Love Potion

"‘I went to see Christophine,’ she said.
‘I will tell you anything you wish to know, but in a few words because words are no use, I know that now.’ ‘Why did you go to see her?’
 ‘I went to ask her to do something for me.’
 ‘And did she do it?’ 
‘Yes.’ "

This passage is a conversation between Rochester and Antoinette when Rochester asks where she was. What Antoinette didn't tell Rochester was that she went to Christophine's to get a "love potion" to make him love her.  Love potions are a common trope in books and movies to make a character fall in love with another (against their will). The definition is: "a magical potion believed to arouse love or sexual passion toward a specified person, especially the person offering" The problem however is this potion makes the person do things against their own free will. So the real question here is how ethical is using a potion for love? 

I believe it is wrong and a form of drugging to use a love potion. In the book Antoinette uses the love because she feels that she isn't loved by Rochester. This is how the scene went down:

"She poured wine into two glasses and handed me one but I swear it was before I drank that I longed to bury my face in her hair as I used to do...She need not have done what she did to me. I will always swear that, she need not have done it... I remember putting out the candles on the table near the bed and that is all I remember. All I will remember of the night..."

In this scene Antoinette hands Rochester a drink and soon after he drinks he blacks out and doesn't remember the rest of the night. What happend after he doesn't know but he awakes next Antoinette under the covers of her bed. If what happend happend then technically Antoinette sexually assaulted Rochester. Which is when a person conducts sexual advances on a person without their consent. Although if we look at the second part of the quote when Rochester says "She need not have done what she did to me" it infers that had he not been drugged he would have consented but since he was he couldn't say yes or stop her from doing what she wanted to do. 

What do you think went down this night? Do you agree? Other thoughts.

Who shot first?

There's an age old question when it comes to Star Wars is whether Han Solo shot first, and this can be applied to our dear friend Meusault. The real question is who shot first Meusault or the man on beach. Yes, this may be confusing because the man on the beach did not happen to have a gun but he could have shot first.  Before Meusault shot his gun 5 times (which is a bit excessive). The reason he shot first was because he took out his knife which reflected the suns rays into Meursault's eyes. Causing him feel the sensation of being shot and releases trigger a few times.

Who is the real culprit here? Meursalt, the guy, or the sun. Before you start rioting let me explain myself. Have you evver been blinded by the sun when trying to to a simple task? Have you ever been driving and the visor on the top of the car doesn't quite shade your eyes? Have you ever looked into a body of water during the day and instead got a big eyeful of sun? If you said yes to any of this you may understand the point. Statistically speaking the sun kills over 60,000 people a year (according to BBC News). Why should this be any different? The glare from the sun has caused hundreds of car crashes a year, yet would you blame the driver for the accidents? Yes you can, but you can't say the sun didn't have a significant part to it. When Meursault was on the beach he was blinded by the sun, and in that moment of heat and sweat a shot went off. After a pause and silence another 4 went off. While the sun might not be to blame for the second round of shooting the whole reason it started was the sun.

Do you have any ideas? Does my argument make a feasible point? Let me know in the comments below.