How much is Antoinette at fault for the failure of her marriage?

The author of the article I will soon be doing my panel presentation on spent the majority of 16 pages summarizing the plot of "Wide Sargasso Sea," while occasionally pausing to give us some insight into her analysis. One thing that caught my eye was a summary of something which we have also discussed to some extent in class: Antoinette giving Rochester the supposed love potion. The author of the literary criticism said simply that Christophine had given Antoinette a "love potion" and then, later on, remarked that Rochester had felt ill and poisoned. She gave no analysis whatsoever on, not only the lack of consent represented in Antoinette's giving Rochester something which would practically force him to have sex with her, but also the fact that Antoinette's having done this may have made her partially at fault for their relationship crumbling afterward. 

The author's not having discussed consent can be easily excused, as the article was published in 1978, when perhaps there was not as much discussion on the topic, or at the very least, not much discussion when it came to fictional characters. We discussed a similar topic during a panel presentation today, about how feminist criticism of "Wide Sargasso Sea" has changed over time. It is possible for this to be excused. However, the fact that the author does not once even mention Antoinette being at fault, and in fact spends a good portion of her analysis discussing who is at fault for the events that take place between Antoinette and her husband cannot be excused. The author considers Rochester, Tia, even Christophine as possible catalysts, but not once does she bring up Antoinette. 

To me, it seems impossible that one could not consider ascribing some semblance of responsibility, of fault, to Antoinette. I suppose it may be because, as the reader, I have the opportunity to see into the thoughts of both Antoinette and Rochester and see how they misunderstand each other, but it seems like both of them make unnecessarily drastic decisions: Antoinette with her potion, and Rochester with (1) treating her badly once he gets Cosway's letter, (2) sleeping with Amelie, and (3) locking her away in his attic and never visiting. Ok, ok, yes, I definitely agree that Rochester should get more blame; I mean, he could have at least asked Antoinette if what Cosway said was true, instead of just believing everything Cosway said! But still, Antoinette took a big step with the obeah stuff, and it seems to me that the potion was the breaking point in their relationship. But who knows, maybe I am reading too much into it. . . 

Am I laying too much blame on Rochester and not enough on Antoinette? Or too much on Antoinette and not enough on Rochester? Is there someone else important I am ignoring? Let me know what you think!!

An Arab and a Frenchman go into a bar. . .

Out of all of the books we have read this semester, I have had the hardest time trying to think of a blog topic for The Stranger. I thought about maybe writing about Meursault's lack of emotion in the first half or his relationship with Marie. As I was going through ideas, I heard my dad listening to a YouTube video in the background. I couldn't tell exactly what it was about, but it was something concerning ISIS, and they mentioned the words Arab and Muslim. Immediately, the perfect idea came to mind.

During a panel presentation or discussion this week, we debated whether or not the novel was racist. Within that, we went over Meursault as a character and how the justice system ignored his murdering the Arab and focused more on his "murdering" his mother. When I think about racism in The Stranger, one thing comes to mind. Would the trial have been different if Meursault had shot a French man, rather than an Arab one? If so, is that not caused by racism?

This week, a man drove his vehicle into pedestrians in Manhattan, killing at least 8 people and injuring at least 13. Something Trevor Noah said I think perfectly explains the reason why I am quoting this now. Noah said, "When it was a Nazi, Trump needed more facts. When it was a Muslim, that was the only fact he needed." During the trial, the court focuses almost entirely on Meursault's attitude concerning his mother's death and very little on the actual murder in question. So imagine Meursault had killed someone else. What would have been different?

When it was an Arab, the court focused on a separate topic. If it was a Frenchman, that would be the only fact they'd need.