3 Questions in Wide Sargasso Sea

In the wonderful literary novel, Wide Sargasso Sea, we meander through the protagonist’s (Antoinette) life in various stages. Much is to be said about Antoinette’s life, including examining her relationships with other main characters in the story. I wanted to address some interesting thoughts and questions I had while reading the book.

Question #1: Who is the largest antagonist in the story?
I think this is one of the more interesting questions. Given the vague standard character definitions (is Antoinette even the protagonist?), this question becomes even more confusing. Say Antoinette is the protagonist, is the antagonist Rochester for how he treats her? This is perhaps the most straightforward and concrete answer. He did in fact lock Antoinette in an attic. However, are the white creoles in general more antagonistic? I think if you believe Antoinette is simply the victim of societal rifts, this argument makes sense as well. Is it specifically Mr. Cosway?, Annette?, Christophine? The list goes on and on.

Question #2: How do we effectively understand the race/class divides presented by Rhys in the book?
I think this question is touchy and difficult to understand. Nevertheless, I will try to answer it. With the introduction of Rochester into the story, the book becomes a “skepticism triangle” with the white creoles, the ex-slaves, and the English colonists. Obviously there is a huge rift between the white creoles and the ex-slaves, given the history of both groups from before Antoinette’s time. We see this manifest between Antoinette and Tia, who both serve as symbols for their respective cultural groups. We see Rochester (the symbol of white colonization) resent both the ex-slaves and the creoles. The result of this jumbled mess ultimately leads to the strife at the end of the book, and results in a tragic ending for Antoinette. It is almost as if Antoinette is stuck in the middle of the triangle, constantly trying to gravitate toward one side but always getting pushed back towards the middle. 

Question #3: How the heck did John Duigan believe this was some sort of tropical romance novel?
Mr. Mitchell discussed in class the 1993 movie representation of Wide Sargasso Sea. I briefly perused through Rogerebert.com and found the correct rendition. After looking at the comments from the director about arguing with (located on Wikipedia.com), I am baffled why somebody chose to hire Mr. Duigan as a director. Not only did he desecrate the book, he also created a steamy tropical romance that quite frankly didn’t resonate with viewers.  Remarkably, the movie received a 57% rotten tomato score, and I’d be willing to bet a majority of those who read the book were not fond of the way it was portrayed. Fortunately, the 2006 version was significantly more accurate to the book.

Overall, I thought Wide Sargasso Sea has been one of the more interesting books we've read this year. If anybody agrees/disagrees with anything stated above, feel free to comment on the post below!

Trying to Understand the Deeper Messages in The Stranger

In Albert Camus’ The Stranger, we follow Meursault around “modern” (circa 1940’s) Algeria. Meursault was a fairly pedestrian man, ultimately getting lured in by a “bad man” Raymond, and committing a terrible crime. However, rather than discuss merely the plot, I would like to discuss the author, the storyline he created, and trying to frame the story in a larger context.

            In class, Mr. Mitchell discussed how Camus served in the resistance movement in World War II. My initial thought about the book is that it would provide some sort of commentary on the intricate politics of the war. More specifically, I figured Meursault would symbolize the people of France. Throughout Part 1, it was very easy to spot parallels between European politics and the storyline. For example, if you perceive Meursault as a symbol of the people one could perceive Meursault’s mother’s death as the symbol of Nazi Germany “killing” countries (a good example is Poland). In addition, I saw a parallel between Nazi Germany and Raymond. Both try to influence the innocent bystanders (in this case Meursault and the French people) and ultimately lead the innocent to commit unthinkable crimes.

However, Part 2 is drastically different. We see the “innocent” get put on trial for their actions. Camus frames Meursault as committing a crime without fully understanding a “rational” reasoning behind it (eg. revenge killing). Within the Nazi Empire, we saw some ordinary people committing crimes they otherwise wouldn’t commit for no explicable reason. In this way, Camus is symbolizing the eventual trial of these people (as this book was written in 1942) in the court of public opinion, similar to the way Meursault is put on trial.

            In final, I believe Camus was trying to send 2 different messages to the people of France. The first was trying to send a “wake up call” to those who may have been joining the Nazi cause to stop for a moment and think about the implications of their actions. The second was a message to those who were impartial. He was trying to say that taking no sides (similar to how Meursault goes along with Raymond's plan while trying to remain neutral) ultimately makes the impartial just as guilty as those who are actually guilty. Obviously there are various different way to perceive Camus’ message in this story. Let me know what you think in the comments below.