The sub-theme of femininity is prevalent throughout the novel, however it is much more minor compared to the larger ideas Albert Camus shares. Femininity is a theme that goes hand in hand with Absurdism throughout the novel. It is through Meursault's indifference to love and women that this theme becomes present. It is not a directly expressed much like the others. Not only Meursault expresses this, but also Raymond. At the point in the novel after Raymond finds that his “girlfriend” cheated on him and used Meursault to write the letter, Raymond shares with Meursault the actions he took upon his “girlfriend” as if it were a righteous act. Raymond had “smacked her around. And then I told her exactly what I thought of her. I told her that all she was interested in was getting into the sack.’... He’d beaten her till she bled….What bothered him was that he ‘still had sexual feelings for her.’” (Camus 34) And the mere fact that Raymond only had sexual feelings shows the lack in value of women. Meursault also shares this attitude towards women, specifically
When he returns home to Algiers, Meursault carries on with life as normal. Over dinner one evening, his neighbor Raymond tells of his desire to punish his mistress for infidelity, and asks Meursault to write a letter to the mistress for him. Meursault agrees, saying "I tried my best to please Raymond because I didn’t have any reason not to please him" (32). While Raymond is a man of questionable morals, he acts with purpose. Meursault, on the other hand, acts with mostly passive indifference, doing things simply because he doesn’t have a reason not to do them.
reaction of wanting revenge. You can argue that madame defarge’s big part in the french
She witnesses firsthand all of the hardships the French commoners are enduring and it fuels her rage and anger toward the nobility. Madame Defarge channels all of this anger into exacting her revenge, but we cannot help pitying her for her wretched childhood. We comprehend the reasons behind the madness, but that does not justify her actions.
This passage gives the reader an initial insight on the central conflict in the novel, Tita’s fight for freedom from Mama Elena’s suppression. Mama Elena is portrayed to have characteristics which resemble to that of the stereotypically domineering, abusive male figure. Tita must tread waters very carefully when she is anywhere near Mama Elena, otherwise she would be beaten for any reason. Yet as the novel progresses, Tita undergoes a change due to exposure and desire. With the introduction of Pedro (Tita’s lover who ends up marrying Tita’s sister), Tita experiences new emotions, desire and lust. Previous to meeting Pedro, Tita never felt the desire to defy Mama Elena, yet her new found love - lust - for Pedro gave her a reason to rebel. The introduction of the emotion of desire, a need sparked the flame of change in Tita. This concept of women in oppression finding something to strive for, even at a risk, gives women courage. As the age, old saying goes ‘if they can do it so can I’. By creating a relatable scenario, Esquivel hopes to show women that even if the task seems too great to overcome, they
It not only threatens, but also breaks through. Betrayed by love once in her life, she nevertheless seeks it in the effort to fill the lonely void; thus, her promiscuity. But to adhere to her tradition and her sense of herself as a lady, she cannot face this sensual part of herself. She associates it with the animalism of Stanley's lovemaking and terms it “brutal desire”. She feels guilt and a sense of sin when she does surrender to it, and yet she does, out of intense loneliness. By viewing sensuality as brutal desire she is able to disassociate it from what she feels is her true self, but only at the price of an intense inner conflict. Since she cannot integrate these conflicting elements of desire and gentility, she tries to reject the one, desire, and live solely by the other. Desperately seeking a haven she looks increasingly to fantasy. Taking refuge in tinsel, fine clothes, and rhinestones, and the illusion that a beau is available whenever she wants him, she seeks tenderness and beauty in a world of her own making.
1. Meursault is in a kind of sexual relationship. Everytime he sees her, he can’t stop his sexual attraction towards her. His thoughts are all about her physical features and sex. When Marie asks Meursault if he love her, he told her it didn’t matter. “A minute later she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but I don’t think so” (35).
Slowly the blade was raised ready to grasp the woman's throat. Armand gasped in realisation “This aristo, was my love, Angele de St. Cyr!” he thought, “How devastated I am that I cannot recognise someone who I cared for so deeply!” He exclaimed internally. Her gown was tattered and ripped, her face smeared with dirt and her once delicate hands were covered with cuts and bruises instead of the the lavish jewelry that would shine in the summer sun as he would look from a distance longing for her
The story begins with a description of the husband. "He was a good husband, a good father" (Le Guin 3), "He was always gentle" (Le Guin 3). These lines create confusion, it makes the audience question. In order for the questions to be answered finalizing the story would have to be done. This foreshadows what will occur later on the story. Le Guin tells about how they first met and about how his sophistication attracted her.
Jacques Le Gris was established as a man who was known for seducing women. It was rumored his approach to Marguerite was an offer of money for sex, but she did not care for his money and wouldn't "submit herself to his will". This is when the encounter became physical because Le Gris was going to get what he wanted wether she liked it or not. For a woman, Marguerite fought long and strong, but with the muscle between a man
In the surreal, dim lighting of her bedroom Paulina is shaken by a strangely disturbing laugh upon recognising Roberto Miranda's voice as that of her tormentor. This moment sees the birth or manifestation of another facet of Paulina's character, the part of Paulina's mind that fantasized about doing to her torturers what they had done to her. This is the unbelievably unreasonable Paulina; she is a Fury, a mythical deity, the embodiment of vengeance, unsusceptible to male logic or opportunistic, careerist rationalisation. Polanski makes Paulina throw the car over the cliff-edge. In doing this she is not only destroying a phallic symbol, and thus undermining Roberto's sexuality and any claims he has on sexual dominance or superiority, she is destroying a perfect symbol of the male thirst for power and control, and the pragmatic logic to which her need for revenge has been sacrificed, into the infinite, chaotic abyss that defies all these principles, and unquestionably swallows it up. In doing this she breaks the railing, civilized society has created to guard itself
653. This is the same mindset that Sartre applies to the anti-Semite- the refusal to consider the complexity of the world in favor of a system that provides easy answers to all life’s questions. Only, unlike the anti-Semite, the woman is turning her hatred inward; does she hate herself because she fears freedom or because she feels she is not worthy of it? De Beauvoir seems to believe that fear is the primary cause for this willing dependency. She cites the psychoanalytic view that women’s obsession with love does not comes from a desire for men at all, but from a desire to return to the secure dependency of childhood. This explains the lifelong refuge some women take in infantile (“cute”) behavior and appearance, but psychoanalytic explanations for human behavior have proven to be far less than perfect, and a woman’s self-worth (or, in this case, lack thereof) has far more complex roots than a Freudian theorem.
Revenge can be analyzed, as it becomes the exhibited behavior of the Widow resulting from a number of causes. First cause is the harm done to her family; second cause is the Widow’s perception of violence during that time; and the third cause is her aggression toward the killer of her son. The first cause of her revenge is the most obvious reason why she avenged the death of her son, and this is because the killer caused pain to her family. Any mother would be committing the act especially that her son was the only company she has. The second cause pertains to the Widow’s perception of revenge during that time, and because at the time, wars and feuds were still evident in the French society, bloodshed for the Widow is not something to be scared of, given any means. This story was only successful in showing to its readers how the society thinks of death during those times, which can be achieved through any means, by which losing one’s life was not something to be thought of carefully. This just proves that during that time, morality was not given high regard as it is now. Death by any means can be accomplished by anybody, regardless of age, gender, and status in society. The third cause of the Widow’s behavior is her aggression toward the killer of her son, which was not literally shown or described in the story, but was evident based on
From the beginning of the novel, the narrator communicates with the readers that Georges Duroy is aware of the fact that he is viewed as an attractive and charming man. He carried that knowledge arrogantly and with the “cockiness of a good-looking soldier” (Maupassant 26). At the beginning of the novel when Georges Duroy and Monsieur Forestier were at the Folies Bergere theatre, Monsieur Forestier notices that Rachel sets her eyes on Duroy and she is interested in him and he advises him to exploit on the effect he has on women because it is the “quickest way to succeed”( Maupassant 41). Georges Duroy takes this advice to heart and capitalizes on the power he has over women’s emotions throughout the novel to achieve his selfish goals.