In The Stranger, we see how emotions change when you lose a loved one. The book introduces Salamano and his dog, and readers quickly believe that Salamano is aggressive, violent, and shows immense hatred towards his dog. In the book, Salamano calls his dog a “Filthy, stinking bastard(27)” and constantly yanks the dog, beats the dog, and swears at the dog. From Salamano and the dog’s daily relationship, you would think that Salamano has no emotion and care towards his dog. However, when Salamano’s dog was lost, he showed different emotions. When his dog was missing, Salamano was anxious to find his dog, talking to Meursault about ways to find him(45). Salamano even said that when he hears other dogs bark, he thinks it is his own dog(36). Salamano’s actions show care and compassion towards his dog, which is a stark contrast from how he acted towards his dog during everyday life. This was confusing to me. It made me wonder if our true emotions and feelings are shown in our everyday life, or if they are shown when we lose the people/animals that we love the most? I don’t know the answer to my question, but it was very interesting to think about.
In Benjamin’s theory, she talks about mutually recognizing the other people in your relationships. I think that mutual recognition can also extend to people with different ideas.
Our society is full of people who have dissenting ideas. In politics, our country is becoming extremely polarized and people cannot agree with each other politically. There is rarely compromise between parties or people. I think that political parties and political ideology can be binaries, even though political viewpoints are ideas and not an inherent part of you. I think Benjamin would argue that mutual recognition and binaries can be applied to ideas and politics.
This summer, I read the book “Homegoing” by Yaa Gyasi. The book followed the descendants of two half sisters, one who is sold into slavery, and the other who marries an Englishman. The essay intertwined history with storytelling and made you feel entrapped in the story. After the story ended, I took a day to sit on it and reflect on the book. The story was extremely moving and impactful, and I knew that I needed to reread it. I needed to relearn the history, re immerse myself in the character’s stories, and find more meaning from the book.
When Nabakov talked about how good readers are rereaders, I instantly thought about me wanting to reread Homegoing. Even though I wanted to reread Homegoing, there are many other books I haven’t considered rereading. There are also so many reasons why someone would want to reread-they wanted more emotional depth, they didn’t understand it the first time, or they just loved the book in general. I think that a good reader can be a rereader, but they don’t have to be. I think that a good writer makes books that readers reread because they love the book or they want to get even more depth and meaning out of it. I wanted to reread Homegoing because Gyasi was such an amazing writer and I needed to lose myself in the book again.
In Escape from Spiderhead, it says, “My guess is, ProtComm’s going to be like: “Wow, Utica’s really leading the pack in terms of providing mind-blowing new data on ED289/290”. This made me think that while the Spiderhead is a prison, it is also a science laboratory. It shows that these prisons are popular and these prisons are some of the leading forces in science and innovation. These prisons also probably compete with each other. It also shows that these immoral places are widely accepted by this society.