I found last class’ fishbowl discussion to be quite helpful, besides one improvement I might add. To have looked a layer deeper into the meaning of Meursault’s epiphany near the end of the novel would have helped us all grasp what Camus’ interpretation is trying to emphasize. After his frustrating meeting with the chaplain, Meursault comes to an important realization. He ponders what the point of life is, and more closely, death. I believe that Monsieur Anti-Christ was in full control of his emotion, including at the time of his death. At this point, Meursault realizes that everyone must die, whether it is when you are twenty, or eighty-five years old, it makes no difference except one. I believe that Monsieur Meursault finds it better to die actively loving life, than to die slowly, aged and listless. This was the only way he was able to accept death. When it comes to my personal performance during the fishbowl, I would rank myself with the letter A, or a percentage of 97/100. I give myself this grade, because of my contributions to the Inner Circle discussion. Upon comparison to the rubric; I spoke several times during the discussion, used insightful, textual references, went with the flow with meaningful, relevant connections, and prepared extensively with notes. The most clear and important idea that I took from this Fishbowl, was the idea that Salamano and his runaway dog are metaphor to Meursault’s imprisonment. Meursault truly “did not know what he had until it was gone.” For next fishbowl discussion, I would keep everything the same on my part. Preparing with notes and speaking several times to add insightful comments/ ideas is a great way to find yourself within a successful fishbowl. That said, I think some of the members of the discussion were not fully involved, or unprepared, which leads to domination by a few prepared, insightful members. Overall, great first Fishbowl.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document