Comparison of “Ragtime”, “The Stranger” and “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” Essay Example

her dead, but that just added to the books mysterious qualities. I believe I read the book quickly because it was so short. I noticed myself blowing through the pages just to see what Meursault was going to do next. The guy lived a somewhat relaxed life, it seemed very simple. You are not told much about him, You don't learn what makes him tick.

Meursault just seemed to go to work, then go home and drink wine and eat, and maybe hangout by himself or with random people who happened to be around him. But it wasn’t that part of the book that got me, it was the way he explained things to himself, how he viewed other people’s lives as so separate from himself, and how he saw events as not impacting him. I can’t say I’ve seen or read from this kind of alienated perspective before. Camus did a really good job of making Meursault hard to read, he was very hard to understand. For instance, with the woman he started dating, Marie. He didn’t love her, but he wanted her like owning a thing.

There was that one part were it seemed to all come out, “that evening Marie came by to see me and asked me if I wanted to marry her, I sad it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to. Then she wanted to know if I loved her.I answered the same way I had the last time, that I didn’t mean anything but that I probably didn’t love her. ” (Camus 41). Meursault doesn’t care about anyone, he doesn’t feel love, but

he’s not harsh about any of it. He is indifferent about everything.

He said he’d marry her if she wanted to get married, as if he’d just go along with it because it was no big deal to him. That's a big change in a person's life, why would he not care about something so important? Something about his past must have interfered with his mood about love; maybe it had to do with his mother. That relationship is not explained, which may be a big fault in the story. Why are we left to guess? Was there just nothing, no feelings between him and his mother? His mother dies at the beginning of the book, then after that he had all these changes come up. I’m not sure he had any or many girlfriends or lovers in the past. Meursault met Marie while he was swimming, she was a former typist for his office, and it is said that he had a thing for her.

I skipped that part, or forgot, because at that point I asked myself if he was in love with her, or just attracted to her figure? It seems he just wanted someone, or some 'thing' to love. I have to point this back to his mother’s death. Even though there is not much explained about his mother, Camus might be using his mother as an archetype, and I assume Mersault realized he had nothing left in his life to love when his mother died, so he tried to replace that lost mother love with Marie. But it seems like he just did not 'feel' love.

Things go complicated towards the end. The

story was easy to follow, but Meursault, as a person, was somewhat altered while he was in jail. Before he got himself into jail, he never really questioned his actions. He’s not analytical at all. I found that to be a bit abnormal, Meursault wasn’t a hard man but he did things with no reason sometimes.

I liked the confusion he left behind. It was as if he thought he had nothing to lose in the first place. This went back to his neighbor, Raymond Sintes, who got him mixed up with the Arabs that Raymond was in trouble with. Meursault seemed to have a hatred for Arabs, which sparked troubles in the story. It was nice to see him have passion for something that was a part of his life, even if it was hatred, other than to see him floating through a life of nothingness.

Something, once again, that has stirred in his past that shows up again in his mysterious life. When Raymond needed his help writing a letter, he said no until he realized it was for Raymond’s Arab whore. Then there were the Arabs that tried to kill Raymond on the beach. When Meursault went back with a pistol, he seemed to not second-chance shooting the Arab man. He never contemplated killing a man before, or even when he had the gun on him.

It just happened, Meursault just seems to 'go with the flow' without any guilt or conscience, even though his actions have a big impact on other people. Ironically it was his vagueness, his obscure past and gloomy outlook on everything that made me take an interest in Meursault. His

life only began to take a turn when his mother died in the beginning of the book. I liked his reaction to everything which was no reaction at all. But it was also the writing that kept me tuned in, the way everything was explained from Meursault’s point of view. He studied everything, as if he loved it.

Meursault is quite the character to think about. A man I wouldn’t want to be, but perhaps a part of me is just like him. Option Two: Comparing two CharactersOf all three books, Ragtime, The Stranger, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, I found it hard to find a point of comparison. All three are from different time periods. At first I thought I couldn’t find a match.

I read Rosencrantz and skimmed my mind over Ragtime. There was a good match; it was Rosencrantz and Coalhouse Walker Jr. that fit together like puzzle pieces. Funny thing is I could have also used Guildenstern, but Rosencrantz fit better. Rosencrantz and Coalhouse, have similarities in their fate, but they a wide range of differences in how they behave as human beings. People can compare and contrast a bunch of characters with one another, but in this situation I saw Rosencrantz going along well with Coalhouse.

The two men can be looked at as being the same; I came across that fact in my head after a good amount of pondering. Both men had to deal with how their life was dealt to them, like some ominous presence dealing them a deck of cards. Fait is the work I keep thinking of. Rosencrantz had to except his fait of being hung at

the end of the play, along with other situations and circumstances such as keep his friend Hamlet on surveillance that could be labeled as fait. With Coalhouse, he had his pride to hold onto, but his pride got him in a heap of trouble and even got him killed. But his death was fait; he did so much to get back at the men who wronged him and his car that it seemed likely he was to be killed.

During the time era of Ragtime, It was almost unsurprising that white men would kill a black men for doing so much wrong, even with a negotiation at hand. Looking back at the ending of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, before both of them are seen to be hung, Rose speaks of how everything ended up the way it did, “Ros:’That’s it, then, is it?... Not that it makes a difference… We’ve done nothing wrong! We didn’t harm anyone. Did we? ’ Guil: ‘I can’t remember.’ Ros: ‘All right, then. I don’t care. I’ve had enough. To tell you the truth, I’m relieved. ’” (Stoppard 125).

First he questioned the end of his life, but then confessed that he was happy it was going to be all over. Rose might have been very confused as to what he went through with Guil, that or he got too deep into someone else’s trouble that he was just glad to get out. Coalhouse had the same type of mentality as Rose, to keep living and doing what it is you must do to survive, and if so an end is near it site, let it be. But Coalhouse Walker Jr.’s

death was more graphic. All he did was walk out to give in to the police and their negotiations, “In the bright floodlit street the black man was said by the police to have made a dash for freedom.

More probably he knew that all he must do in order to end his life was to turn his head abruptly or lower his hands or smile. Inside the Library, Father heard the coordinated volley of a firing squad. He screamed. He ran to the window.

The body jerked about the street in a sequence of attitudes as if it were trying to mop up its own blood. (Doctorow 255). In the back of his mind, just like Rosencrantz, Coalhouse knew his fait at that moment and realized it was meant to be. There was no way for them to avoid their paths, or their endings. There was nothing they could do, for their lives were written, and that can’t be changed.

Coalhouse and Rosencrantz aren’t always two peas in a pod. Both men seem to go off in two different lifestyles. Coalhouse was a very honest man, with a lot of pride and intelligence. Rosencrantz on the other hand, has intelligence that he makes from fun.

So it’s not actually there, it was simply a fluke. Coalhouse Walker Jr. was, too me, a god among men. Just in the fact that he refused to give up his car. The more he dove deeper into illegal acts of rebellion, the more his life came in danger but I’m pretty sure that meant nothing to him.

Rosencrantz, on the other hand, seemed like a common and simple man with a weak inner

being that I found to be subtle. He seemed like a man who would fight for one respect, but would flee at anything else. His life was a “just living” life, to just be. The two men are from different time eras, that’s a factor in their differences. They live in dissimilar ages.

Things were done differently between social order and love between men. Rosencrantz’s life seems more simple, but Coalhouse seemed to live under racial discrimination. Race is just one thing tha makes them different; the one thing the two share together is fait. They didn’t lead similar lives, but they were never torn by what was to come. It was fair that make them one step closer to each other, and it was fait lead them to the end of their paths.

Option Four: Time in StorylinesEach of the three books followed their own pathway in time. Ragtime, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and The Stranger all have stories that follow people. But each path are told in differently with the situations the characters go through. The Stranger had his life of uncaring love following his detailed observations. With Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, they were being shown as a play, which showed them on the sidelines of the play Hamlet.

And Ragtime stayed with following an American family, immigrants, and the richer celebrities of the 19th century. All three authors used detailed strings of tale telling, and each string is made with different colors and size or thread. In The Stranger, Meursault doesn’t really tell his story as much as describe what he sees and some random thoughts in the mix. His narrations go by fast but

keep the reader balanced within a thin amount of time.

Looking back at the pages, I found that the element of time is either gone or very loose in Meursault’s grasp. It wasn’t straight forward at all, Camus had each moment described to the reader.A very interesting approach, instead of having “this happened, then this happened, and the it ended like this” it was a more elaborate spew of one person showing up, then a full description of what they looked like with a detailed background. It quickly pulled you in, and new characters popped in so fast but were stuck out and then instilled within your brain.

All I have to say giving an example is, oh man, this entire book is an example. I can pluck any part out and show that time in minutes is never a factor, just moments, “I had a hard time waking up on Sunday, Marie had to call me and shake me.We didn’t eat anything, because we wanted to get to the beach early. I felt completely drained and I had a slight headache… On out way downstairs we knocked on Raymond’s door.

He told us he’d be right down. Once out in the street, because I was so tired and also because we hadn’t opened the blinds, the day, already bright with sun, hit me like a slap in the face. ” (Camus 47). That quote was a little bit long, but the entire paragraph is soaked in reasons and descriptions. In that little paragraph and a half, there was so little going on it just went by so slow with only a few sentences.

That is truly a creative

work of time thanks o Camus. I thought following a man with a messed up sense of being was good, but then I got a kick from reading the laughable lives of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. After seeing the movie and watching Tom Stoppard explain why he fell in love with the crazy duo, I saw that the play was actually a play in a play. Of course, the teacher of this class has gone over that fact multiple times. And there was the fact of the main characters seemed to be living on the sidelines of the play Hamlet. It followed their lives to a plain path of time.

It’s just them thinking to themselves out loud, then next thing you know they’re in their part of hamlet. I think it’s quite ingenious, I think. I haven’t seen that before, a play writer who uses a play to show another play. The two friends seem to only discuss how to go about solving their dilemma with Hamlet and his uncle and mother. It seems to be all that they do, it seems pretty boring when you’re told that, but when you read it from Stoppard’s view, it gets all witty and is the only thing time is spent around, “Guil: We have been briefed. Hamlet’s transformation.

What do recollect? Ros: Well, he’s changed, hasn’t he? The exterior and inward man fails to resemble---- Guil: Draw him on to pleasures----glean what afflicts him. Ros: Something more then his father’s death----- Guil: He’s always talking about us----there aren’t two people living whom he dotes on more then us. ” (Stoppard 40). Time is in heavy consideration with Rose and

Guil.

Stoppard had to show their lives in their time, and keep it going with the same time as the play Hamlet. The two streams has to be looked at and made carefully so that when they collide, there are no mix ups or things left behind. The deeper I get, the more I see that time was very much an issue with the duo of Shakespearean writings. Don’t get me started on time for the book Ragtime. It jumped around so much my head almost spun while reading it. E. l. Doctorow had fun with the placement of characters and how their place in time crisscrossed. You could sense it when those parts come along. He used strong foreshadowing; there was Mother’s Younger Brother and Evelyn Nesbit and how he was obsessed and she looking for love, then there was Eskimos and Father and how they had a way of life so free that it changed Father’s perspective on his life. Time Jumped a bit here and there, but it also stood in place for a long time. Sometimes it would follow Harry Houdini, then immigrants, then the family and the adventures or Father, then it would hit Evelyn Nesbit and her love for the little immigrant girl then hang in that cloud for a few chapters.

Everything seemed to hang in the balance yet almost fell apart with all the mass panic going around. All novels, either well written or half decent use time. Some have time, and other use it to the fullest advantage. That talent is quite clear within the three books our class read so far. There was The Stranger lost in

a world of perception.

Then there was Two lovable friends and funny men who keep living in a play within a bigger play. And finally there was a mass of life brewed together in a pot of American home cooking. All three used time but never threw it in your face, a quality I found most enjoyable.

Bibliography

1. Doctorow, E. L., Ragtime: A Novel, New York, Penguin Books USA Inc, 1974, 1975 Camus, Albert, The Stranger, New York, Random House, Inc, 1942 Stoppard, Tom, Rosencrantz and Guilderstern are Dead, New York, Grove Press, 1967