Looking Glass

While reading WSS, I noticed Antoinette's looking glass popping up repeatedly. Actually, it's talked about in both Rochester's and Antoinette's narrations (so you know it's Rhys trying to tell you something rather than just a character dwelling on it). First, there's of course the much-talked-about scene with Tia and Antoinette staring at each other "like in a looking glass".
Then Rochester illustrates that she's like any other girl by describing her admiring her reflection in a looking glass.
He describes this tendency again later, but his tone is much more hateful; "She’ll not dress up and smile at herself in that damnable looking-glass. So pleased, so satisfied." And here the mirror seems to represent the happiness that he's intent on taking from her.
Then the metaphor is really fleshed out in Antoinette's section. She says that after Rochester renamed her Bertha, she "saw Antoinette drifting out the window with her scents, her pretty clothes and her looking glass." I think that this suggests that the looking glass stands in for Antoinette's identity. Losing it means that she can no longer see herself (literally and metaphorically). She says, "There is no looking glass here and I don't know what I am like now"..."who am I"? So, Rochester's taken not only her money and her home, but, in part through her looking glass, her Antoinetteness (which I think would be enough to drive anyone a little insane).

Sub-topic 2: It's interesting to see Rochester's sexism evolve as his hatred for Antoinette grows. It starts as a vague, subconscious assumption that he should be in charge, which he's presumably been taught for his whole life. It seems kind of innocent and forgivable. But by tonight's reading he's saying things (of Antoinette) like "Vain silly creature. Made for loving? Yes. But she'll have no lover, for I don't want her and she'll see no other." Eesh. (also, it rhymes; what's with the poetry all through this part?) Rhys transforms him into a full blown villain by the end of Part 2. The majority of his last two flower-bound sections are just rambling hatred for Antoinette and the people in Jamaica. "I hated the mountains and the hills, the rivers and the rain. I hated the sunsets of whatever colour, I hated its beauty and its magic and the secret I would never know", Really rambling. In fact, he comes across much less sane than Antoinette does in her final sections. She sounds like she's experiencing things that maybe aren't actually happening, but at least the train of thought is more clear than "White faces, dazed eyes, aimless gestures, high-pitched laughter. The way they walk and talk and scream or try to kill (themselves or you) if you laugh back at them. Yes, they’ve got to be watched. For the time comes when they try to kill, then disappear. But others are waiting to take their places, it’s a long, long line. She’s one of them. I too can wait - for the day when she is only a memory to be avoided, locked away, and like all memories a legend. Or a lie...".
Later he claims that "All the mad and conflicting emotions had gone and left me empty. Sane."-- and I can see the reasoning behind this-- but he criticizes a similar emptiness in Antoinette, saying that her blank eyes seem mad. Aside from being mean and hypocritical, this judgement makes it seem like he might also comes off as a little insane to others (since he seems to feel a similar way to Antoinette).

At first, I didn't like Mersault. I thought that his Hemingway-esque style reflected a reluctance to acknowledge his emotions or some macho need to hide them from his readers. However, as the story's progressed, I've realized that he really is just as empty as he's letting on. Strangely, this has increased my estimations of him a lot. He's an unusual guy (which I appreciate on its own) and I would argue that he's unusual in a pretty productive way. He's not bogged down by ambition (I could go on for a long time about the evils of ambition, particularly in our culture) or unnecessary empathy.  Most people are disturbed by his lack of empathy, but the only thing I think it would serve to accomplish is hinder his peace of mind. Given that he would never have killed his mother, it's a good thing that he's not bothered by her death. I mean, what would be the point? He'd just be adding unhappiness to the world with no chance whatsoever of bringing her back. And if he is a psychopath, he's not a dangerous one-- except for the fact that he killed someone (still not sure how to fit this into my understanding of his character). He doesn't lie, he never wishes anyone harm, he seems to work hard enough (his boss is willing to promote him). And he's happy. Even in jail (to some extent).
Actually, his happiness in part one has been contested some in class. I think the idea is that he doesn't seem to feel much at all, so he can't really be happy. But I'd argue that no one is ever elated 24/7. You're happy if you're not thinking about how happy you are (and if you're miserable, you'll probably be dwelling on it). So though he's not describing explicitly a bunch of positive emotions, he's got a childlike, worry-free, simple contentedness which I think qualifies as happiness. He's having fun; enjoying the sun and Marie and swimming and running after trucks. That's a pretty admirable thing.

HOWEVER, I do not agree with his philosophy. Existentialism has never made any sense to me.
I must admit, I've always found nihilism kind of compelling, and I definitely related to his "will it really make any difference?" thoughts. (Somehow my brain really wants to believe that everyone has a certain capacity for happiness and eventually the situation you're in wont really affect your net positive/negative feeling. Not sure if this is what he had in mind with "nothing matters", but I was able to plug those thoughts into his words and relate.) But existentialism seems to me to have a serious contradiction pretty near its core (I asked about this today in class): if nothing matters, then why does it matter that you make up something to matter? In other words, you can't justify the need to make your own meaning in life if the outside universe enforces no need to do or think anything in particular. Unless the one meaningful part of the universe is that people make their own meaning, but this seems like a stretch to me. Why would this be the case? It would make some sense for him to say "I'm going to make my own meaning and enjoy life, not that it really maters. And you can too if you want to... or not. Whatever." But I feel like he's being more absolute about the goodness of his own personal meaning that. He seems to be operating on the assumption that the calm he reaches at the end and his eventual appreciation for the apathy of the universe is a good thing. Maybe I'm wrong about this.
If anyone can answer these questions for me, please do.