The New Republic

...Indeed, despite his multiple, shall we say, transgressions, there is almost a civic pride that he was such a badass, that he was gone for so long, and that he is ours... ...Some Alleged murder victims: Louis Litif Donald McGonagle Paul McGonagle Roger Wheeler Edward Brian Halloran John McIntyre Deborah Hussey Debra Davis John Callahan Arthur Barrett Richard Castucci James O'Toole... That's our Whitey.

- basman

June 29, 2011 at 12:27am

"but as they say in Boston, 'Don’t hold yah breath. Save it fah ya chowda.'" Nobody from Boston has ever said that in the history of the city. Ever.

- aylwards

June 29, 2011 at 10:15am

I'll venture that it is not just Bostonians (of which I am one) who feel "almost a civic pride" in their most infamous criminals. Americans tend to have a strong affinity for those who get up the gumption to strike out and boldly make their own way; the more difficult the task, the more admirable. And what other line of work is as difficult as leading a criminal gang where literally the entire weight of society and the legal system is standing in your way? Not to mention rivals in the "business" and even your own people who are both, if anything, more of a threat than the law. It seems almost heroic to us and this is how I tend to explain our collective fascination with criminals. The fact that they threw off the twin impediments of self-doubt and worry about consequences overshadows the pain that they caused simply because they provide an outlet for our own fantasies of being less hindered by our psycological shackles. This is not to say that we would all like to become criminals if we could only get over our fears but rather that we believe if Whitey Bulger can bring himself to risk imprisonment and death in pursuit of his goals then surely we can bring ourselves to ask our boss for a raise.

- tealeaves

June 29, 2011 at 10:59am

"Nobody from Boston has ever said that in the history of the city. Ever." Seriously. Why did Whitey feel the need to get his atenolol in Mexico? That stuff's commonly available and cheap -- and also commonly prescribed, so I wouldn't think it would tip off investigators.

- frippo

June 29, 2011 at 11:23am

Um, I don't think anyone in Boston *really* says “Don’t hold yah breath. Save it fah ya chowda.” They don't say "Didjah pahk yah cah in Hahvahd Yahd," either. Even if you car is, indeed, parked in Harvard Yard. The person who benefits most from the existence of Whitey Bulger? Billy Bulger. Only by comparing him to his (alleged!) killer brother can Billy ever be truthfully described as "good."

- W_Bombay

June 29, 2011 at 11:39am

I mean, if people DID say it, would it be about blowing on the chowda because it's too hot or something? I'm kind of at a loss here.

- frippo

June 29, 2011 at 11:50am

But people do talk about Bostonians saying "Pahk yah cah in Hahvahd Yahd". The line about chowder in the piece is just bizarre and pulled completely out of thin air. The main reason that Bostonians are obsessed about Whitey is because his sordid has such a vivid beginning and middle portion. I would guess that the lionshare of people want Whitey to be utterly shamed at trial and then suffer the ultimate punishment in Florida or Oklahoma. There is a small group, I would bet, that hope that Whitey takes the stand and eviscerates the FBI, State Police and BPD even worse than those forces already have been. Whitey's final bow. It is undeniably compelling, even if the main character is such an unredeemable, hateful psychopath.

- aylwards

June 29, 2011 at 12:00pm

I love this. "he even managed to corrupt his handlers." Ha. As if. This article isn't very good. (Sorry, its just really, really not well written or well informed and adds nothing to the discourse except a kind of "tut, tut".)

- notaddled

June 29, 2011 at 1:36pm

All of my preconceptions about Bostonians and their accents come from three sources... 1. Car Talk with Ray and Tom Magliozzi 2. Ben Affleck's cliched Bostonian accents in 'The Town' 3. And this movie trailer of every Boston movie cliche - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq99S8Euslk&feature=player_embedded

- singlspeed

June 29, 2011 at 5:17pm

We have an error in the link to www.wowowow.com, which is given as: file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/mmcknight/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/OLK5/www.wowowow.com Someone on TNR's Web staff should fix this. Interesting looking site though, particularly if you're female.

- jonrysh

June 29, 2011 at 5:24pm

Throughout our history (not to mention all histories), heroes and villains have been a mixed bag. Our noble forefathers, who created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution also kept slaves and practiced genocide on the native aboriginals. Nor were the aboriginals always purely "noble savages." In Central and South America shall we talk about the poor Mayans and Aztecs and Incas, rudely interrupted from the often customary practices of human sacrifice by the vicious oppressions of the European invaders? We are a charming species.

- skahn

June 29, 2011 at 5:31pm

skahn... Contrary to western history regarding the Mayan practice of human sacrifice as a regularly scheduled Sunday worship event, the Mayan rarely practiced human sacrifice and it was only towards the end of their civilization (after sever climate change conditions) that limited human sacrifice occurred and even then it was considered by the Mayan as the "last" of the last acts in desperation to appease their God(s). Aztecs...that's another story. But then if we're going to talk about noble savages and human sacrifice, let's not forget that the sailing navies of Europe had harsh punishments like drawing and quartering sailors. Or the savagery of the Apaches was learned from the Spanish conquistadors. Of course, the New Orleanians celebrate the Pirates Lafitte for all of their escapades. Americans like a great story and scoundrels make for more interesting and colorful reading than say listening to bedtime stories about teetotalers knitting prayer shawls.

- singlspeed

June 29, 2011 at 7:58pm

I know, Aylwards, she drips with condescension. Many of us Bostonians (one of whom, me, now live in Santa Monica) were actually thrilled with his capture. And yet there is a romance to this story. As much as there's a romance to Bonnie and Clyde and every other famous outlaw/gangster. Bostonians aren't the first ones to be undone.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 29, 2011 at 8:23pm

It's rare for a criminal like Whitey Bulger to have a successful and talented brother in William Bulger. Add to this the story of FBI protection and his involvement with IRA gun running not to mention his torturing a man to death and you have all the ingredients of a movie plot. I doubt many people here think of Whitey in a romantic way. He is no Clyde he is more like an Al Capone figure.

- arnon

June 29, 2011 at 10:16pm

We have an error in the link to www.wowowow.com, which is given as: file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/mmcknight/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/OLK5/www.wowowow.com Someone on TNR's Web staff should fix this. Interesting looking site though, particularly if you're female.

- jonrysh

June 29, 2011 at 10:19pm

My small point is that any romance attaching itself to Whitey Bulger is misplaced. Hess a stone killer, without conscience or remorse. He strangled defenseless victims with his bare hands. I understand the attraction of some criminals and rogues, like the gorgeous and delight J.W. Gacy, but this dude doesn't make that cut, no way no day. It's attaching romance to a sociopath, if not a psychopath.

- basman

June 29, 2011 at 10:51pm

Just noting Arnon's post, I agree with it. And, by the way, I recommend the great Bostonian George V. Higgins's novel At End of Day dealing in fiction with some central aspects of these matters. I'm justabout to reread it after a lot of years.

- basman

June 29, 2011 at 10:56pm

Basman, Clyde's kill rate is not much lower than Whitey's. But the mists of nostalgia--and a Robert Altman make-over--make lots of ugly things beautiful. I in no way suggest that this is a good thing, it's just a human thing, and Margo Howard doesn't offer much insight, just condescension and scorn. Perhaps Boston is not the town for her. But then no town would be because these feelings of fascintion mixed with admiration (misplaced, albeit) or not exactly unheard of. If you look at the photo above, you see a very handsome and possibly charismatic man. Scorcese understands this mystique. Why else would he have cast Jack Nicholson in The Departed? Look at Milton's Paradise Lost for an even earlier example.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 30, 2011 at 5:42pm

MOLLYSIMON: “And yet there is a romance to this story. As much as there's a romance to Bonnie and Clyde and every other famous outlaw/gangster. Bostonians aren't the first ones to be undone.” 06/29/2011 - 8:23pm EDT MOLLYSIMON “Clyde's kill rate is not much lower than Whitey's. But the mists of nostalgia--and a Robert Altman make-over--make lots of ugly things beautiful. I in no way suggest that this is a good thing, it's just a human thing,” “If you look at the photo above, you see a very handsome and possibly charismatic man. Scorcese understands this mystique. Why else would he have cast Jack Nicholson in The Departed? Look at Milton's Paradise Lost for an even earlier example.” 06/30/2011 - 5:42pm EDT Whitey Bulger as Milton’s Satan? I don’t think so. Maybe Billy Bulger, but not Whitey.

- arnon

June 30, 2011 at 7:40pm

Well Molly there's life and then there's art; and ever the twain shall meet. But they're not the same thing. And while there's no doubting the intense attractions of some people's evil ways and being and the fascination they hold for the artistes and myth makers amongst us, amongst others, the present inclination to romanticize Bulger is something different, I'd argue. He is a sociopathic, if not a psycopathic, stone killer who strangled defenseless victims, deserving better, with his bare hands, and tortured others. I'll leave the art and myth making to the artists and myth makers. But for thinking people in their thoughts about day to day life to give this murdering creep the romantic time of day is ever a lapse of thought and of standards. The guy's nothing to make intellectual light of. On a different point, I've read two ridicuous things by Howard here now recently, the first her execrable bit on Weiner. I'm starting to think she's journalistically irredeeemable.

- basman

June 30, 2011 at 7:50pm

P.S. While I'm at my pontificating: this paradox of evil is the overriding theme of the The Sopranos and The Godfathers Parts 1 and 2. (The Departed is such a medicocre movie it's not even worth mentioning). But why, I think, The Godfather Part 11 is such a pantheonic movie is because, amongst other significant things, it blows the paradox all to hell, taking you inside the workings of evil power such that we are left with a monstrously hollowed out Michael Corleone, so inverted morally and so humanly empty that, finally, he commissions fratricide.

- basman

June 30, 2011 at 8:16pm

Basman “Well Molly there's life and then there's art; and ever the twain shall meet. But they're not the same thing.” There is also art and then there is mediocre art. Does Bonny and Clyde excite today as it did in the 60’s? Now, Milton’s Satan who was no killer still fascinates. He is the offspring of Shakespeare’s Iago who acted through others and seldom directly. This fits Billy Bulger better than does the psychopathic Whitey.

- arnon

June 30, 2011 at 8:37pm

I am not disagreeing, Itzik, merely pointing out that evil people can be attractive. That there is, in America, a romance with gangsters. And Whitey, sociopath that he probably is (I don't think psychopathic, because that implies he is frothing at the mouth and delusional), is a gangster. What is so difficult about this concept? And thank you, Arnon, for the Billy versus Whitey discussion. I hadn't though of Iago's evil in those terms. Master manipulator, I guess. But Milton's point, I think, was to show us how attractive evil can be. Does Bonnie and Clyde still excite? I enjoyed it, but it wasn't the same experience watching a Scorcese movie when he's in top form.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 30, 2011 at 10:55pm

A few scattered points: Molly, maybe it's me if in fact we have any issue between us here. Agreed: "evil can be attractive." My point is to decry any romanticizing of Bulger. I'm with Scott Brown: ...Whitey Bulger’s crimes are sickening and brought misery to many people... I wasn't excited about Bonnie and Clyde when it first came out and was increasingly impatient with it each of the one or two or tow times over the years I've seen it again-- not Pauline Kael's most successful enthusiasm. As a matter of pure interest, consider this: ....Though not all psychology professionals agree on what exactly differentiates sociopaths from psychopaths, among those who believe each are separate disorders there is a list of definite differences. Sociopaths tend to be nervous and easily agitated. They are likely to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society, unable to hold down a steady job or stay in one place. Some sociopaths form attachments to an individual or group, though they have no regard for society in general. In the eyes of others, sociopaths appear clearly disturbed. Any crimes committed by a sociopath tend to be disorganized and spontaneous. Psychopaths, on the other hand, often have charming personalities. They are manipulative and easily gain people’s trust. They have learned to mimic emotion and so appear “normal” to other people. Psychopaths are often educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they can have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature. Psychopaths, when committing crimes, carefully plan out every detail and often have contingency plans in place. Because of this marked difference between the method of crimes committed by sociopaths and psychopaths, the distinction between these disorders is perhaps even more important to criminology than it is to psychology.... Based on this, I'd be inclined to say Bulger sounds more like a psychopath than a sociopath. Finally, Paradise Lost is , at least to me, too vast and complex and brilliant to speak of "Milton's point..." as though it can be so reduced though we have the cliche of Blake saying Milton was of the devil's camp. But Blake was a visionary though self conscious shit disturber who lived to turn received wisdom and received religion precisely on its head.

- basman

July 1, 2011 at 1:47am

"But Milton's point, I think, was to show us how attractive evil can be." That's a Romantic point of view, not Milton's whose Satan is an "angel" trapped by his hubris: "I myself am Hell." That evil can attractive became the obsession of many Romantic poets beginning with Byron. Clyde in the movie, if I remember right, was portrayed as near impotent, not exactly an attractive feature, specially in the early 70's.

- arnon

July 1, 2011 at 11:02am

But who is to say what Milton's Satan is? That Satan is so charismatic in the epic. so flashing and dangerous stands against the text's ostensible meanings. Hence what Blake thought and that line of thought about Satan in Paradise Lost. Same thing with Shylocks' outsizedness in the M of V.

- basman

July 1, 2011 at 11:50am

@Arnon A comparison of Billy Bulger to Iago reminds of Copernican astronomy. And talk about running out of ammo--read Peter Biskind to find out stimulant drugs did to Hollywood's sense of history. Bonnie and Clyde was released in '67--the summer of '67 I believe. Which brings us back to the real world Billy Bulger's loyalty. Other factors? Sure. Upbringing, knowing where he came from, yeah. But he's not so hubristic or Miltonian--rather aware that the media wouldn't be paying him much attention if it wasn't for his controversial sibling, whom Billy thinks deserves a chance to give his side of the story. Especially, who exactly was corrupting who? http://tinyurl.com/64g4qm3

- notaddled

July 1, 2011 at 12:33pm

“But who is to say what Milton's Satan is?” We may not know what exactly he is, but we do know what he is not. He is not a human being as Iago his putative model was. Milton though attributes human feelings to him. “That Satan is so charismatic in the epic. so flashing and dangerous stands against the text's ostensible meanings.” I am not sure I understand this. Satan is fascinating because of his inner torment and not because he is heroic. Milton gives him some of the most eloquent language in the poem. At the same time he shows him trapped within himself with no possibility of change. The Romantic view of him as heroic was based on their misreading him as someone who embraces his rebellious condition from the start. In the text (which is different from the Satan of the Hebrew bible) though Satan’s rebellion was dues to jealousy and he didn’t know the outcome of his action nor how it would change him. Satan, I think, was seen by Milton as a metaphysical principle of evil. “Hence what Blake thought and that line of thought about Satan in Paradise Lost.” I don’t know what you are saying, here. What Blake thought? “Same thing with Shylocks' outsizedness in the M of V.” I don’t get this neither. We need to distinguish between the charismatic nature of some evil doers and the horrendous crimes they commit.

- arnon

July 1, 2011 at 12:53pm

@arnon Could you provide us with an example--a literary figure or fictional character perhaps--of someone who "embraces their rebellious condition from the start?" Attractive young poets who are embraced--and feted--by the demimonde a la Rimbaud and Jim Carroll don't count. No, one is always embraced by rebellion before one embraces it.

- notaddled

July 1, 2011 at 1:47pm

Maybe I’m not making myself clear enough. Satan is the most compelling character in Paradise Lost. We are moved by him as by no one else or nothing else in the epic. You might say he embodies “a metaphysical principle of evil;” but you can also say he embodies flaws and imperfection and he rails against what is imposed upon him—as in “the imperfect is our paradise.” In him, Milton in the epic was at his creative greatest. So we may have an irreconcilable tension between apparent meaning and what the text tells us in its emotional impact. So, to be clear, our issue is not about the apparent meanings of the text. It’s about that apparent meaning being one thing and our responses nigh to universally being another and different thing. Blake took Milton to be in the devil’s camp to be conferring on Satan his true sympathy and artistic and thematic allegiance apart from the text’s ostensibility. The same thing happens in the Merchant of Venice. The text in large terms tells us one thing about Shylock—manifest at play’s end when he ostensibly gets what he deserves— overriding the explicit sympathy Shakespeare establishes for him. But Shylock is outsized in his effect on us for all his brief appearances in the play. His treatment at the end is *dramatically* incoherent, frustrates us and we feel let down by it such that the final romantic comedy resolutions in the two happy marriages seem cold, forced and bloodless. The play generates the same irresolvable tension between its apparent meaning its undeniable emotional effect. Hope that’s clearer.

- basman

July 1, 2011 at 2:46pm

Basman, I really think you have psychopath and sociopath confused. It's the sociopaths who are charming. They're the ones who are able to charm and con. Psychopaths matches your description of sociopaths, in my opinion. I'm going to check with my brother the psychologist, if that's OK.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 1, 2011 at 4:10pm

Notaddled “Could you provide us with an example--a literary figure or fictional character perhaps--of someone who "embraces their rebellious condition from the start?" “ There are many such in literature from Revenge tragedies to modern literature. But why are you seeking examples? In any case, I’ll give you two: John Webster’s White Devil has a number of such figures, also Marlowe’s Barabbas. In modern literature, there is Camus Meursault in his “The Stranger.” There are really too many to name. These lines are from Byron: "Apart he stalk'd in joyless reverie, And from his native land resolv'd to go, And visit scorching climes beyond the sea; With pleasure drugg'd he almost long'd for woe, . . ."

- arnon

July 1, 2011 at 4:40pm

Basman “Satan is the most compelling character in Paradise Lost. We are moved by him as by no one else or nothing else in the epic” I don’t know, I was moved by the character of Eve also. “So we may have an irreconcilable tension between apparent meaning and what the text tells us in its emotional impact. So, to be clear, our issue is not about the apparent meanings of the text. It’s about that apparent meaning being one thing and our responses nigh to universally being another and different thing.” I don’t know who this “our” is. This is how the text was read in the 19th and 20th c. Who reads that poem in this way today? “The same thing happens in the Merchant of Venice.” You can find discrepancies in putative authorial intent and reader reaction in lots of works of art. I don’t know what Shylock has to do with Milton’s Satan.

- arnon

July 1, 2011 at 4:46pm

Basman, this is what I got back from my brother, if you're at all curious. Robert Hare is the guy when it comes to psychopathy research. Here's a readable article that he wrote:http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199401/charming-psychopath I'd contrast this with antisocial personality disorder (from DSM-IV); http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001919/

- MOLLYSIMON

July 1, 2011 at 5:19pm

Basman, more from the email: "As to the differences: I'd stick with talking about psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder. Sociopathy? I'm not sure about. Whatever: Whitey probably had a genetic loading for bad stuff, his history was probably brutal and traumatic, but that's just speculating. Also, most people who experience what he's experienced don't do murder 19 people (probably a lowball estimate). Or even 1."

- MOLLYSIMON

July 1, 2011 at 5:21pm

@Arnon Don't know your other references well enough but in The Outsider, Camus clearly delineates the point in which Mersault becomes what you call a rebel as when he "gave up his studies." I'm going to read your comment closer but I may have not made my initial point clear enough.

- notaddled

July 1, 2011 at 7:00pm

@Arnon The reference to Mersault is confusing because some might say that he proves my initial intended point that a character only embraces rebellion when it is his only option. In The Stranger this theme is teased out on several levels--sociological, psychoanalytic, sexual, moral, not to mention the iron hand of fate--to illustrate that rebellion is overdetermined. Camus' genius is to offer Mersault a sort of choice as to the nature of his (in any case futile) rebellion and its relative dignity. This very special plot device affords the reader an object lesson in the absurdity of existence.

- notaddled

July 1, 2011 at 7:28pm

Notaddled “The reference to Meursault is confusing because some might say that he proves my initial intended point that a character only embraces rebellion when it is his only option. In The Stranger this theme is teased out on several levels--sociological, psychoanalytic, sexual, moral, not to mention the iron hand of fate--to illustrate that rebellion is overdetermined.” Thanks for your clarification. I didn’t know what you were asking now I think I do. Had I known this before I wold have answered you differently. Still, I disagree with your concise and well written summary of the book, notaddled. The story is related by Meursault himself , it’s a first person narrative e. Now, while we don’t know precisely what makes him live and act as he does, it is clear that there is no one cause given in the book. The character blames the actual murder on the sun and heat. This isn’t something we can take seriously if we wish to think of him as moral human being ,that is, a person who is capable of moral reasoning. The protagonist isn’t drive by as you say by a single cause that makes him become a murderer. But over-determination doesn’t mean that he had no choice but to act as he did. I don’t have a lot of time now, but Camus, like Dostoyevsky whose many characters I could have included here, believed that man is a moral being which is to say that he can choose not to be act in ways which can be described as evil. It is my view that Camus began to come to terms with his true beliefs through the process of writing The Stranger. It was after he published this book that his easy and naïve involvement with the communist party in France came to an end. Critics often attribute his break with the Algerian war. I tend to think that he stand on that conflict not (or not mainly) because his family lived there, but for serious intellectual reasons. I don’t know how much of Camus you have read and I don’t wish to underestimate our knowledge. But if you interested in the question of metaphysical rebellion you should look, or look again, at his essay on rebellion: “The Rebel” (L’homme Revolte.” He also wrote a stage play based on Dostoyevsky’s The Possessed. Camus as far as I can tell didn’t attribute in any of his writings rebellion to social or political oppression. Milton’s Satan, btw. chooses to rebel because god installs “his son” (Jesus) as his coequal and ruler over the angels. Lucifer resents this and it’s his ressentiment in Nietzsche’s sense that pushes him to act against god. His rebellion is driven by pride and jealousy. It’s not over-determined. There is not subtlety here. God is a tyrant in the poem and Satan wants to emulate him. Camus sees the romantic rebel also being driven by ressentiment. Camus too was a student of Nietzsche. The Rebel is a great essay since it touches on so many vital themes of Western history and literature.

- arnon

July 1, 2011 at 10:35pm

Sorry for not responding and I appreciate the interesting responses to my posts. I'm away for the weekend and not near a computer except for a second. Will answer fully tomorrow.

- basman

July 2, 2011 at 9:41am

Just back. Arnon I just looked again at your last answer to me. I have nothing more to say here on this.

- basman

July 3, 2011 at 4:58pm

Thanks for taking the trouble Molly. i didn't read in what you posted anything that changed my views on the differences.

- basman

July 3, 2011 at 5:01pm

That's ok, basman. I should also have mentioned that it makes a difference in how one reads PL by Milton if one is religious or not. It especially makes a difference if one accepts Milton's own version of the myth or not.

- arnon

July 3, 2011 at 6:22pm

Okay, I came back to this thread and want to make a few brief further comments including on the intriguing discussion about Camus. ....You can find discrepancies in putative authorial intent and reader reaction in lots of works of art. I don’t know what Shylock has to do with Milton’s Satan... No doubt but both Shylock and Satan, who are not thematically congruent, and no thematic congruence is being suggested by me, are outsized examples of, not discrepancies between authorial intent and readers' reaction, but of a profound discrepancy within authorial intent itself such that it manifests itself at the level of plausible interpretation. Shylock's predominance and his sympathetic complexity explodes the play's apparent meanings. Satan, too, is so riveting, so clearly the epic's repository of Milton's greatest and most powerfully (and lovingly?) bestowed creative genius, that one can mount arguments about what meanings are intended by him in contradistinction the apparent meanings of Paradise Lost. As for Meursault, I don't see him as a rebel, save as rebelling against conventional meanings and conventional pieties as Camus exposes them, though I do see him as estranged as precisely embodying the novel's title. So I don't understand at all, any notion of him, as notaddled argues, acting out rebellion, or his crime as being his manifestation of his rebellion as his only option. And, to argue with notaddled a little more, I can't see how "over determined" applies to how Meursault is or how he acts, whether his commission of murder is an instance of his rebellion or not. The word seems starkly inapt. But maybe there is something I need better to understand.

- basman

July 4, 2011 at 3:37pm

...save as rebelling against conventional meanings... That's imprecise. There is no active rebellion here as such--any such notion of active rebellion is inconsistent with the very meaning of the novel; rather, what we have in The Stranger is a matter of mind increasingly understanding absurdity and illusion and thereby rejecting the latter as embodied in conventional meanings and pieties.

- basman

July 4, 2011 at 5:14pm

@Basman This is an interesting thread about Camus and thought-provoking even if there is the whiff of the literary-academic complex--and its absurd orthodoxies--in your interpretations. (That's OK though.) I don't want to go into it too much now except to say I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that Camus himself famously distinguished between rebellion and revolt.

- notaddled

July 6, 2011 at 4:42am

Tell us about Camus' distinction. "there is the whiff of the literary-academic complex--and its absurd orthodoxies--in your interpretations." Meaning what? The orthodoxy these days is to talk about "overdetermination."

- arnon

July 6, 2011 at 3:00pm

Basman “There is no active rebellion here as such--any such notion of active rebellion is inconsistent with the very meaning of the novel; rather, what we have in The Stranger is a matter of mind increasingly understanding absurdity and illusion and thereby rejecting the latter as embodied in conventional meanings and pieties.” Can, you remind me, basman, what you are arguing against?

- arnon

July 8, 2011 at 12:31pm

One thing was: I had thought-without me reviewing the thread-that it was posited that Meursault was as figure of rebellion, that his kiliing was an act of rebellion, and that his killing as an act of rebellion was over determined. That's partly what I briefly argued against. (Shylock and Paradise Lost etc., fohgeddaboudit)

- basman

July 8, 2011 at 7:50pm

@notaddled ...even if there is the whiff of the literary-academic complex--and its absurd orthodoxies--in your interpretations.. I'll just say that while I studied literature in school and have a graduate degree in it going back to 1971, I'm not a literary academic and have neither been in the "academy" nor any kind of a teacher since 1971.

- basman

July 8, 2011 at 7:58pm

Jesus, has it been that fucking long ago?

- basman

July 8, 2011 at 8:00pm

I agree that Meursault is not a "figure of rebellion." I don't think though that his move from ignorance to enlightenment is very convincing. I don't think that this is exactly the view of the "academy." In any case, I doubt that notaddled will be back.

- arnon

July 8, 2011 at 8:34pm

@Arnon I can always be counted on to engage some people in a "spirited debate" about Camus even if the contextual framework has shifted. In one respect I think even you would have to agree that Mersault is a "figure of rebellion:" he really wanted that Arab dead.

- notaddled

July 9, 2011 at 5:04am

Even if he did, nootaddled, how would that constitute rebellion? Rebellion from what? Did he kill the Arab to demonstrate his superiority of the European? If that is so, how can he seen as aa rebel when by killing the Arab he was affirming the moral values of his society as he interiorized them? From this perspective then his reaction to the death penalty was a reaction to the hypocrisy of a society that condemned him to death for merely doing what the culture preached. This is hypothetical. I am trying to understand how you see the protagonist as a rebel?

- arnon

July 9, 2011 at 1:48pm

I've never felt like Mersault's actions were a manifestation of political rebellion or borne out of a false European "superiority complex." But let us not forget that Mersault had become not only profoundly alienated from society; but also detached enough from his moral antennae--to blithely write letters for "his friend," Raymond, "the pimp," letters which set a woman, who trusted him, up for severe misfortune. So consider his shooting of the Arab in that context for a moment if you will. Speaking less speculatively and more broadly, rebellion--especially of the existentialist variety (Mailer of course called hipsterism of the 1950s variety "American Existentialism")--hardly has to be conscious, hence a return to the concept of over-determination.

- notaddled

July 9, 2011 at 6:22pm

Well, notaddled, I never bought into the Mailer notion of hipsterism as some kind of unconscious rebellion against the “system:” the “beast” as, Jack Abbott, one of his admirers tragically called it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abbott Remember him? Another “stranger,” but a real one this time. Acts that can be construed as rebellious seldom lead to anything productive and hence are meaningless rather than overdetermined. In any case, to resolve the issue of Camus’ views we would need to re-read his essays and perhaps his letters. I don’t have that much free time right now, but perhaps at some future date we could do that.

- arnon

July 9, 2011 at 7:09pm

@arnon "to resolve the issue of Camus’ views we would need to re-read his essays and perhaps his letters." It's been long established that Camus' a "complicated" figure, right? (He was a communist, he changed his mind, etc.) The crux of this unhappy debate however--is neither his "views" or rebellion--nests in your association of Camus with Jack Abbott.

- notaddled

July 11, 2011 at 3:13pm