4 miles from it, in Washington County, and lodged at Colo. Cannon's"  And so the story passed down through generations to finally be shared with us all.

For a more extensive review, please see my Classical Children's Carousel!

Oh yes, and the first book read for the January Classical Children's Literature Event!

Deal Me in Challenge (#2) - Eight of Hearts

The Plague Read-Along Update #1

I'm reading The Plague by Albert Camus as part of a read-along with Bookstooge and so far am quite enjoying it!

Part I

Suddenly in the port town of Oran in Algeria, rats begin to die.  Dr. Rieux happens upon the first rat, and from there, their numbers grow.  As the population of dead rats increases from a trickle to a flood, people start to sicken with fevers and swollen glands in the neck, armpits and groin.  The narrator introduces us to a man called Jean Tarrou, who is vacationing in Oran and claims that his notebooks will give an unusual window into the burgeoning epidemic. With the corpses beginning to pile up, it becomes more difficult to pretend the disease is anything other than the plague or a type of plague.  Dr. Rieux suggests that the information be released to the public, but Dr. Richard still attempts to minimize the crisis, and only signs with sparse information appear in town.  More deaths and the state of emergency can no longer be ignored.  The town is put into quarantine.



Thoughts:  The narrator was so careful to set himself up as credible.  He's quick to declare that everything he relates will be able to be corroborated.   Tarrou is also described as a person who will give a unique perspective to the plague because he focuses on particulars instead of generalizations ...... he's a peculiar fellow and I wonder if his peculiarities will have some specific bearing on the story.  Cottard's attempted suicide and his change of personality from introverted liberal to a friendly conservative is also puzzling.  I quite like Dr. Rieux so far; sensible and intelligent, with little time to suffer fools, he is so far very clear-sighted.

The manner in which Camus links and compares the response to war and plague gives the reader a very believable portrait.

"...... There have been as many plagues as wars in history; yet always the plagues and wars take people equally by surprise.  In fact, like all our fellow-citizens, Rieux was caught off his guard, and we should understand his hesitations in the light of this fact; and similarly understand how he was torn between conflicting fears and confidence.  When a war breaks out people say, 'It's too stupid; it can't last long.'  But though a war may we be 'too stupid', that doesn't prevent its lasting.  Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see if we were not always so much wrapped up in ourselves."

So not only do we have a tragedy brewing, we have a little mystery mixed in with a dollop of varying personalities.  An interesting recipe to be sure!

Bookstooge's Update #1

Meditations by René Descartes

"My reason  for offering you this book is very persuasive, and I am confident that you will have an equally strong reason for defending it once you understand why I wrote it; thus the best way of commending it to you is to say a few words about my objective in writing it"

Descartes set out to examine how "everything that can be known about God can be shown by reasons that derive from no other source but our own mind, .... and how God can be known more easily and more certainly than worldly things."  However even as he claims his investigations as "certain and evident," he is concerned that not everyone has the ability to grasp them.  Right then, I knew I was in for a philosophically dense read.  Yet while I trembled, I soon began to realize that Descartes splits his meditations into manageable chunks and, if you employ your brain for short periods, his explanations and arguments can penetrate.  I also realized that the title of the book could be of assistance.  These thoughts of Descartes were ideas that were probably products of hours and days and years of pondering and questioning and seeking.  If it took him that long to produce the ideas, I'd have to be willing to meditate on them if I wanted to develop a basic understanding.  And so I went on ....

First Meditation:  Things which can be called into Doubt

Descartes explores false knowledge, which he distinguishes from the unknowable: "there is nothing among my former beliefs that cannot be doubted and that this is so not as a result of levity or lack of reflection but for sound and considered reasons."  It is necessary to discard all beliefs that aren't absolute to determine what is known for certain.  There are many comparisons to thought while asleep and thought while dreaming.  He concludes with:

"I am like a prisoner who happens to enjoy an imaginary freedom in his dreams and who subsequently begins to suspect that he is asleep and, afraid of being awakened, conspires silently with his agreeable illusions.  Likewise, I spontaneously lapse into my earlier beliefs and am afraid of being awakened from them, in case my peaceful sleep is followed by a laborious awakening and I live in future, not in the light, but amid the inextricable darkness of the problems just discussed."

Second Meditation:  The Nature of the Human Mind, and that it is better known than the Body

Descartes thoughts continue from his supposition from his first meditation and he decides that everything is false.  Yet if all he believes is false, he does conclude that one thing is true:  he exists.  His reasoning is something like this:

1. He exists if he is not being deceived.
2. He exists if he is being deceived.
3. Therefore, if he is being deceived or not being deceived, he exists
4. He is either being deceived or not being deceived.

Interestingly, St. Augustine also argued "fallor ergo sum", or "I am being deceived, therefore I exist".

I think here Descartes arguments are of a personal and not necessarily a general nature:  his mind exists because his thoughts exist.  However, he still hasn't proven that he exists.

Rene Descartes with Queen
Christina of Sweden
source Wikipedia

Third Meditation:  The Existence of God

Descartes starts to lose me here.  He examines the dream state and questions how we can know it from reality and then he discusses the all-powerful God which we know and how we could be deceived in our perception of him (I think).  Very logically he states that if he is being deceived, that very fact proves his existence.  He comes to the conclusion that God is not a deceiver but leaves the door open to accept that there is something that is.

I was fascinated by Descartes exploration into ideas.  There are ideas which come to us that do not originate with us and, in fact, sometimes impose themselves on us.  If they are not products of our will, does that not point to there being something other than us?

"But if I derived my existence from myself, there would be nothing that I would either doubt or wish for, nor would I lack absolutely anything.  For I would have given myself every perfection of which I have some idea and thus I would be God himself."

Whew, that's certainly something to think about!

Fourth Meditation:  Truth and Falsehood

Yikes, and even deeper we go ........  Descartes concludes that God exists and his existence depends on Him.  God cannot deceive because deception involves some sort of imperfection and God is perfect.  When Descartes focuses on God he finds no error in himself, but when he focuses on himself, he is full of errors.  He calls himself an intermediate being between God and nothingness.

With regard to errors, he proposes that two faculties come into play:  the faculty of knowledge and the faculty of choosing from his own free will, in other word, intellect and will.  Through his intellect he perceived ideas but through his will he can make judgements.  There is a problem though:  his intellect is limited ---- it cannot perceive all ideas and it does not always perceive clearly and distinctly ----- whereas his will is unlimited ---- it can make, deny or suspend judgements on anything.  Yet as long as he does not make wrong judgements in his will, he is safe ...... if he simply suspends judgement on ideas he's not certain of, he cannot be wrong.

Descartes at Work
source Wikipedia

Fifth Meditation:  The Essence of Material Things, Another Discussion of God's Existence

Descartes provides a new argument for the existence of God, in that if he thinks that he exists, existence in inseparable from God and therefore He exists ...... or at least, I think that's what he's saying.  Such as:

1.  God is a being that has all perfections
2.  Existence is a perfection
------>   God exists

There are three famous arguments about Descartes' position (one of them being Kant's argument that existence isn't a perfection) but none hold up to logical examination, so I guess Descartes is still the winner.

Sixth Meditation:  The Essence of Material Things, and the Real Distinction Between Mind and Body

Wow, this is getting challenging!  To argue for a material world, Descartes examines what is contained in his own soul.   There is a delineation between imagining and pure understanding.  He concludes he could exist without imagining, therefore imagining must be outside his mind and connected to the body.  Next he examines the senses, which he feels come involuntarily and therefore connect ideas to the mind.  The next puzzle is why the mind is connected to the body .........  With all these quite impressive logical acrobatics, he begins to believe material objects exist but perhaps not in the way he has always believed.  There are a number of other investigations into our senses and their role, why we make unwise decisions, and that the body is divisible, yet the mind is not.  He ends by stating:

" For from the fact that God is not a deceiver it follows that, in such cases, I am completely free from error.  But the urgency of things to be done does not always allow us time for such a careful examination; it must be granted, therefore, that human life is often subject to mistakes about particular things, and the weakness of our nature must be acknowledged."

As much as it completely strained my brain, the Sixth Mediation really resonated with me.  I remember as a small child wondering why I was me. How was it that I felt contained in this particular body and not another?  Why was I chosen to be me?  How?  Why was I a soul living in Canada and not somewhere else?  I think this was the start of realizing that I had a soul and was something more than just a mechanical shell or a biological entity.  And if that was true, then where did I come from and who made me?  Perhaps not original questions, but ones that I think we should think about more in life.  Yes, we should all be philosophers!

Philosopher in Meditation
Rembrandt (1631)
source Wikipedia

Getting back to the book, it continues with "objections" or responses from Johan de Kater, a Catholic theologian from Holland; Fr. Marin Mersenne; Antoine Arnauld, a Jansenism theologian; Thomas Hobbes; and Pierre Gassendi, a priest, scientist, astronomer and mathematician.  I really had to laugh reading some of these objections.  In fact, the Catholics were the ones who questioned the logic Descartes used to prove the existence of God.  So curious from a modern prospective but it appears that the church was willing to ask tough questions during these times and wasn't afraid of searching for the truth.  So interesting!

Descartes' Replies to the Objections are also very enlightening but so very deep.  A course in logic would have been very useful before reading this book, however, I think I've covered enough for now.  Descartes obviously liked to think and had alot of time to do it.  It was mental gymnastics to try to follow him but good for the brain.  To really understand it though, you need to have read Aristotlean philosophy along with a number of other more recent philosophies, as Descartes thoughts sprung from that already anchored base.  At least my understanding, while minuscule, is more than when I started.  Thanks, Descartes!

Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift

"My father had a small Estate in Nottinghamshire; I was the Third of five Sons."

As Samuel Johnson stated, Gulliver's Travels is a work "so new and strange, that it filled the reader with a mingled emotion of merriment and amazement."  One must remember that at the time of Gulliver's Travels, readers had rarely encountered prose fiction in the form of stories, let along the fantastical stories and adventures of Gulliver.  They didn't quite know how to respond.

In the last chapter of the this book, its purpose is laid out to the reader, that Swift's "principal Design was to inform, and not amuse thee.", a deviation in form, since most medieval writers sought to do both.  The Roman lyric poet, Horace, stated that, "The poet who pleases everyone is the one who blends the useful with the sweet, simultaneously amusing and informing the reader."  Likewise, Thomas More in his Utopia states that his book is "A Truly Golden Handbook, No Less Beneficial than Entertaining"; Shakespeare seeks also to entertain and instruct, and The Cantebury Tales are described as "tales of best sentence and sola", expressing the standard medieval definition of literature which both informs and gives pleasure.  So why does Swift no longer want to amuse readers?  Why does he choose to change the medieval model of how literature was represented?  If his readers have not noticed the festering undercurrents of judgement within the story, it's as if Swift was determined emphasis the seriousness of the work.  As throughout his story, he gives the English people strengths that do not exist, so he also gives the reader amusement, where amusement does not exist.   No wonder people were puzzled by his unique representation.

Born in Dublin  in 1667, Swift spent the early years of his life moving between his hometown and London, attempting to gain a footing both in politics and the Church.  His first position was with Sir William Temple a retired English diplomat who was writing his memoirs.  Swift formed a close relationship with Temple and when he died, Swift hoped to gain a position at Canterbury or Westminister through King William, but the position never materialized.  Amid various other disappointments, Swift continued his travels between Ireland and England, and during these years, he produced A Tale in a Tub and The Battle of the Books, gaining a reputation as a writer.  Gulliver's Travels was published later in his career, in 1726.

Mural depicting Gulliver surrounded by
the citizens of Lilliput
source Wikipedia

Episodic in nature, Gulliver's Travels follows Lemuel Gulliver as he visits various unknown civilizations and learns their ways while gently comparing their societies with those of his own.  I say gently because Gulliver makes his musings appear as a gentle examination, but Swift has other ideas. One doesn't have to look very hard to see that this work is a sweeping condemnation of the human race.

Gulliver first lands in Lilliput where the society is diminutive in stature compared to Gulliver's enormity.  Initially accepted by the Lilliputians because of his good behaviour, he eventually upsets them by refusing to help them conquer another province and he is forced to escape.

Gulliver exhibited to the Brobdingnag
Farmer - Richard Redgrave
source Wikipedia

His second adventure is nearly an inversion of the first, in that this time Gulliver is small and, landing in Brobdingnag, soon realizes the gigantic features of its inhabitants.  While being poorly treated by his first family, Gulliver eventually comes to the Queen who treats him reasonably well and he is able to converse with the King.  The King, however, becomes unhappy with his description of the state of Europe, in particular their use of guns and cannons.

Gulliver discovers Laputa,
the flying island
J.J. Granville
source Wikipedia

The next adventure includes the flying island of Laputa, which is a rather bizarre place.  The inhabitants are devotees of the arts of mathematics and music only, but not only fail to employ them for any benefit to society, they also, through self-deception, are blindly unable to recognize their failures.

The land of the Houyhnhnms is Gulliver's fourth and final stop, a land of wise and noble horses, but he also encounters a race called Yahoos, a race very much like himself yet more filthy, vulgar, bestial and stupid.  Although they at first recognize him as a Yahoo, the Houyhnhnms finally take to Gulliver, impressed with his cleanliness and ability to reason.  Yet in spite of the relational ties he makes in this land and his desire to remain among these highly civilized beasts, the horses foresee a danger in Gulliver's presence and send him off in a boat.  When he arrive home, our protagonist is a changed man.  Disgusted with the "Yahoos" of his country, he is barely able to live in their company, finally choosing a rather secluded life.

Gulliver taking final leave of
the Houyhnhnms (1769)
Sawrey Gilpin
source Wikipedia

Through Gulliver's interaction with the Liliputans and the Brobdingnagans, Swift satirizes British politics.  The Liliputans are only concerned with petty and trivial problems, and in their self-aggrandization can only see themselves as governors of the whole world.  Yet while Liliput represents a small view of man, Brobdingnag represents a large one.  As in Liliput, Swift explores the contrasts between liberty and law, but now the situation is reversed as Gulliver is in miniature in a land of giants.  The island of Laputa is built upon philosophy and it's inhabitants are seen as Swift's critque of scientism, or that the only way to true knowledge is through scientific disciplines.  Only what can be seen and measured is taken into account, but, of course, this leaves no room to examine the soul.  The land of the Houyhnhnms is perhaps the most fascinating part of the voyages.  In this land the beasts are the civilized society and the Yahoos, who are human, are savages.  The Houyhnhnms live by reason and that reason, working within nature, give rise to their idyllic existence.  Gulliver believes that if he lives long enough with his friends, this virtue will rub off on him, but in fact the horses see his reason as imperfect and therefore he is more dangerous than a Yahoo who has no reason at all.  In reality, Gulliver is half-way between both species, halfway between pure passion and pure reason.

Apparently both Sir Walter Scott and William Thackeray were shocked and repulsed by Gulliver's fourth voyage, yet there is still argument as to whether Swift's work was a satire in the form of Horace, where he is only lightly satirizing Gulliver's idealism, or the heavier satire of Juvenal, whereupon his writing is a vitriolic, sarcastic diatribe condemning the human race.  I'll leave it to the reader to decide.  Yet perhaps Swift himself can shed light on his intentions:

"I have ever hated all Nations professions and Communityes and all my love is towards individualls for instance I hate the tribe of Lawyers, but I love Councellor such a one, and Judge such a one for so with Physicians (I will not speak of my own trade) Soldiers, English, Scotch, French; and the rest but principally I hate and detest that animal called man, although I hartily love John, Peter, Thomas and so forth.  This is the system upon which I have governed myself for many years (but do not tell) and so I shall go on until I have done with them I have got materials toward a treatise, proving the falsity of that definition animal rationale [rational animal], and to show it would be only rationis capax [capable of reason].  Upon this great foundation of Misanthropy (though not in Timon's manner) The whole building of my Travells is erected.  And I will never have peace of mind until all honest men are of my Opinion."

While I thought Swift's satire brilliant, and his characterizations mostly just, I felt that he focused only on the negative aspects of human nature.  If Swift really saw the world only through a lense of disappointment, treachery, selfishness, and deceit, yet missed the integrity, loyalty, virtues and goodwill of the flip-side of human nature, that is truly a tragedy.

Read for my Classics Club Spin #8, Fariba from Exploring Classics joined me in reading this one.  Here is her most excellent review.  Thanks for the company, Fariba!

(And further reflections by Fariba on Gulliver's Travels)