Then a lot of discussion is had about the state of sociology of the time as well, where it seems more research needs to be done. It is interesting how research is phrased about the upper echelon of the society - which is required and is hard to achieve; morally and practically. This raises epistemological (and moral) questions of the social researcher's viewpoint, or language, adopted in her account of social reality. For instance, i) by describing the point of view of policemen, surely the researcher is vindicating their actions, overvaluing them over those of those who complain about such actions, such as drug users? ii) Should she then take up a scientifically detached stance uniquely distinct from and more objective than those of the subjects studied? A moral point is clearer in the first question, while an epistemological point is raised when considering the second. Life had bitten away my good intentions without ceasing, so started to SERIOUSLY look at my life objectively. There must be a literary soulmate out there... On 27 May 1941, Camus was informed about the changes suggested by André Malraux after he had read the manuscript and took his remarks into account. [16] For instance, Malraux thought the minimalist syntactic structure was too repetitive. Some scenes and passages (the murder, the conversation with the chaplain) should also be revised.

Otten, Terry (Spring 1975). " "Mamam" in Camus' The Stranger". College Literature. 2 (2): 105–111. JSTOR 25111069.The Outsider is great. Much of the book are things that any serious reader will say the very not so serious comment of 'duh' to, and there is the sense of 'preaching to the converted' (although there is no preaching here), but that's ok with me since a good portion of my life has been being submersed in subcultures that preach to the converted believing that their words just might be able to transcend the actual audience to an audience that needs to hear the message (for the record I just thought this now at 11:22 AM on Sunday January 20th, 2008, and I wish I had thought it sometime ten years ago to counter a lukewarm review I had received from MRR for the eighth issue of my zine. A review that had accused me of preaching to the converted.). But anyway, this book could only have been produced by an 'outsider' himself. Someone standing on the edges of popular and academic writing, but not entrenched in either camp at all. You could see The Outsider as King’s take on fake news, moving it from the political realm to something more personal. Lies being sold as truth: what form could that concept take?

It wasn’t fair for the Socs to have everything. We were as good as they were; it wasn’t our fault we were greasers. I couldn’t just take it or leave it, like Two-Bit, or ignore it and love life anyway, like Sodapop, or harden myself beyond caring, like Dally, or actually enjoy it, like Tim Shepard. I felt the tension growing inside of me and I knew something had to happen or I would explode. “ Tramel, Jimmie (March 25, 2022). " 'The Outsiders' actor Matt Dillon tours Outsiders House Museum". Tulsa World. Archived from the original on May 15, 2022 . Retrieved March 26, 2022. I've always been very interested in this subject - normal vs abnormal, good vs bad, right vs wrong, morality, ethics, law. What is right and why? My interest in this is because I am a deviant myself (and I think that if everyone is honest then no one will not be a deviant). There is no such thing as normal. Belonging to any one group automatically makes you an outsider of any other group. We see things as normal as we want to fit in or are scared of others judging us - the normal part is then that part we want to fit into or we grew up in. In the West when you ask someone what religion they are, for instance, the answer might be something like: 'Christian, obviously'. "Obviously" because that is what is seen as normal.Desperate and terrified, Ponyboy and Johnny hurry to find Dally Winston, the one person they think might be able to help them. Dally gives them a gun and some money and sends them to an abandoned church near the neighboring town of Windrixville. They hide out in the church for a week, cutting and dyeing their hair to disguise themselves, reading Gone with the Wind aloud, and discussing poetry. A critical difference among these translations is the expression of emotion in the sentence towards the close of the novel: "I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe" in Gilbert's translation, versus Laredo's "I laid my heart open to the gentle indifference of the universe" (original French: la tendre indifférence du monde; literally, "the tender indifference of the world"). The Penguin Classics 2000 reprint of Laredo's translation has "gentle" changed to "benign". But, taking up question (ii), what of social-scientific theories and concepts themselves? Surely beyond (or "underneath") the common sense of individual agents described by the sociologist, they ought to occupy a central place in sociology, just as fields do in eletrodynamics and natural selection principles do in biology? Isn't the sociologists' job to uncover such hidden principles, and construct theories describing the "truth" of social reality? Here lies one of the most precious gems of symbolic interactionism. In answer to this question, it may seem as if there are only two possible answers: either to agree that the job of sociologists (functionalist trope of Durkheim or Parsons comes to mind) is to go hunting after master principles or laws which dictate social behavior and define social ontology (the so-called "grand theories"); or, contrariwise, that there are absolutely no such things as social "theories" to be ultimately developed, and the best we can hope for is to describe groups' and individual's stances and relations, making no attempt to "generate theory".

and putting on tight t-shirts that show off every muscle before they go to meet the other boys? and making sure to fix their hair?? no, that's just what it says. in the book. So somehow I never read this in middle school, and when I read it now, I just end up giggling at half of the overwrought emotion (which happened with Catcher in the Rye too, but there I'm going to assume Salinger was writing on multiple levels, because he was a competent adult, whereas The Outsiders was written by someone Holden's age). But it's still a pretty awesome book. And I think this quote describes the book more than just well. The ending made me sad, because there’s only one way this could have ended and it was exactly the way I expected it to be. Not all of it, but most of it anyway.

They had fun times getting in rumbles with the socs, most all of them loved to fight. It was like getting set loose in a candy store.