1) Read Part I of The Stranger by Albert Camus.
2) Compose a blog response, using at least two lines from the novel, and apply it to Camus's theories as well make connections to our world today. Look at the characterization, plot, diction, syntax, etc. How is Camus trying to explain his theory through literature? Where are you seeing yourself in this novel? The theory of existentialism? How could it help us in our society?
Three Stages of Existentialism
Humans in Anguish: "The man who involves himself and who realizes that he is not only the person he chooses to be, but also a law-maker who is, at the same time, choosing all mankind as well as himself, cannot help escape the feeling of his total and deep responsibility. Of course there are many people who are not anxious; but we claim they are hiding their anxiety, that they are fleeing from it....Anguish is evident, even when it conceals itself."
Humans in
Forlornness: "When we speak
of forlornness, we mean only that God does not exist and that we have to face
all the consequences of this....The existentialist thinks it very distressing
that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven
of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer an a priori Good, since
there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists,
that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is we are on a
plane where there are only men....Neither within him or without does man find
anything to cling to. He can't start
making excuses for himself.
Humans in Despair: "As for despair, the term has a very
simple meaning. It means that we shall
confine ourselves to reckoning only with what depends upon our will, or on the
ensemble of probabilities which make our action possible....No God, no scheme,
can adapt the world and its possibilities to my will."
About the author: Albert Camus(1913 – 1960) was a French author, philosopher, and journalist who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957. His most famous works were the novels La Peste (The Plague) and L’Étranger (The Stranger or The Outsider) and the philosophical essay The Myth Of Sisyphus.
Summary: In The Myth of Sisyphus (1955) Camus claims that the only important philosophical question is suicide—should we continue to live or not? The rest is secondary, says Camus, because no one dies for scientific or philosophical arguments, usually abandoning them when their life is at risk. Yet people do take their own lives because they judge them meaningless, or sacrifice them for meaningful causes. This suggests that questions of meaning supersede all other scientific or philosophical questions. As Camus puts it: “I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions.”
What interests Camus is what leads to suicide. He argues that “beginning to think is beginning to be undermined … the worm is in man’s heart.”When we start to think we open up the possibility that all we valued previously, including our belief in life’s goodness, may be subverted. This rejection of life emanates from deep within, and this is where its source must be sought. For Camus killing yourself is admitting that all of the habits and effort needed for living are not worth the trouble. As long as we accept reasons for life’s meaning we continue, but as soon as we reject these reasons we become alienated—we become strangers from the world. This feeling of separation from the world Camus terms absurdity, a sensation that may lead to suicide. Still most of us go on because we are attached to the world; we continue to live out of habit.
But is suicide a solution to the absurdity of life? For those who believe in life’s absurdity it is a reasonable response—one’s conduct should follow from one’s beliefs. Of course conduct does not always follow from belief. Individuals argue for suicide but continue to live; others profess that there is a meaning to life and choose suicide. Yet most persons are attached to this world by instinct, by a will to live that precedes philosophical reflection. Thus, they evade questions of suicide and meaning by combining instinct with the hope that something gives life meaning. Yet the repetitiveness of life brings absurdity back to consciousness. In Camus’ words: “Rising, streetcar, four hours in the office or factory, meal, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday…”Living brings the question of suicide back, forcing a person to confront and answer this essential question—should I go on?
Yet of death we know nothing. “This heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction.”Furthermore I can’t know myself intimately anymore than I can know death. “This very heart which is mine will forever remain indefinable to me. Between the certainty I have of my existence and the content I try to give to that assurance, the gap will never be filled. Forever I shall be a stranger to myself …” We know that we feel, but our knowledge of ourselves ends there.
What makes life absurd is our inability to know ourselves and the world’s meaning even though we desire such knowledge. “…what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational and the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart.” The world could have meaning: “But I know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it.” This tension between our desire to know meaning and the impossibility of knowing it is a most important discovery. In response, we are tempted to leap into faith, but the honest know that they do not understand, and they must learn “to live without appeal…” In this sense we are free—living without higher purposes, living without appeal. Aware of our condition we exercise our freedom and revolt against the absurd—this is the best we can do.
Nowhere is the essence of the human condition made clearer than in the The Myth of Sisyphus. Condemned by the gods to roll a rock to the top of a mountain, whereupon its own weight makes it fall back down again, Sisyphus was condemned to this perpetually futile labor. His crimes seem slight, yet his preference for the natural world instead of the underworld incurred the wrath of the gods: “His scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing.” He was condemned to everlasting torment, and the accompanying despair of knowing that his labor was futile.
Yet Camus sees something else in Sisyphus at that moment when he goes back down the mountain. Consciousness of his fate is the tragedy; yet consciousness also allows Sisyphus to scorn the gods which provides a small measure of satisfaction. Tragedy and happiness go together; this is the state of the world that we must accept. Fate decries that there is no purpose for our lives, but one can respond bravely to their situation: “This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
Reflections – Camus argues that life is meaningless and absurd. Still we can revolt against the absurdity, and find some small modicum of happiness. Essentially Camus asks if there is a third alternative between acceptance of life’s absurdity or its denial by embracing dubious metaphysical propositions. Can we live without the hope that life is meaningful, but without the despair that leads to suicide? If the contrast is posed this starkly it seems an alternative appears—we can proceed defiantly forward. We can live without faith, without hope, and without appeal.
We are called upon to live without appeal, as appeals are intellectually dishonest. But perhaps there are other alternatives than: 1) accepting absurdity; 2) embracing hopeful metaphysics; or 3) Camus’ defiance. Perhaps we can just say we don’t understand life at all, but we affirm it anyway. We just try to live without being sure of anything. Be open to possibilities. Then we might ground the meaning of our lives in the small part we can play in bringing about a more meaningful reality, by working to transform reality. This is no answer, but a way to live.
Summary of The Myth of Sisyphus
Summary: In The Myth of Sisyphus (1955) Camus claims that the only important philosophical question is suicide—should we continue to live or not? The rest is secondary, says Camus, because no one dies for scientific or philosophical arguments, usually abandoning them when their life is at risk. Yet people do take their own lives because they judge them meaningless, or sacrifice them for meaningful causes. This suggests that questions of meaning supersede all other scientific or philosophical questions. As Camus puts it: “I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions.”
What interests Camus is what leads to suicide. He argues that “beginning to think is beginning to be undermined … the worm is in man’s heart.”When we start to think we open up the possibility that all we valued previously, including our belief in life’s goodness, may be subverted. This rejection of life emanates from deep within, and this is where its source must be sought. For Camus killing yourself is admitting that all of the habits and effort needed for living are not worth the trouble. As long as we accept reasons for life’s meaning we continue, but as soon as we reject these reasons we become alienated—we become strangers from the world. This feeling of separation from the world Camus terms absurdity, a sensation that may lead to suicide. Still most of us go on because we are attached to the world; we continue to live out of habit.
But is suicide a solution to the absurdity of life? For those who believe in life’s absurdity it is a reasonable response—one’s conduct should follow from one’s beliefs. Of course conduct does not always follow from belief. Individuals argue for suicide but continue to live; others profess that there is a meaning to life and choose suicide. Yet most persons are attached to this world by instinct, by a will to live that precedes philosophical reflection. Thus, they evade questions of suicide and meaning by combining instinct with the hope that something gives life meaning. Yet the repetitiveness of life brings absurdity back to consciousness. In Camus’ words: “Rising, streetcar, four hours in the office or factory, meal, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday…”Living brings the question of suicide back, forcing a person to confront and answer this essential question—should I go on?
Yet of death we know nothing. “This heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction.”Furthermore I can’t know myself intimately anymore than I can know death. “This very heart which is mine will forever remain indefinable to me. Between the certainty I have of my existence and the content I try to give to that assurance, the gap will never be filled. Forever I shall be a stranger to myself …” We know that we feel, but our knowledge of ourselves ends there.
What makes life absurd is our inability to know ourselves and the world’s meaning even though we desire such knowledge. “…what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational and the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart.” The world could have meaning: “But I know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it.” This tension between our desire to know meaning and the impossibility of knowing it is a most important discovery. In response, we are tempted to leap into faith, but the honest know that they do not understand, and they must learn “to live without appeal…” In this sense we are free—living without higher purposes, living without appeal. Aware of our condition we exercise our freedom and revolt against the absurd—this is the best we can do.
Nowhere is the essence of the human condition made clearer than in the The Myth of Sisyphus. Condemned by the gods to roll a rock to the top of a mountain, whereupon its own weight makes it fall back down again, Sisyphus was condemned to this perpetually futile labor. His crimes seem slight, yet his preference for the natural world instead of the underworld incurred the wrath of the gods: “His scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing.” He was condemned to everlasting torment, and the accompanying despair of knowing that his labor was futile.
Yet Camus sees something else in Sisyphus at that moment when he goes back down the mountain. Consciousness of his fate is the tragedy; yet consciousness also allows Sisyphus to scorn the gods which provides a small measure of satisfaction. Tragedy and happiness go together; this is the state of the world that we must accept. Fate decries that there is no purpose for our lives, but one can respond bravely to their situation: “This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
Reflections – Camus argues that life is meaningless and absurd. Still we can revolt against the absurdity, and find some small modicum of happiness. Essentially Camus asks if there is a third alternative between acceptance of life’s absurdity or its denial by embracing dubious metaphysical propositions. Can we live without the hope that life is meaningful, but without the despair that leads to suicide? If the contrast is posed this starkly it seems an alternative appears—we can proceed defiantly forward. We can live without faith, without hope, and without appeal.
We are called upon to live without appeal, as appeals are intellectually dishonest. But perhaps there are other alternatives than: 1) accepting absurdity; 2) embracing hopeful metaphysics; or 3) Camus’ defiance. Perhaps we can just say we don’t understand life at all, but we affirm it anyway. We just try to live without being sure of anything. Be open to possibilities. Then we might ground the meaning of our lives in the small part we can play in bringing about a more meaningful reality, by working to transform reality. This is no answer, but a way to live.
Ryan Gosling in La La Land!
Camus says, "What does it all mean, Ryan Gosling?"
Okay, um, excuse me, what? I'm currently way too stunned to process this whole thing. In terms of the story being applied to Camus' theories, I noticed the idea of humans in anguish immediately because the story began with the death of the narrator's mother. His repetition of "it's not my fault" signals his feeling of responsibility and guilt but his lack of emotional reaction to this shocking loss is indicative of him hiding his anxiousness. It's actually kind of funny but not because I started reading the book this morning, hours after receiving the news that my uncle passed away around 6am, but I've gone throughout the day without tearing up or feeling emotionally distressed. Instead, my distress actually stemmed from my lack of feeling because I was/am very stunned by the news and I felt guilty for not crying with my mom. On another note, I was really uncomfortable but understanding of the narrator's personality and way of thinking because I felt confused by the way he is so monotone and indifferent to topics that often trouble people. I wanted him to feel or think a certain way just so that I could relate more but at the same time I managed to relate to his intangible concepts. For example, while I don't agree, the idea of 'i love yous' and marriage being trivial was understandable. I do really want to discuss the ending of chapter 6 because I want to understand his reasoning better and just process with the class because that was extremely shocking and unexpected.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t really know what to expect going into this novel, but what I read was not what I thought it would be. Camus’ theories that life is meaningless and that nothing matters is shown through Meursault's thoughts and actions. His apathy towards life surprised me. At first I thought that his lack of grief towards his mother’s death could be attributed to him being in shock, but then when he was asked “didn’t I think it was disgusting” that Salamano was beating his dog and he responded no, and then later on when Marie asked him if he wanted to get married and he “said it didn’t make a difference to me”, I realized he didn’t really have any thoughts or opinions on life in general. He appears motionless, and only responds how he thinks people want him to respond, if he doesn’t respond indifferently. Then at the end of chapter 6 his complete lack of caring shocked me, because he didn’t even seem to understand that it was wrong. Maybe this is what Camus is arguing; that there is no good and bad, because he is an existentialist, but I don’t really understand this. I personally don’t really think that life has a deeper meaning, or that the universe or some greater being cares about our actions, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t care about life. I don’t think life really needs meaning to make it worth living and being a good person. I’m confused about existentialism and this book.
ReplyDeleteI also did not know what to expect going into this book, but right away I noticed how the strong sense of apathy found within Meursault’s character. The very beginning of the play as Meursault states that “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow/ Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything” (3), expresses his emotional indifference to what one would expect to be a very tragic event. Camus’ theories that the life is meaningless and absurd are illustrated through the simple, bland syntax of the story and through his characterization. Meursault’s indifference to his mother’s death, then later when Marie asks him to marry her and he says that it “didn’t make any difference” (41) highlights Camus’ idea that we continue to live out of habit and that we know that we feel things, but “our knowledge of ourselves ends there.” In addition, one moment in Part I I found really illustrated a central idea of Camus’ theory was during the funeral when a nurse speaks to Meursault and says, “If you go slowly, you risk getting sunstroke. But if you go too fast, you work up a sweat and then catch a chill inside the church” (47); I think this was a metaphor that explained how death is unavoidable no matter what type of life you live and Camus highlights that death is just a fact of life. Overall, part I of The Stranger has a detached, plain tone that Camus uses to explain his theory, although I don’t think that I agree with him at all. I think that living a meaningful life means something different for each person and I don’t think that life is pointless- I don’t know, I am also a bit confused about existentialism.
ReplyDeleteWhat separates dreams and reality? Reality is real. What makes it real? It matters. The things we do, the decisions we make, the things we feel, and the things we believe, matter. But in an extreme existentialist would say that because there is no greater purpose, meaning, or moral authority in the universe, that absolutely nothing matters. And if nothing matters to you, and therefore nothing is real to you, then what exactly separate reality from dreams? The writing style and characters of Albert Camus’ ‘The Stranger’ bring this fact to life for me. The book is written as if the narrator’s in a dream. Things just happen, pass by one after another, leaving no impact or effect until they show up again.The world flows by the narrators eyes and he is completely ambivalent to it, not dwelling or focusing on any of it, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly but hardly anything is given special importance or emphasis, say for the moments when he is in the beating son (during his mother's funeral procession and when he kills that guy). The story literally starts with “Maman died today.” a sentence as matter of fact as to minimize the death of a loved one to just another event in a day, which it objectively is. You could literally replace the word died with anything and the narrator and sentence would maintain the same tone (Maman swam today. Or maybe it was yesterday, I don’t know. Maman bought a Prius today. Or maybe it was yesterday, I don’t know. Maman transformed into a dragon today. Or maybe it was yesterday, I don’t know.) This is how the narrator treats everything, everything that happens to him and others, like a passing factual event passing down through his stream of conscious, like just another moment in a dream that is moved on from and easily forgotten. He treats everything like this, his mother's death, the abuse of his neighbor's dog, even Marie, who makes him happy but doesn't care enough about to actually love. The book reads “[Marie] asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to. Then she wanted to know if I loved her. I answered the same way I had the last time, that it didn’t mean anything but that I probably didn’t love her. ‘So why marry me, then?’ she said. I explained to her that it didn’t really matter and that if she wanted to, we could get married… Then she pointed out that marriage was a serious thing. I said ‘No.’ … she just wanted to know if I would have accepted the same proposal from another woman, with whom I was involved in the same way. I said ‘Sure.’” He keeps answering the same way, that things don’t matter. That is his answer to everything, love, marriage, anything. He doesn't care about making major life decisions and says adamantly that marriage isn’t serious. It matters as much to him as a marriage proposal would in a dream. He drifts through life ambivalent to everything, including his own life, helping a relative stranger, who is a pimp, fool and abuse his mistress just because he asked him to, becomes tat man’s friend because nothing has made him not do that, marries a woman on a whim, and kills a man on that same whim, all emotionlessly. Nothing matters to him, not even himself, he views his life as one would view there life in a dream. Tis his also reflected in the tense of the writing shifting from present tense view point to past tense, the point he is reflecting from constantly flowing forward. Also I assume the dreamlike attitude he takes to his life is also reflected in how often he drifts off to sleep with no consequence. Or I could be wrong, I don’t know.
ReplyDeleteThroughout part 1 of The Stranger by, Albert Camus, Meursault’s character has been consistently lacking a passioned connection to anything in his life. Camus’s idea of the meaning of life, or the lack there of, for a person is the most troubling and controlling factor in life. Mersault rarely expresses any favoring or opinion about anything, whether it his his own mothers death, or to his girlfriend asking if he wants to get married, to which he felt “it didn’t make any difference” (41) to him. We see Mersault’s life through his eyes, but it is not that he seems uninterested, he seems unaffected, as if it has not even occured to him the effects or consequences of anything he comes across in his life. Meursault reflects to himself in a matter of fact way “it occured to [him] that anyway, one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that [he] was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed” (24). Cumas is saying how that so much has changed, yet also so little. Meursault’s mother has died, yet really, it has not effected the fluidity of his daily life and has not changed his inner mindset at all. It’s Meursault’s lack of emotion and connection that has made this huge change, make such a small impact. Also, a moment that jumped out at me was when he questions, “To stay or to go, it amounted to the same thing” (57). This reminded me of Hamlets question of, “To be, or not the be: that is the question”. Hamlet in this moment is contemplating his suicide, suicude or the contemplation of the need to continue to live or not, Camus feels is the most urgent question of life. Meursault is not really contemplating his death at this moment, but this is a moment to show his complete lack of preference for either option, in truth, he seems to lack a preference about anything, and the idea that he would be uneffected by either option because the outcome would feel the same, makes me as a reader observe the lack of meaning Meursault creates in his life. Even when he kills the man on the beach, it seems to be more of something just to do just for the sake of it, it was not an act of passion or emotion or reason, but completely mechanical, which I feel is the inteneded impact by the author. I thouroughly enjoyed part 1 and am looking to see what the rest of the book has in store.
ReplyDeleteAsdhfgjk first of all this book is so good, the end of Part I was a little insane but oh my it is so good. As almost everyone has said, the relation to Camus' theories on existentialism are incredibly noticeable. Of course we see Meursault going through the stages of shock and guilt after his mother's death, but we also see someone who is so introspective and has the ability to compartmentalize to the extent where he kills someone- and continues shooting after the man is dead. As Jyllian said, Meusault reminded me of Hamlet not only with the "Shoot or not shoot... To stay or to go" (57). It's interesting because in a sense Hamlet did exactly what we expected him to do: next to nothing; Yet with Meursault, he has the same internal anguish that Hamlet has, the same questioning, however Meusault's ability to just sort of go where his feet take him (in both a literal and nonliteral sense) and then not think anything of his actions in the moment is so different than Hamlet. I feel like Meursault is suppressing a lot, and obviously that's not an excuse for the way he behaves, but I feel like that's leading to his detachment and then the detachment is leading to him making rash decisions. I'm wondering if we'll ever find out what made him this way? I don't think his mother's death caused it because his boss and friends seem to not notice him acting strange, which makes me think he's always like this. I'm also wondering 1) why he doesn't like cops? 2) why did he have to "end" his education? Was it for his mom? and 3) where is his father?
ReplyDeleteI also really enjoyed his descriptions. They're very vague and I feel like you either get what he's saying or you don't, but when he was talking about his mother's vigil he's, to quote Nick Carroway, both within and without- he says that he "saw them more clearly than [he] had ever seen anyone... but [he] couldn't hear them, and it was hard for [him] to believe they really existed" (9). When my grandpa died a year ago I remember feeling very similar to that, everything just became very monotonous and there was so much drama, and you're aware so you shut down and you notice the people but in a much more real sense it's like no one is there at all. It's very hard to explain, and I think Meursault does a nice job doing so. It's incredibly honest. Another interesting thing about this book is that it's sort of hard to tell the timeline yet it all makes sense. It's sort of like the reader is in the same daze as Meursault. We do, however, get the impression that this is him looking back and telling his story. At the vigil Meursault is describing everything with an understandable frustration and bitterness, but he switches from speaking in the past tense to speaking in the present tense. He says, "I even had the impression that the dead woman sitting in front of them didn't mean anything to them. But I think now that that was a false impression" (11). So if it is the case the Meursault is looking back and telling the story, then I hope we get to see where he is now. I'm really loving this book, and I can't wait to keep reading!
So the first thing that I noticed, like most others, when I read the first chapter was how the book was written to convey Meursault apathy towards his life. Every detail written appears simple and to the point, although this in and of itself has symbolic meaning behind it. The indifference that Meursault displays lines up with Sartre’s thoughts on existentialism. Meursault hasn’t found his essence yet, and therefore is living a life without meaning. He lives the lives of others, saying that “it didn’t make any difference” if he married Marie and he would if it made her happy. It seems as though everything he says does he does for the sake of others, not because he is selfless, but more so because he has no other purpose in life and reason to do anything. Like Skylar I first thought that Meursault was just in shock after his mother’s death, but as the book continued I realized that this was just how he lived his life. The only seemingly subjective comment of his was repeated- that he “wanted” Marie. However, he’s not sure if he loves her, and thinks he probably doesn’t. Does that just mean that he’s giving into his natural instincts, but is still without much emotion? Also, I am really surprised by the ending to part 1. This is Meursault’s free will, but what does that say about his character? What exactly happened in his head?? Was he just overtaken by a sudden urge to shoot, much like the waves he described as "carrying up a thick, fiery breath"? It just felt very sudden and out of place, but I'm excited to see where it will lead in part 2. Sosha
ReplyDeleteCamus’s character is very strange. He completely lacks morality and motivation, and is totally irregular with his actions. For example, while he alludes to his friend Raymond that its ok to hit the woman who cheated on him, I don’t think he would ever hit Marie-- not because of any moral beliefs he has, but because he doesn’t seem to care enough to take action like that. He doesn’t care if they get married or not, and he doesn’t seem to care about anything very much. Yet he does take action against the Arab men who attacked Raymond… this totally came out of nowhere. If he really didn’t care about anything, and believed that everything was meaningless, why would he even bother? He went through some trouble to go out and shoot that man, to whom he had essentially no connection to. He gained nothing and spent some time, and a bullet, to do something that many would consider extremely immoral. Even if the character has no sense of morality, he has no driving initiative to commit this act. So why bother?
ReplyDeleteAnna Vrountas
Overall Monsieur Meursault lived a very monotonous lifestyle, with no expectations or high goals. He believes that “people never change their lives, that in any case one life was as good as another and that I wasn’t dissatisfied with mine here at all” (41). Meursault's character, and his perception of life resembles Camus's theory of humans in despair and forlornness. He isn’t a person that has a strong affiliation to religion and makes decisions in a simple manner. Tangible concerns are what confine his life, with no spiritual essence. For example, when asked to marry, Meursault believed that “it didn’t really matter”(41). Marriage to Meursault is a trivial idea, it has no religious meaning and is an intangible idea to him. Similarly, when his mother passed away, Meursault did not grieve over the loss. He attended the vigil to fulfill his duty, and returned the next day to work with no essence of discomfort. Death is inevitable, regardless of one’s life. Camus also tries to show how invaluable the human life is, because one’s actions have no effect on one’s end, death. Meursault reminds me of Akaky Akakievich from the Overcoat. They both seem to dwell over simple, straightforward ideas, leaving the spiritual themes behind.
ReplyDeleteKaby
Initially, I was disgusted by Meursault’s attitude and actions throughout the first part of the novel. Through his monotonous response to his mother’s death and his decision to help Raymond’s heinous schemes, he was seemingly heartless and immoral. “It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed.” I was surprised by Meursault's detachment from his mother’s death, she being a woman who most definitely nurtured and cared for him in his youth. But as I continued reading, I began to understand that he was not a sociopath, but rather simply treating life and the state of living as meaningless. This became apparent in his actions later on in the plot. “I tried my best to please Raymond because I didn’t have any reason not to please him.” It is undoubtedly immoral for Meursault to assist Raymond in carrying out his plan to humiliate his mistress, but in essence, he has no reason to do so; after all, Raymond is his friend and his mistress isn’t. I began to perceive Meursault’s actions as indifferent rather than indecent. He is carrying out life as if he isn’t bound by the ethics of society, but rather by what pleases him. Marie asks Meursault if he loves her and he replies that he is indifferent to their relationship, albeit he benefits from their relationship because he is able to fulfill his sexual desires. This is an example of Meursault acting and reacting solely for his personal gain and further suggests that he is indeed amoral.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love this book. The complete apathy that the narrator has towards everything while he outwardly goes along with everything that people tell him to is something I think we can all find ourselves relating to even though we don't want to admit it. Meursault’s entire approach to human interaction is to just say “‘yes’ just so [they] wouldn't have to say anything else”, as if their genuine reactions and thoughts have little to no effect on the outcome of the situation. It's almost beautiful how simple everything in this book is yet the actual magnitude of every situation should be much more impactful to Meursault. You can't tell fully if Meursault is a sociopath or if it is just the way he is narrating the story but the way in which is analyzes every situation completely void of emotional attachment gives more of a sociopathic vibe. Like when he finds out his mother is dead and he tells his boss and anticipates crying and being sad after he comes back from the funeral because that is the normal response. As a reader it comes across kind of quirky but at the same time scary.
ReplyDeleteFirst off I have never read anything like this book before where the main character (protagonist) is practically just a robot stuck in his routine going through the motions. It honestly was kind of unsettling to see a character who is so indifferent to his personal life and everything around him. At first I thought his indifference towards his mother's death was just a coping method and he would eventually have some sort of mental breakdown or show some emotion but he never did. The part where I realized that Meursault is actually a completely indifferent character was when Marie asked him if he loved her and he responded with It didn’t mean anything but that [he] didn’t think so. Besides being rude this was startling to hear he really had no opinion or care about their relationship. The only time he did do something rash or out of character was when he killed the Arab that threated Raymond, but that was out of self preservation. Connecting to the ideas of existentialism it was interesting to see how every choice Mersult made ended up leading him to the beach that day, (befriending Ronaldo, writing the letter to his mistress, meeting his brother and wife, and having relations with Marie) and finally murdering the Arab.I am very excited to see what happens next and how Meursault reacts to killing someone. Will he be indifferent about it as he is with everything?
ReplyDeleteI knew that I liked this book right when I started to read it. Meursault’s seemingly emotionless narration creates a very different diction and syntax that other works. The first thing that really struck me was the quote “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday”. This was the first thing that gave me insight to Meursault’s mind. His indifference to the trivial details of his mother’s death shows his outlook on life, that it doesn’t mean anything. He also expresses the same attitude when spending time with Marie. The second time they are shown together, Meursault narrates: “A minute later she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so”. This further shows that he has little emotional attachment to the other people and things in his life. It almost seems like he does not understand the social cues Marie is anticipating, and is confused when he upsets her. What shocked me the most was when Meursault killed “the Arab” on the beach. However, looking back on it, it does not seem out of place for his character. Camus’ ideas apply here. Camus’ ideas of absurdism shows how powerless and unsuccessful human attempts to attach meaning to everything are. He calls it absurd that people try to establish order and organization in a world that has no pattern. Applying his theory to The Stranger, I tried to understand why Meursault killed someone, but he really had no reason. This applies to many things (if not everything) in our society today, because every single thing that happens causes people to search for meaning, and answer the question: why?
ReplyDeleteThis novel is absurd. It is interesting to read though. In previous books I read, all the main characters have a sense or purpose, a goal in their lives. However, Meursault's actions and responses don't convey a sense of meaning to them. I got so frustrated when he says, "[getting married] didn't make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to" (41). It may seem like he's trying to respect her opinion, but it is a serious matter as Marie points it out. Meursault's interactions with his neighbors also state that he is simply going with the flow. As if he's just a feather floating in the air randomly. The novel is written in a way that presents readers a daily routine through the thoughts of the main character. It's like "I did this, and I did that". Meursault can have a purposeless life, but "when she laughed [he] wanted her again" (35). As "Camus argues that life is meaningless and absurd. Still we can revolt against the absurdity, and find some small modicum of happiness." Meursault finds happiness in Marie. At the end of Part One, he kills someone out of the blue. He is emotionless (even towards his dead mother). He kills someone because he wants to (maybe?? I'm a bit confused about how it happened). One says morality depends on the person's personal experience because each person has different views and takes. That could be a dangerous view because it's agreeing to the idea of "Nowhere is it written that the Good exists". Meursalt can live that way if he choosese to, but I believe that there is Good out there. It's not an idea, but I'm talking about the Good in reality.
ReplyDeleteI accidentally read the wrong section so this is a bit late but anyways
ReplyDeleteI think there are fleeting instances in which the narrator gives into human emotions, but they are few and far between. For the most part, Meursalt's inner monologue is one-dimensional, you can really see how the lack of meaning has manifested itself in his life. Nothing he says is really false, but his analysis of any sort of reasoning behind anything is severely lacking. These little parts when he begins to feel something, he quickly shoves it away, like when he says "for some reason I thought of Maman" when the old man is sad about losing his dog. It's clear that the reader has a bit of sadness from losing his mother, but since it doesn't influence his everyday life, he chooses not to explore his own deeper emotions. One thing that really hit me was how selfish he is. Throughout the section, several people (some with questionable moral character) approach him for advice and/or comfort and Meursalt has no interest in their actual lives, but more in how he can say the right thing in order to allow him to benefit himself or at least not inconvenience. So far, this book has made me feel like existentialism is lacking some key factors about living this world, including the interaction with others.
I have a great deal of admiration for the way the Meursault carries himself with little to no regard for any social or moral conventions. While most people would be in a great deal of grief after the death of their mother, Meursault is indifferent and when asked if he wants to see her at the funeral home he simply replies “no”. Similarly, most young couples in Meursault’s position would be eager to get married but Meursault explains that “it didn’t really matter and that if she wanted to, we could get married.” Although I would not personally engage in any of his behaviors, I admire the amount of courage it takes to completely reject the idea of something being socially acceptable. I think part of the reason Marie falls so deeply in love with Meursault is because he is refreshing to her as in he is unlike any other man out there. Through their relationship, Camus makes the broader point that one does not need to follow society's standard conventions when it comes to having a stable relationship. Marriage, love, and happiness are all things we deem necessary for a stable relationship when it fact they are not needed as evidenced by Meursault. I think having more people like Meursault in society, minus the part about the senseless murder, would be a positive thing as not everyone would be ordered around by this set of unwritten laws. I don’t view Meursault as a psychopath, but rather someone who views the world in a more literal, practical sense.
ReplyDeleteAs readers, we are often programmed to root for the narrator/protagonist from the start. Everytime we pick up that book, his thought become our thoughts, his vision becomes our vision, and his ultimate objectives become ours as well. In other words, we are trained to become the protagonist. So when I first began reading The Stranger, it took me a while to realize that this was not Camus' intended purpose. Once I did realize this switch, I found it to be a refreshing change of taste to view the story from the perspective of the antagonist. However, as I read on I increasingly got the feeling that Camus' intention is not portray his character as the antagonist, but rather use his portrayal as a type of meta attack on our preconceived notions. In the moral realm, we expect people to be sad when their mother dies, oppose domestic violence, and refrain from physical fighting in any sense. Whenever someone fails to do that, we automatically think that they are evil. However, in this case the of Meursault, he does not oppose these values because he is inherently evil, but rather because he simply does not care about the artificial moral bounds set up by others. Looking at his dialogue, short sentences absolutely devoid of emotion, such as "I was hot in my dark clothes" or "I worked hard at the office today," Merusualt does not represent some sort of psychopath but rather just someone dealing with depression. (15)(31) Simply put, Merusault is not someone who has wronged society, but rather it is the other way around.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I am being repetitive of other posts at this point but I totally agree with everyone about the apathy and lack of connection to life that the main character faces. The main idea seems extremely obvious, which I like in books. I also am enjoying how the book is written pretty barrenly, Camus needs minimal description to express his complex ideas which is fascinating. I would like to focus on the beginning of this book in this blog post since it really peaked my interest. The idea that death, even of a mother, is just something that happens in life, and there is no way around it, and that the world just keeps on moving, has so many emotions attached to it. Jyllian used this quote too but when he says, “it occurred to [him] that anyway, one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that [he] was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed” I was just like woah (24). This idea has comfort, because you know that even though someone you “love” is now gone that you will keep living and the world will keep turning. This idea is also super sad and almost morbid because it is sorting presenting the thought that death is meaningless. Another quote that occurs before the first one I mentioned is “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.” The way that Camus writes “Maybe it was yesterday” also presents the lack of interest that the main character feels with life, death, and overall emotion. Maybe it was yesterday? Maybe your mom died yesterday?? The thought that death of someone so important in your life could be blown off in though so easily like it is written here is insane. Anyone with connection to life or feelings would say wait what? When did she die? How? When can I see her? Etc, etc. Anyways, reading Camus has been enjoyable so far, but it is kind of mind-boggling at points if you stop and think about what you just read. I am excited to see where this book goes and how it ends.
ReplyDeleteCat
I loved this book. “The Stranger” was something unlike anything I've ever read. In a way it reminded me of “1984” a little bit in the way that the protagonist lives their life by way of a strict routine. Meursault was a character that I had trouble understanding. Every time I thought I had an understanding of him, he would do something that I didn't see coming. I was hoping for Meursault to at least care about something, even a little, but he never did. This part was tough for me. I was actually holding out hope that he would care about something in his life. It was weird to me that someone could not care that their mother died. I know that that happens but I have never known anyone that wasn't heartbroken by the loss of a parent. The part of the book that really saddened me was when Marie asks Meursault if he loved her. He simply responded that he didn't think so because love doesn't mean anything to him. These situations is what the court ultimately used against Meursault to convict him of murder. In the end he was convicted for not loving his mother not for the murder he commit. He was sentenced to death to have his “ head cut off in a square in the name of the French people” and didn't even care. Yes, I did love this book but it was a sad one to read. It was a sad story about a sad man and his ultimately pointless life.
ReplyDeleteColleen
Camus’s extremely simple style deceived me. At first, it was easy for me to read The Stranger passively, going along on Meursault’s journey as apparently carefree as he was. But I began to delve into the text, and this was where The Stranger really gripped me. Just in looking at the first sentence again after reading the first part, I felt that I’d only begun to scratch the surface.
ReplyDelete“Maman died today.” To me, this one three-word sentence represents the thematic material of the whole first section: Meursault always lives in the moment (“today”), not thinking beyond each day; as soon as “one more Sunday was over,” to him, “nothing had changed” despite his mother’s passing. Meursault also clearly deeply cares about his mother—even though he never directly acknowledges her impact, her presence is ever influencing his actions both at the home and throughout the rest of the first part. Finally, this idea of death is the other recurring theme in this novel; both from the Existentialist musing on what the meaning of life (and death) is, but also in Meursault’s own grappling with what the true meaning of his mother’s death was if it didn’t impact him directly, and most poignantly in his killing of the Arab. In a time where one man’s life is worth less than another simply because of his heritage, what could the meaning of his life and death be?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“The Stranger”, was one of the most unique books I have ever read. At first, I thought it was just an easy read but while reading I began to realize that the book and its story was much more. Meursault was, in my opinion, was one of the most interesting characters I have ever read about. I found myself time and time again thinking I understood Meursault but I kept getting surprised. In my mind, I kept thinking how could someone not care about anything in life especially when your own parent passes away. I started to put my feet in Meursault's shoes but I simply couldn't fathom how one could not care about anything in life. To Meursault life seems to just be an event that he was crossing paths with and when he was sentenced to death he didn't care because it would be another thing crossing his path. In some ways, I agree with Meursault that things that happen in life just simply don’t matter like how many friends you have, what skin color you are, or what people think of you, however, I disagree with the mentality that everything in life doesn’t matter. Things like parents, friends, family, and other joys are worth caring about because it makes you realize how precious life truly is which is humbling. This was one of my favorite books to read so far in class although sad. I think I enjoyed it because different then any book and didn’t have a typical ending.
ReplyDelete