I think that "ability" does not accurately express what Camus is trying to say. I think that this would work better: Camus expresses suffering through the capability of losing something that is valued.
The word "something" is a vague term as well. I agree with Shannon in that ability is not the right word; however I think Camus is trying to show how suffering can simply be the loss of physical pleasures, which was something that Meursault valued. Camus uses Meursaults experience in prision to express that the deprivation of physical pleasures causes suffering.
I agree with the above post. I think "ability" is the wrong word. I also think that "suffering" and "valued" is too vague of terms.
I'm not sure how I'd rewrite this thesis. I don't know what technique the group was trying to use and what Camus is trying to say about the "human experience."
I am confused about what "ability to lose" is. Is there such a thing? Suffering needs to clarified. What kind of suffering? How does it tie into the human experience?
Rewritten: Camus uses Mersault's loss of Maman to portray how one deals with death.
This doesn't really answer why Albert Camus does this or what effect it has on the novel. How does Camus express "suffering"? What is suffering in this context? The context of this thesis statement needs to be reworded so that it can more directly relate to Meursault's story, and techniques portrayed more effectively.
I really don't understand this thesis statement. Here are questions that could be used to clarify it... 1. What is valued? 2. How is suffering conveyed in the novel? 3. How does one "lose what is valued"? 4. Literary techniques?
I dont think its really possible to have the ability to lose something. Thats kind of a no-brainer, and is really obvious. Anyone can lose something that they value.
That part MUST be clarified in order for this thesis to work at all.
I agree with everyone that ability seems unnecessary. It has a good start, but it needs the actual point. Well of course every suffers when they lose something valuable, but what can one learn from it?
Camus expresses suffering through the lost of what is valued in order to illustrate a weakness in humans.
This is a very vague statement. What is it trying to say? What are its implications and applications? "SO WHAT"? This needs to be more specific all around. Is it physical suffering, emotional suffering, self-induced suffering? And valued is much too broad a term.
I believe suffering has to be defined in this case to make the thesis have more of a value. As said above ability is really redundant because there is always a time one could lose somthing. Valued also has to be defined because it is vague. If it is defined it would have more value to the thesis. I believe there needs to be more background information to this thesis.
Camus expresses the suffering of oneself through the loss of valued items to show that one can change.
"Ability" is a poor word choice, focus on what could be lost and give an impact. Also, "suffering" is not portrayed in the manner designed (not enough focus)
Rewrite:
Camus expresses suffering through the capability of losing what is valued. The lack of something one desires does not cause pain without the conscious recognition and awareness of the loss.
"ability to lose what is valued" is a pretty vague term. The thesis in general is shallow, as well. I would say something more like: "Camus expresses suffering through the loss of material items to reveal how the loss can ultimately provide happiness."
Not a ton of meat to this thesis. The biggest problem I have is with "expresses suffering" is too general. Is the experience of suffering specific to a certain character and in what ways do they suffer? (ex. Meresault seems to suffer physically when under emotional duress). As stated by others, value is not a good word to use. Value is subjective and everything can be seen to have value in some way or another, are we only talking about personal value?
It is really vague, doesn't have support from the text, and weird diction. Suffering is not the ability to lose things, it is the act of loing things.
Camus uses Meursault's change in character and the contrast between Maman's funeral and Meursault's thoughts in jail to express that the worst thing a human can experience is a loss of something they value.
Feels almost like half of a thesis. How is losing what is valued an "ability"? I don't think people choose to lose things. Definitely needs different wording and less ambiguous language.
Camus utilizes the destruction of relationships as well as incarceration to show that happiness is easily lost if it is taken for granted.
As it stands, this thesis is worded weird and the idea it tries to convey seems rather simple. I would go into who is suffering and what they lose that is of value to them.
This would be my rewrite:
Camus shows how suffering is created by placing value on things (I know that's vague and should be clarified) that can be lost through Meursault's charactrerization after he is placed in jail.
I think the main problem is that this does not reveal any new insight into the novel. Also, it does not involve any literary elements, which are crucial. A possible re-write: Camus uses Meursault's internal conflict over things lost (freedom, mother, enjoyment, etc.) to show that simply accepting losses may still come with suffering.
This is a good start but needs further clarification. The what and how need to be extablished still. I also think that the word something is too vague to be in a thesis statement and needs further clarification.
Nice start.
ReplyDeleteI think that the phrase "lose what is valued" is a little vague. Without context I don't think I can fix it properly.
How does Camus "ability to lose what is valued"?
I think that "ability" does not accurately express what Camus is trying to say. I think that this would work better:
ReplyDeleteCamus expresses suffering through the capability of losing something that is valued.
The word "something" is a vague term as well. I agree with Shannon in that ability is not the right word; however I think Camus is trying to show how suffering can simply be the loss of physical pleasures, which was something that Meursault valued.
ReplyDeleteCamus uses Meursaults experience in prision to express that the deprivation of physical pleasures causes suffering.
I agree with the above post. I think "ability" is the wrong word. I also think that "suffering" and "valued" is too vague of terms.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how I'd rewrite this thesis.
I don't know what technique the group was trying to use and what Camus is trying to say about the "human experience."
I am confused about what "ability to lose" is. Is there such a thing? Suffering needs to clarified. What kind of suffering? How does it tie into the human experience?
ReplyDeleteRewritten: Camus uses Mersault's loss of Maman to portray how one deals with death.
This doesn't really answer why Albert Camus does this or what effect it has on the novel. How does Camus express "suffering"? What is suffering in this context?
ReplyDeleteThe context of this thesis statement needs to be reworded so that it can more directly relate to Meursault's story, and techniques portrayed more effectively.
I really don't understand this thesis statement. Here are questions that could be used to clarify it...
ReplyDelete1. What is valued?
2. How is suffering conveyed in the novel?
3. How does one "lose what is valued"?
4. Literary techniques?
I dont think its really possible to have the ability to lose something. Thats kind of a no-brainer, and is really obvious. Anyone can lose something that they value.
ReplyDeleteThat part MUST be clarified in order for this thesis to work at all.
I agree with everyone that ability seems unnecessary. It has a good start, but it needs the actual point. Well of course every suffers when they lose something valuable, but what can one learn from it?
ReplyDeleteCamus expresses suffering through the lost of what is valued in order to illustrate a weakness in humans.
This is a very vague statement. What is it trying to say? What are its implications and applications? "SO WHAT"? This needs to be more specific all around. Is it physical suffering, emotional suffering, self-induced suffering? And valued is much too broad a term.
ReplyDeleteI believe suffering has to be defined in this case to make the thesis have more of a value. As said above ability is really redundant because there is always a time one could lose somthing. Valued also has to be defined because it is vague. If it is defined it would have more value to the thesis. I believe there needs to be more background information to this thesis.
ReplyDeleteCamus expresses the suffering of oneself through the loss of valued items to show that one can change.
"Ability" is a poor word choice, focus on what could be lost and give an impact. Also, "suffering" is not portrayed in the manner designed (not enough focus)
ReplyDeleteRewrite:
Camus expresses suffering through the capability of losing what is valued. The lack of something one desires does not cause pain without the conscious recognition and awareness of the loss.
"ability to lose what is valued" is a pretty vague term. The thesis in general is shallow, as well. I would say something more like: "Camus expresses suffering through the loss of material items to reveal how the loss can ultimately provide happiness."
ReplyDeleteNot a ton of meat to this thesis. The biggest problem I have is with "expresses suffering" is too general. Is the experience of suffering specific to a certain character and in what ways do they suffer? (ex. Meresault seems to suffer physically when under emotional duress). As stated by others, value is not a good word to use. Value is subjective and everything can be seen to have value in some way or another, are we only talking about personal value?
ReplyDeleteVery vague. I think the word "ability" is the wrong word.
ReplyDeleteCamus uses the reality of losing anything of value to express his views about suffering.
Overall too vague, define your terms. What is "suffering"? What is it "the ability to lose"? What is the thing being valued?
ReplyDeleteCamus uses Mersault's loss of friends and freedom to express that one does not know emotional pain until you lose what you value most.
It is really vague, doesn't have support from the text, and weird diction. Suffering is not the ability to lose things, it is the act of loing things.
ReplyDeleteCamus uses Meursault's change in character and the contrast between Maman's funeral and Meursault's thoughts in jail to express that the worst thing a human can experience is a loss of something they value.
Feels almost like half of a thesis. How is losing what is valued an "ability"? I don't think people choose to lose things. Definitely needs different wording and less ambiguous language.
ReplyDeleteCamus utilizes the destruction of relationships as well as incarceration to show that happiness is easily lost if it is taken for granted.
These two ideas (in the form in which they are stated) are hard to link together. "Ability" is a bad word to use, because anything can be lost.
ReplyDeleteThis would be better:
Camus expresses emotional suffering through the reflection of loss of something that one has placed value on.
As it stands, this thesis is worded weird and the idea it tries to convey seems rather simple. I would go into who is suffering and what they lose that is of value to them.
ReplyDeleteThis would be my rewrite:
Camus shows how suffering is created by placing value on things (I know that's vague and should be clarified) that can be lost through Meursault's charactrerization after he is placed in jail.
How does Camus do this?
ReplyDeleteWhat literary techniques does he use?
Camus expresse the suffering one recieves from the loss of what is valued through the character of Meursault.
Suffering and ability are vague terms.
ReplyDeleteCamus expresses anguish through loss with the character Meursault.
I think the main problem is that this does not reveal any new insight into the novel. Also, it does not involve any literary elements, which are crucial. A possible re-write:
ReplyDeleteCamus uses Meursault's internal conflict over things lost (freedom, mother, enjoyment, etc.) to show that simply accepting losses may still come with suffering.
This is a good start but needs further clarification. The what and how need to be extablished still. I also think that the word something is too vague to be in a thesis statement and needs further clarification.
ReplyDelete