Did anyone else get the reference on p 257 to The Stranger? Cayce is trying out reasons for hitting the send button and says - maybe it was the sun. This is the reason Meursalt gives for why he shot the Arab. Do you think this is deliberate?

I didn't notice that. I'm sure he did it on purpose, for the folks like you who would notice. As much as I love reading Gibson books, I know I'd love them more if I *got* all the goodies he slips in.

Looks like a Camus allusion to me. It's all about the subjectivity. There's also something to be said about how Gibson's prose is like that of The Stranger - the tense is something approaching French's 'passe perfect' (I think that's it). Like the sentance "Touchpadding down to send." puts the reader right up into the moment the same way Camus does.

Fredric Jameson mentions the same thing in "Postmodernism: The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism."

(I love Camus!)

oh so po mo

yes it was a ref to "l'etranger," the character's name mersault mersault was itelf a sorta reference to camus' earlier work "la mort heureuse" -- a happy death -- where its patrice mersault who kills a cripple and not an arab. the book was kind of an early version of the stranger (aka the outsider) and is a full novel and isnt as good as that novella but still kicks ass b/c camus was friggin brilliant:

'and in the great distress that washed over him, mersault realised that his rebellion was the only authentic thing in him, and that everything elsewhere was misery and submission.'
p. 60 of a happy death.

sounds like he'd scratch out the labels on his banana republica pants if he had em...

I didn't spot the sun reference, but I find it interesting that you get drawn to certain authors, perhaps subconsciously, who are exploring a similar 'feel'... I love Camus, and I love Gibson, yet I wouldn't consciously have associated the two. Is there some kind of pattern recognition with authors and ideas? I probably have a subliminal canon of literature, from which I draw my own ideas and feel my way around life, but I wouldn't always be able to say why, or why they fit together. Sorry if that sounds pretentious; it's not meant to be. This link with Camus just got me thinking. Thanks for pointing it out.

Odd thing, I just went to my bookshelf to compare the two passages which are being disgussed in the two books, and found that they are sitting right next to one another.

It's been awhile since I read the Stranger, but how do we know his name is Meursalt? I don't remember reading his name.

uh we know his name because characters in the book refer to him as meursault or monsieur meursault. his mother is called madame meursault in the very beginning.

how else are we supposed to know what his name is? baconian acrostics?

quote:

---

Originally posted by :
uh we know his name because characters in the book refer to him as meursault or monsieur meursault. his mother is called madame meursault in the very beginning.

how else are we supposed to know what his name is? baconian acrostics?

---

Well thats why I was asking. I didn't ever remember reading it (like I said it's been awhile) and I always just refered to him as the Un-named character. It was an honest question. You didn't have to insult me for inquiring.

Would you like a hug?
I answered your question, didn't I?
Maybe you should actually read the book next time.
Please don't cry or whine - it's unmanly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by :
Would you like a hug?
I answered your question, didn't I?
Maybe you should actually _read_ the book next time.
Please don't cry or whine - it's unmanly.

---

Okie doke Big Man. I am sorry that my urge to cure my own ignorance on this detail offended your far superior intellect. From now on I will remember not to inquire about things that I have questions about because I know that it bothers you so. In fact I will just go shoot myself in the head because my stupidity surely lessons the glow of the sun. I wonder what instills this sort of behaviour on forums? The minute a question is asked the person gets in a kick in the nuts and cock-slap in the face. I was always under the impression that the thirst for knowledge denoted a sign of intelligence. That asking questions about things one didn't understand was an indication of the need to expand ones own horizons. I could be wrong though...

[This message was edited by ReaverXvX on August 17, 2003 at 04:00 PM.]

Here's your first lesson: books are for reading, not for flash on your shelf space.

Lesson numero dos: if you ask an obvious question like "how do we know his name is Meursalt (sic)?" don't be surprised if the answer is a little impatient and written in a tone of disbelief.

I find it funny that you claim, on your livejournal profile, that you're interested in Camus. In fact it is the third thing that you list. What kind of Camus enthusiast can't name the main character of what is arguably his most famous novel, L'ETRANGER?

"I was always under the impression that the thirst for knowledge denoted a sign of intelligence. That asking questions about things one didn't understand was an indication of the need to expand ones own horizons. I could be wrong though..."

Yes, you are wrong. That rule doesn't apply to you at all. Since you find it so dificult to grasp the reason why one knows what the protagonist's name is and how it is indicated in the novel, perhaps you should start your quest for understanding by actually reading the book next time. Like, read every word of it. Then read it again. Then you will be worthy of impressing chicks and peers with your learned appreciation of Kaymis.

http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=reaverxvx&mode=full

quote:

---

Originally posted by :
Here's your first lesson: books are for reading, not for flash on your shelf space.

Lesson numero dos: if you ask an obvious question like "how do we know his name is Meursalt (sic)?" don't be surprised if the answer is a little impatient and written in a tone of disbelief.

I find it funny that you claim, on your livejournal profile, that you're interested in Camus. In fact it is the third thing that you list. What kind of Camus enthusiast can't name the main character of what is arguably his most famous novel, L'ETRANGER?

"I was always under the impression that the thirst for knowledge denoted a sign of intelligence. That asking questions about things one didn't understand was an indication of the need to expand ones own horizons. I could be wrong though..."

Yes, you are wrong. That rule doesn't apply to you at all. Since you find it so dificult to grasp the reason why one knows what the protagonist's name is and how it is indicated in the novel, perhaps you should start your quest for understanding by actually reading the book next time. Like, read every word of it. Then read it again. Then you will be worthy of impressing chicks and peers with your learned appreciation of Kaymis.

http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=reaverxvx&mode=full

---

1)Interests in Live Journal are listed alphabetically.
2)I read the book 3 years ago. I needed someone to refresh my memory.
3)I never found it shocking that people knew the protagonists name, I was just curious how they knew since I didn't remember myself, and I didn't feel like reading it all over again just to find out.
4)The protagonists name in vastly inconsequential to the book in regards to say the plot and what happens to the protagonist. You can still take away a significant amount of meaning (which hasn't even been discussed) with out knowing the protagonists name, and that is the important thing.
5) I never claimed to be an enthusiast, I have an interest that may be somewere between passing and ethusiast.
6) I never, ever, gave off the impression that I was attempting to impress anyone much less girls with my literary knowledge. All I ever did was express a genuine interest in the work, and the last time that I checked that still something people wished there was more of. Please refrain from making blanket assumptions about myself with out knowing anything about me. How about we just drop the subject and cease communicating with each other forever. Yes, lets do that. Quite clearly we are not meant to get along. You being an asshole, me being a well, not asshole.

Dear Ryan Wetterich,

Quit your whining. No amount of justifying can cover up the fact that you don't know how to read. You obviously think your question about the main character's name constitutes some kind of grand inquiry that demonstrates intellectual curiousity and adds to humanity's pool of knowledge. It is not. Additionally, do not attempt to cloak your dodgings in fanciful garb. It ain't working.

I can see from your tediously literal response that you have many issues to work on. Godspeed.

"The protagonists name in vastly inconsequential to the book in regards to say the plot and what happens to the protagonist."

This is a great "moment of zen."

Whichever I choose it amounts to the same

Absolutely nothing

So let's talk about how themes in PR and The Stranger might relate to eachother, instead of bickering.

I don't see much to connect the two, beside that one instance of "name dropping."

Maybe Gibson is just trying to show us how hip and well-read he is...

I'll be he's got a lot of flash on his shelf-space. *bling*

Or, maybe, Gibson has an agenda to spread his secular, relativist and existential worldview to his readers.

What does existential mean, anyhow?

BONUS:

10 extra points go to the first poster to give a definition for post-modernism that doesn't make me roll my eyes!

[This message was edited by ETsofter on August 28, 2003 at 12:35 PM.]

OOoohooo Neat, A real live little war, how precious.

<i>Are you hitting on me?</i>

At the risk of being slammed for not knowing all of my facts back the front - didn't Camus come up somewhere else in Pattern Recognition?

Also on the subject, I agree that there is a certain similarity between Gibson and Camus' writing. Reading their books gives me a similar feeling - a kind of detached fanscination with the world. They also both seem to develop characters with a particular disconnection to the world around them (an 'observer status').

you mean writers are actually allowed to include references to other works in their books now?!?!? will wonders never cease?

hello, i'm new here.

i've read about 5 william gibson books including pattern recognition.. i thought it was really good..

i've read 'the outsider' and 'the myth of..' (cant remember the name) by Camus..

i hadnt picked up on any similarites but i guess the characters are similar in the way they are detatched and dry and such..

Sparkle..you mentioned how detatched camus' characters are.. just 'observing'. well i think thats part of the whole 'existentialism' thang..

anyways.. has anyone read any of Murukami's novels? he is probably my favourite.. very detatched and no bullshit characters.. amazing storylines and such.. chek out 'the wind up bird chronicle'..

someone asked what existentialism is? (spelling?)

i dont know much.. but i think its a school of philisophical theory which argued that one can learn from the world by ones experiences.. from observing single entities and such..
Husserl and others started it i believe..
But Heidegger is the daddy.. i did some work on him for the anthropology degree i'm currently doing.. interesting ideas on the relationship between the 'the mind' and real life experience..
he infact attempted to collapse the Cartesian dualist.. mind/body dichotomy.. by arguing that all our thoughts and potential actions are tied to our 'lived in' experience.. so that what we think in 'our minds' can never be divorced from the 'material world'..
all our descriptions and understandings of the world are completely determined by our material existence.. for example:
theres a big mountain right? and all our understandings and characteristics of that mountain are associated with our experiences with it or of it.. ie: its big.. it takes a long time to walk over.. etc..
whereas to say.. an ant.. there is no mountain.. a mountain to them is a small bumb on the side of that said mountain.. or say.. to an alien.. earth itself is a mountain..

basically its all about perception i think..
so the idea that 'mountains' exist in teh world.. is wrong.. there are no 'mountains' existing outside our own define experience..
all our assumptions taht such things exist separately and autonomously without us.. and that we can conveive of them seperately..rationally and objectively in our heads outside of the material world is in fact a farce.. all our ideas are determined by our experience and perceptions..

i have probably got that all wrong but those are some ideas.. Heidegger is pretty hard to read..
'the phenomenology of perception' is another choice read..(cant remember who wrote that) its seriously long though..

anyway.. i think i've bored or confused most of you now..