Prompts:
1979. Choose a complex and important character in a novel or a play of recognized literary merit who might on the basis of the character's actions alone be considered evil or immoral. In a well-organized essay, explain both how and why the full presentation of the character in the work makes us react more sympathetically than we otherwise might. Avoid plot summary.
1982. In great literature, no scene of violence exists for its own sake. Choose a work of literary merit that confronts the reader or audience with a scene or scenes of violence. In a well-organized essay, explain how the scene or scenes contribute to the meaning of the complete work. Avoid plot summary.
1986. Some works of literature use the element of time in a distinct way. The chronological sequence of events may be altered, or time may be suspended or accelerated. Choose a novel, an epic, or a play of recognized literary merit and show how the author's manipulation of time contributes to the effectiveness of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.
2004. Critic Roland Barthes has said, "Literature is the question minus the answer." Choose a novel, or play, and, considering Barthes' observation, write an essay in which you analyze a central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the author's treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.
2011. Form B. In The Writing of Fiction (1925), novelist Edith Wharton states the following: At every stage in the progress of his tale the novelist must rely on what may be called the illuminating incident to reveal and emphasize the inner meaning of each situation. Illuminating incidents are the magic casements of fiction, its vistas on infinity.
Choose a novel or play that you have studied and write a well-organized essay in which you describe an “illuminating” episode or moment and explain how it functions as a “casement,” a window that opens onto the meaning of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.
2015. In literary works, cruelty often functions as a crucial motivation or a major social or political factor. Select a novel, play, or epic poem in which acts of cruelty are important to the theme. Then write a well-developed essay analyzing how cruelty functions in the work as a whole and what the cruelty reveals about the perpetrator and/or victim.
When it comes to how writers construct their stories, most people tend to think that they rely entirely on language, metaphor, and other purely literary elements to convey their ideas and beliefs to the reader. However, many seem to forget that time is also a tool. We usually perceive time as something linear and constant, but for authors, time and our perception of it can be malleable. In novels, time can be stretched, shortened, or twisted, as a way of bolstering whatever theme or lesson the author is attempting to expound on. Nowhere is this more clear than in Albert Camus’ masterwork, The Stranger, where time is accelerated and stagnated constantly in order to render it meaningless for both the reader and the characters in the story, an endeavor that perfectly serves the existentialist concepts behind the novel’s very creation.
ReplyDeleteThe Stranger is a very uneven book. It is split into two parts of roughly equal length, the first part spanning the events of around a week, the second covering more than five months of time. The writing style of the story speeds up and slows down time at will, some small moments being lingered on for pages, other huge moments glanced or skipped over. A good example this is in the very beginning of the book, when the narrator is attending his mother's funeral. The novel focuses on the narrator’s conversation with the funeral director, then hours start to pass as if in time lapse, the narrator dozing off in front of his mother's coffin as the world moves around him, then suddenly the story slows down again for both the reader and the narrator, as he attends his mother's funeral procession in the scorching sun, the author lingering on every hot exhausting moment of it, until they bury the mother and the narrator goes home, the main events of the day rushed over and never dwelled on. It's a stream of consciousness, “the church and the villagers on the sidewalks, the red geraniums on the graves in the cemetery, Perez fainting, the blood red earth spilling over Maman’s casket, the white flesh roots mixed in with it, more people, voices, the village, waiting in front of a cafe, the in cessent drone of the motor, and my joy when the bus entered the nest of lights that was Algiers..." Many of the events in the narrator's life occur as such, the events of the day skimmed over and rushing into the incessant drine of a day and a life. Things that should be meaningful; his mother's burial, his time spent with Marie on the beach and in bed, his job, his time in prison, and even the murder of the arab (which occurs in a moment and is preceded by two pages of build up of him walking on the beach), are all rendered small and insignificant by allocating so little time to them, for both the reader and the narrator. The narrator perceives his own life as the reader does. When hours and days are breezed over he perceives them as such, unfocused and small. Time and what is allotted significance through it are meaningless to him, which falls in line with how existentialists believe that nothing have meaning that we down attribute to it ourselves. In the end, the time the narrator spends at his mother's funeral is no more significant or important than the time he spends at his work, and as such both are alloted the same amount of attention and meaning by both the novel and the narrator. The ceremony we give the passage of time is as meaningless and fabricated as the ceremony we give funerals or the ceremony we give the time spent with lovers. We see this most clearly in how the passage of time in prison is as accelerated as the passage of time of the narrator's life outside prison, life rendered down to small events and then ran over quickly in lieu if new events, showing how confined and meaningless the narrator's life was inside or outside prison. The narrator himself remarks on the meaninglessness of time, saying that in prison “the guard told me that I’d been in for five months, I believed it but I didn't understand it. For me it was one and the same unending day that was unfolding in my cell and
ReplyDeletethe same thing I was trying to do.” Time in this book is a simple stream of events, like time in a dream, one thing after another, each new event rendering the old one into the past and therefore meaningless, the mothers death rendered meaningless by the murder of the arab which in turn is rendered meaningless by the trial which is rendered meaningless by the execution, each major event given little word service as the next one comes and goes. The narrator perceives time and his own life as things passing by when looking out a car window, coming, here, gone, a blur of colors like a rushing stream, and while he can sometimes slow down and focus on a particular moment (the funeral procession and various conversations) it all just runs together into a monotonous stream and all that matters is not time or what is passing by, but his constant central place viewing it all and the final destination, death.
ReplyDeleteAuthors don’t write acts of sudden violence solely to create a conflict or climax. Instead, each act of violence has a deeper meaning, or leads to events that help explore the novel’s deeper themes. In the book The Stranger, author Albert Camus uses his protagonist’s act of violence to explore his personal existentialist perspective. Meursault’s murder of an innocent man on the beach and its consequences is used to show Meursault’s and Camus’ inner existentialist belief that life is deprived of actual meaning. Rather, society attaches meaning to everything, creating a world in which people live for no absolute reason, entrapped in their own absurd system.
ReplyDeleteMeursault’s murder of a man happens very suddenly at the end of the first part of the novel. Camus used this violent act to portray his thoughts on existentialism and his views of the world. At first, Camus has Meursault include seemingly simplistic remarks in his internal dialogue, such as “I realized you could either shoot or not shoot”. However, comments like these before the act of violence have deeper meaning, as they connect to the main theme of the novel. If it’s only humans that have attached meaning to all aspects of life, then everything man does is fundamentally meaningless. In this scene of violence, Camus wants to emphasize this point, explaining that “To stay or to go, it amounted to the same thing”. Even the act of dying is meaningless- its meaning is derived just from humans that have tried to make sense of death. Therefore, they have made it more than just a fundamental phase of life and biology, and instead made it one of the most emotional aspects of life. When killing a man, Meursault doesn’t place emotion in his crime either, as he knows this would make the murder even more meaningful or make others interpret it differently. Instead of killing in an act of rage, Meursault does so with complete apathy, much like he lives the rest of his life. He places the action of murder in the hands of the gun, describing his action simply as “squeez(ing) [his] hand around the revolver, the trigger gave”. Meursault detracts all meaning from his own action, simplifying it until it’s a meaningless, simple movement of a finger. Camus reveals key elements of existentialism in the few moments before and after Meursault’s act of violence. Through the overly simplistic writing style and Meursault’s inner dialogue, readers can connect Meursault’s apathy and nonchalance over killing someone to Camus’ ideas that every action essentially has very little meaning to it.
Camus also uses the act of violence to explore the consequences that arise. After killing the man, Meursault is brought to a prison where he awaits trial. Camus uses the jail itself as a symbol of the imprisonment of man within the man-created absurdity of society. By applying meaning to fundamentally meaningless things in life, man is imprisoned and never free to live life in an independent, carefree manner. The first thought of Meursault in prison is “of a free man...I would suddenly have the urge to be on a beach and walk down to the water”. Camus describes the incarceration of man in this way. As humans, we are unable to simply do what we want, because we are trapped within social standards, constructs, and “truths” we’re supposed to live by. As his lawyer describes, “everything is true and nothing is true”, alluding to the idea that nothing in life contains meaning and truth until society places meaning and truth upon it. Furthermore, after being told why verdicts that appeared “unfair” weren’t re-tried, Meursault realizes that, “looking at it objectively, it made perfect sense. Otherwise there would be too much pointless paperwork”. By looking at every aspect of life objectively, and by detracting all meaning, everything in life would seem absurd. The entire trial also reflects this, as time after time Meursault questions the relevance of his Maman’s death, as well as his own participation in his trial. These common court practices seem “normal” in trial, but when questioned, actually make little sense. The habits and conformities that society has ingrained with “arrogant certainty” when looked at objectively, and after shaving away all meaning we have placed on them, are utterly absurd.
ReplyDeleteBy using Meursault’s violent act as a foundation to explain an existentialist perspective, Camus explores society’s habit of internalization and placing weighted meaning on everyday occurrences. Through Meursault’s apathetic character and actions, Camus’ ideas are clearly revealed, creating a novel that explores the way in which we continue to function in society with such contorted systems and beliefs. Sosha
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat provides meaning in life, and what defines such meaning? In the novel, The Stranger, by Albert Camus, this question is deeply explored. Camus takes his readers on a journey through internal thought, and pondering of the concept existentialism. However, his novel serves true to Roland Barthes philosophy, as The Stranger provides many questions, but leaves space for many answers and interpretations. Camus’s approach to this question causes readers to explore their individual philosophies, and overall analyze standards that are set in the world today.
ReplyDeleteThe novel begins with the main character, Meursault, losing his mother. A loss such as this is seen as a horrible and sympathetic moment for most, however Meursault merely acts how he thinks that he is supposed to. He does not weep or morn, he does not ask himself why this happened or if he could have prevented it. In fact, Meursault’s first thought when he receives the message that his mother has died is, “Maybe it was yesterday.” The lack of attachment and devotion to the death of a mother is off-putting. At first, it even seems cruel. As the beginning of the novel continues though, Meursault becomes more and more wise with his actions. A thought, “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.” Again, the initial thought to such a statement seems inhumane or immoral. But this thought actually provokes the search for an answer to many questions. Is death too exaggerated, is this idea that life moves on after someone passes comforting? Camus introduces a new type of thought toward something as horrific as losing a loved one. Does it have to be so horrific, or can we, as humans, just move on?
The last chapter of The Stranger provides concrete evidence of Meursault’s beliefs on the world. Meursault has just been granted the appeal, and the chaplin comes in to talk to him for one last time about his attitude on religion and the meaning of life. Their conversation has to do with questions from the chaplin such as, “Do you really live with the thought that when you die, you die, and nothing remains?” and Meursault’s answer of “Yes.” Their conversation escalates with constant bugging from the chaplain, and Meursault ends up snapping and yelling things such as, “What did other people’s deaths or a mothers love matter to me?” At this point in the novel, subtle ideas from the beginning of the story are explained clearly. Meursault has the opinion that human death is relatively insignificant, and he does not understand why people think otherwise. Camus comes full circle in the ending of the novel, he alludes to answers of the question he poses in the beginning scenes of the novel such as what really matters, and why it does. He gives the example of Meursault, who does not attach meaning to emotions like most people do. This sparks the investigation of whether people truly think things are meaningful, or whether they are solely conditioned to believe so.
The development of the character Meursault and his beliefs of the world contribute to the questions Camus poses throughout this novel. There is room for internal thought on personal choices to be achieved throughout the story. Camus introduces disagreeable thoughts and circumstances in order to provoke discussion on society and how much of life is truly “meaningful”. This novel perfectly represents the ideology that "Literature is the question minus the answer" because of the exploration of the main character’s lifestyle, choices and thoughts.
Cat
Violence in society is seen as unjust and wrong. The people who are violent or show violent attributes are seen as abnormal and do not fit into society. If one is able to cause harm or kill we makes sense of it by declaring such people void of all sentiment or kindness. Violence is immoral, unless assigned a meaning justifying such as self defence because we want to convince ourselves that as a human race we innately believe all human lives are of equal value and meaning. The Stranger by Albert Camus is a novel riddled with violent characters and actions. Many of the violent acts witnessed alone by a narrator who seems to be fully unaffected by their brutality, confusing the reader as they try to place meaning and value on his actions that have none.
ReplyDeleteAll of the characters in The Stranger, aside from Marie who is given a somewhat angelic persona in the reader's mind due to the way Meursault sees her, have in some way or another a perverted view on violence, seeking to excuse it at every turn with some meaningless garb. Characters such as Raymond and the Police man defend their violence with titles such as boyfriend or police man. Raymond uses his title to defend abusing his girlfriend saying “I used to hit her, but sort of affectionately” as if his passionate love warrants violence. The Policeman when disrespected by Raymond ignores the fact that he was beating a woman simply to keep up his egoic power complex and make sense of someone not cowering beneath him, using violence to make Raymond “remember not to clown around with policemen”. The selfish interests of the Characters and their lack of understanding of their own actions is used by Camus to show what plagues the human race. We excuse violence because we are blinded by our own interests and powers. We are all Meursault's “[expecting nothing] at all” in order to avoid the argument of what is definitively moral action, something that does not involve circumstance or reason.
Further violence takes place at the beach between two Arabs, Raymond and Masson. Meursault says to himself, "To go or to stay, amount to the same thing." Filled with irony this sentence reveals that though it did not matter to Meursault at the time, this decision did change his life despite the meaninglessness he found within the moment. His decision based on physical desire and the extreme heat and horrible weather conditions makes the reader can almost sympathise with him as they try to make sense of such a sudden act of violence. As the reader seeks meaning in Meursault they feed into Camus’ idea of the human condition. The reality is that Meursault chose to go back to the beach. He chose to walk up to the Arab and kill him, even chose to continue to shoot the Arab four additional times. In the same way the Arab chose to stay at the beach and to grab his knife when he saw Meursault approaching. There is no rhyme or reason and life was lost despite the heat or instinct. Moral, as defined by Camus, would result in both men and the reader accepting the consequences of the actions without placing blame on circumstance or environment.
The novel begins with death as Mersualts "Mamma died" and ends with Meursaults presumed demise. The inbetween includes many bloody acts including abuse of an ex-girlfriend, a street fight, and a disagreement that ultimately climaxes with a murder on an Algerian beach. Camus's narration of violence reveals his characters attitudes and outlooks on life, death, and violence as well as his own. True morality lies without explanation. It begins and ends with action and consequence all at the will of the individual.
In the Novel The Stranger, by Albert Camus the main character Meursault commits actions that are both evil and immoral. However, due to his existentialist outlook the readers feel more sympathy for him. Throughout the work, Meursault shows his aptitude to not question his experience or the meaning of life, showing he is an extreme existentialist. He describes his life and actions in a very different way than the reader is used to, with no feeling. This is especially apparent regarding his views on life (and death), showing he has no grasp on why life is worth living. He is almost shown in a positive light, by quietly going along with the consequences his actions have. This creates sympathy for Meursault, by showing his absurd existentialism qualities.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the novel, Meursault describes his actions with almost no emotion or attachment. He solely focuses on his physical doings, not providing any deeper meaning or motive. This gives the reader insight to Meursault’s crazy thought process. One of the first examples of this is when Meursault is mourning his mother Instead of describing how he feels about the death of his mother, he chooses to share insignificant details such as the "black with pin-striped trousers", the workers are wearing. He continues this pattern by also taking time to comment on "walnut-stained planks" when holding his mother’s casket. By focusing on these small trivial details, he shys away from showing any emotion towards his mother’s death, proving he is an existentialist. His descriptions of his mother’s burial further show the lack of emotions Meursault has. He points out the "blood-red earth" used to bury her casket and the "white flesh of the roots" surrounding it. Showing no feeling at one of the hardest times in a person’s life throws the reader off guard, leaving them in wondernment and feeling sympathetic for Meursault. Another example of this is after he kills the Arab man. When being questioned, he talks about the subject with ease, commenting on the dead man’s "deep-set blue eyes", showing little care toward the severity of the crime he commited. He still manages to point out small details when meeting with his layer, describing his tie as "odd-looking" and "with broad black and white stripes", showing his boredom, carelessness, and displeasure with anything he faces in life.
Through his thoughtless actions, Meursault also shows he doesn't care about his life, anything, or anyone around him. This paints a picture of a very lonely life, and makes the reader feel bad for him. Even when faced with very pressing circumstances, Meursault continues his life as usual, because he believes he cannot change what is happening. This is again expressed surrounding the death of his mother. When his boss speculates on him taking off a Friday, he replies "It's not my fault" that his mother died. This continues to show Meursault truly has no emotion, even for family. When returning to work, he admits he did not even know his mother’s age, telling his boss she was "about sixty". This shows that he does not care or show concern for anything in life, because he cannot even remember his own mother’s age. He accepts the death of his mother just as he accepts and continues with everything else in his life. This emotional detachment frustrates many readers, but also creates sympathy for Meursault because of his peculiar way of thinking. Meursault also frustrates other characters, including his girlfriend Marie. When she proposes to Meursault, he does not show the emotion she thought he would, which upsets her. He agreed to marry her because it would make no difference to him, like everything else in his life. He tells her that it "didn't mean anything", and that he "probably didn't love her" This shows how little value Meursault truly holds on life; that even the smallest things such as love are not possible to him.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the novel, when Meursault is being punished for his actions, his true beliefs are revealed. He views his life as meaningless, because he knows he will die soon anyway. Unlike most people who are frightened by death, he is at complete peace with the knowledge that will will die eventually. In jail, he refuses visitors, mostly the chaplain of the jail. This is evident with his numerous refusals to be visited by the chaplain of the jail. After sending him away multiple times, Meursault says he didn't "have anything to say to him". This adds another aspect, religion, to the book. This shows he does not have any religious beliefs, but also furthers his carelessness on life in general. He follows the existentialist view that there is no meaning in life, much less a God. Meursault also believes that life really wasn't worth much. He say "everybody knows life isn't worth living", showing he has feelings of both worthlessness and nothingness, reflecting on his opinion of life, that there really was no point in it. By the end of the novel it is completely evident that Meursault believes that when a person dies doesn't matter; life continues and sooner or later they are forgotten.
Throughout Albert Camus's novel The Stranger, existentialism is highlighted through Meursault. His inability to feel emotions and portray them to others is displayed as in the entire novel. This very unconventional way of thinking causes the readers to pity Meursault, and ultimately feel sympathy for him despite his actions.
In The Stranger by Albert Camus, the reader is presented with a character, Meursault, who appears to care only about his own physical comfort and who does not seem to have many emotions. Through this character, Camus explores the theory of existentialism and the absurdity of life. There are several incidences of violence in the novel, from his neighbor Raymond abusing his girlfriend, to his other neighbor Salamano, beating his dog, but the most striking and surprising scene of violence in the book is when Meursault kills a man for no reason. The rest of the novel deals with the aftermath of this violent act, and consists of a trial in which they try to make meaning from the murder. Camus’ point is that there is no meaning to the murder, and he uses the murder and its trial to show the absurdity of applying meaning to something that has no meaning.
ReplyDeleteWhen Meursault kills the Arab, he does it randomly. He walks, sees the man, shoots him once, waits a few seconds, and then shoots him four more times. He does this without reason, without motivation. Even though it is directly written that there was no meaning for the murder, the reader still immediately begins searching for one. The reader wonders if it was in self defense, or if the sun made him crazy; anything to give the murder meaning and have it not be completely pointless. Camus uses this reaction of the reader to highlight his point of the novel; that people attach meaning to meaningless things, and that this is ridiculous. As the reader realizes the futility of trying to explain Meursault’s actions, they begin to understand existentialism and absurdism more. An existentialist would argue that everything is meaningless, and that one should not apply meaning to everything, and Camus uses this scene of murdering an Arab to convey this message.
After the murder, Meursault is brought to trial. At this trial, everyone tries to explain why Meursault murdered the Arab. Several things that in reality are not connected to the murder are brought in to help the persecution, such as the fact that Meursault was not upset at his mother’s death, and that he was not bothered by Raymond abusing his girlfriend nor by Salamano beating his dog. Logically, these things have no connection to the murder. However, the persecution gives these things meaning by saying that they show Meursault is heartless, and that he is an evil man. The persecution uses examples such as this to show that Meursault is a worse man than he actually is; he is painted as a completely immoral, remorseless person who wishes to cause destruction, when in reality, his simply does not believe any actions have meaning. By giving his previous experiences meaning, Meursault’s character is believed to be worse than Camus argues it actually is. The aftermath of Camus’ scene of violence in The Stranger is used by Camus to show that applying meaning to meaningless actions can distort reality.
In Camus’ novel The Stranger, the main character Meursault, murders an Arab without reason. Through this act or violence, Camus shows the reader the absurdity of life and how it is ridiculous to apply meaning to meaningless actions, such as the murder. He also uses the trial for the murder to show that applying fake meanings can distort the truth and alter the perception of reality.
The Stranger by Albert Camus reflects theories of existentialism. The main character, Meursault, is a complex and important character who on the basis of his actions alone is considered immoral. He represents the stranger and the outsider of the society.
ReplyDeleteThe novel cuts right to the point at the beginning. Meursault attends his mother’s funeral, where he does not shed any tears because he does not feel the need to. When a loved one passes away, a normal situation would be to cry for them as a way to mourn. Interestingly though, the society decides to push out anyone who does not follow the norms. At the vigil of his mother, it seems like the old people are there wasting their time because they do not appear to know what is happening. One old woman starts to cry, and Meursault finds it annoying. His reaction contradicts with the normal reaction. His motives are not evil or immoral here, but they are out of place. Camus challenges the readers to think in a different light. Meursault accepts the reality in a short time. It would be a disgrace to his mother if he cries when she is free. The society may interpret his actions as immoral.
Further actions taken by Meursault may appear absurd to the majority of the people. He starts seeing Marie after the funeral. At first glance, it can be said that he longs for sex. However, he compliments Maire’s smile and laugh multiple times. Meursault appreciates her presence and he is happy around her. He enjoys the sun and the ocean at the beach. He says what he thinks. His personality and ideals are shown as Marie asks to marry him. Meursault replies that it makes no difference to him. Marie asks if he loves her, he replies with the same answer. It indicates that he is a carefree on the surface. He does not know how to deal with his feelings in this case. Camus takes another jab at the society for creating a name for everything. The meaning of the word love is questioned. Loving a mother is not the same as loving a wife. From Meursault’s actions in this situation, they are not considered immoral. The society simply cannot understand the mind of Meursault.
The turning point of Meursault’s life is at the beach where he kills an Arab man for no specific reason. He cannot provide a solid explanation to the court. “It was because of the sun”, he says. Every murder is considered an evil act no matter who commits it. However, towards the end of the novel, the concern of the society is not on his act of murder, but it is the fact that he did not shed any tears at his mother’s funeral. Meursault is being condemned against for his moral views. His disbelief in God is an immoral act to the lawyer.
Meursault’s murder itself is an act of evil. However, the way the character is presented makes the readers react more sympathetically than they otherwise might. His lifestyle projects a meaningless life but his own desires and will remain. He accepts the reality and views situations in a different angle, in which he feels more freedom in death.
[1] Many literary pieces throughout history have played with the aspect of time as a means of setting up dynamics between characters and reinforcing themes. Viewing an event from a different time frame is analogous to understanding a situation from a varying perspective, and therefore chronological sequences in literature are often altered in order to enrich a work as a whole. Such manipulation can be best characterized by The Stranger, a grandiloquent and thought-provoking literary work by philosopher and writer Albert Camus, in which the very idea of time as a measure of existence is questioned through Camus’ phrasings, flow, and overall approach to storytelling. As a result, the reader is put through an experience in which he or she begins to doubt concepts that they would have seldom even thought of otherwise, and begins to grasp the general premise of existentialist thought.
ReplyDelete[2] A key instance of the distortion of time is the pace of the book, which is quite jagged in its ability to maintain flow. The six chapters of the book’s first half seem to progress rapidly; this could be attributed to the reader’s engrossment in the book due to Camus’ often-blunt writing style, as well as Camus’ seemingly over-simplified manner of describing events. The death of Maman, for instance, an event that would traditionally be met with sadness and negative emotion, and would be described in no less than a page, is conveyed by Camus by means of a simple, three-letter utterance: “Maman died today.” On the other hand, the narrator’s conversing with the funeral director, an occurrence that would be regarded as meaningless by the average individual, is honed in on to an uncomfortable extent. Many such instances of so-called ‘choppy writing,’ such as his chronicling of “[catching] the two o’clock bus” and that “it was very hot” are written in such a way that leaves the reader confused and wanting more, as are his ineffably short narration of Marie and the murder of the Arab, both worthy of sentiment. Camus’ inability to understand the nuances of human emotion and sympathy of others around him, represented by his astonishment that “everybody felt very sorry for [him]” following the death and burial of his mother, is also quite peculiar. However, these writing mannerisms only last for about sixty more pages or so, as Camus’ tone shifts notably in the second half of the book, which is far more slow-paced, almost to the point of being lethargic. In the second half, sentences are far longer, and descriptions are more detailed. Nevertheless, the nonchalance associated with Camus continues to linger, oddly pushing the boundaries of societal structure in such a way that the reader is both uneasy and intrigued at the same time.
ReplyDelete[3] In addition to Camus’ decision to prioritize certain events over others, his manner of commentary is also bizarre. On page 26, for example, he writes: “We arrived at Céleste’s dripping with sweat…” and continues: “He asked me if things were ‘all right now.’ I told him yes they were and said I was hungry.” At this point, the readers is unsure what to think. The state of mind and well-being of the narrator, something which would ideally constitute a relevant part of one’s life, is dismissed in a mere instant, whereas his declaration of hunger and subsequent description of the food he was given and his eating experience, together span nearly four lengthy sentences. Another instance follows not too far down the page, where he notes: “The sky was green; I felt good. But I went straight home because I wanted to boil myself some potatoes.” In grammar, the word ‘but’ is used to contradict something previously stated, however, the sentence following the ‘but’ in this case does not contradict the sentence preceding it. It is this twisting of writing conventions and blurred focus that causes The Stranger to read much more like a diary than like a story.
ReplyDelete[4] In literature, the format of stories are often very predictable. There is a clear introduction, rising action, climax, and falling action. Characters face conflicts, that are then solved. There is either a happy or a sad ending. However, The Stranger was a wonderful read, in that it strayed away from many of these stereotypes about literature. Rather than speaking to one’s mind, it spoke to one’s consciousness, and ended up proposing more questions than it answered. I nelementary school, students often learn that stories’ objectives are either to persuade, inform, or entertain. However, Camus’ Nobel Prize in Literature award for this book is entirely justified, as his venturing outside the genericness of monotonous storytelling has broken new barriers, proving that the greatest objective an author can have with his or her story is to kindle in him or her a desire to think.
ReplyDelete1979- In The Stranger by Albert Camus, Monsieur Meursault makes several morally questionable decisions. Not only does he kill someone, but he also falls asleep at his mother’s funeral and agrees to help his neighbor beat his girlfriend. However, because the reader sees these events from Meursault’s point of view, sympathy is gained for Meursault’s situation. Camus uses first person narration so that the reader can understand Meursault's thought process, and he uses the character of Marie to humanize Meursault as well as present him as capable of love. Through these techniques, Camus convinces the reader to somewhat overlook Meursault’s faults and sympathize with him when he is in prison and on death row. Despite his horrible and insensitive actions, the reader finds it hard to hope for Meursault’s death due to the connection they have formed with him.
ReplyDeleteThe narration provided by Monsieur Meursault is truly the backbone of The Stranger. The simplicity of his thoughts and the logical nature behind them allow the reader to follow his reasoning as he makes each of his decisions. For example, Meursault reasons that the death of his mother won’t have much of an effect on his life, since he did not see her much anymore. Even though Meursault seems to be lacking a long-term emotional connection with his mother, it makes sense that losing her wouldn’t have an effect on his daily life, since she was living in an elderly home. In addition, Camus makes sure to mention that Meursault thinks about his mother as he prepares to be executed. This simple thought reassures the reader that Meursault does have some sort of love and attachment to his mother, whether or not he recognizes it. Because Meursault is given the opportunity by Camus to express his opinion through the narration, the reader has a better understanding of why he seems so heartless and cold. The first- person narration gives a peek into the well-oiled machine of Meursault’s mind, which seems to be based solely on his needs and desires. Although this outlook onto the story does nothing to improve on Meursault’s lack of regard for others, it does allow the reader to side with Meursault, who represents a form of simple logic which is overcomplicated by society. With this idea, Camus includes the principles of existentialism and explains how life could really be simplified to the way Meursault thinks and believes if humans were to reject society and its influence on our personalities and mannerisms.
The first- person narration helps the reader gain a significant amount of understanding for Monsieur Meursault, but his actions are still difficult to justify as they increasingly get worse by the end of the novel. Just as Meursault’s lawyers search frantically for a way to make his seem relatable and innocent to the jury, the reader also tries to convince themselves that Meursault isn’t guilty. However, the murder that Meursault commits seriously discourages the reader from continuing to support him. One of the key pieces of evidence which helps the reader go back to sympathizing with Meursault is his relationship with Marie. She is one of the few people who Meursault thinks of fondly and wishes to spend time with. Even though he tells her that he doesn’t think he loves her, and refuses to label any of his feelings, the emotions he shares with the reader privately prove to them that he does love Marie. There is something very real about not knowing how to label a relationship which Camus uses to connect with the audience through Marie. In addition, since Marie expresses her love for Meursault, and continues to love him while he is in prison, the reader can see that they are not imagining Meursault’s redeemable qualities.
ReplyDeleteMonsieur Meursault in The Stranger creates an interesting moral dilemma for the reader. Camus’ usage of first - person narration allows the reader to both connect with and understand Meursault’s mind, and his incorporation of Meursault’s relationship with Marie convince the reader to sympathize with Meursault even when he commits a serious crime. Camus uses this moral dilemma to explore existentialism and how emotions and circumstances impact what should be simple situations.
Anna Vrountas
ReplyDeleteAlbert Camus’s “The Stranger” is a perfect parable of the beliefs of absurdism. The protagonist, Meursault, does not prescribe to societal structure or rules, believing that it does not truly matter where in society’s hierarchy he rests, and that this structure holds no meaning. This is the theory of absurdism. Through these beliefs, Meursault commits the greatest rebellion against society’s structure that there is-- killing another man without cause or reason. This is a rebellion that many if not all readers cannot support. Murder is seen as not only a violation of man-made laws, but a violation of morality. Yet through this murder, Camus calls us to question the extent of our man made rules. According to Camus, not only are our constitutions and governments man made, our moral beliefs are too. Through Meursault, Camus shows us that morality is not a pre-subscribed human attribute that we are born with. It is an invention of society. This does not mean that we should all become murderers, and that these man-made morals are wrong, but it does mean that we should realize that the extent of our human creations span farther than we may have previously imagined.
Meursault demonstrates a lack of interest in things that others care about as soon as we are introduced to him. He considers his mother’s death more of an unfortunate occurrence, and less the tragic, pivotal moment in his life that many others consider it to be. The first sentence of the book, and the first encounter we have with Meursault, is his statement “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know.” This represents a lack of interest in the ordeal, and an immediate sense of a disconnect between what we expect him to feel and how he actually feels. This disconnect continues when Marie asked him if he would marry her, and he replied that “it didn’t make any difference to [him]” and that “it didn’t really matter”. Meursault even goes so far as to reply simply “No” when Marie reminds him that marriage is a serious thing. It is clearly stated here that Meursault does not believe in the man-made institutions of life, such as marriage. He does not necessarily condemn it, since he does not oppose to going through with the marriage, but he does not consider it to have the weight and importance attached to it that Marie, and most readers, see.
(There is supposed to be a paragraph break with the sentence that starts with "Meursault demonstrates a lack of interest in things others care about)
DeleteAnna Vrountas cont.
DeleteThe institution of marriage can be condemned by reasonable, upstanding individuals, and one could argue that the indifference that Meursault showed at his mother’s funeral was--despite being odd and a little concerning--a coping mechanism, or simply just his manner of dealing with his sadness or grief. However, there is no way of avoiding the lack of morality that Meursault demonstrated when killing the Arab man on the beach. When considering whether he should pull the trigger or not, he acknowledges that “all [he] had to do was turn around and that would be the end of it”, yet he chooses to kill the man anyways. Here we see Meursault’s lack of interest in societal expectations extend into a realm where we as readers are not comfortable. To us, murder is a violation of human rights, not just a violation of a societal or legal expectation. We want Meursault to know within himself that choosing to kill the man would not be right. But Meursault hears no voice of morality within urging him to have mercy. By choosing to kill, Camus shows us his perspective that man made ideals are not just what we have written in law, but are also what we understand as morality. To Camus, morality is not a value we are born with. If this were the case, Meursault would have eventually felt remorse and the weight of his sins. Yet he does not have any regret, saying instead that “more than sorry [he] felt kind of annoyed” when he reflected on what he had done. Meursault shows us that his lack of interest with societal guidelines stretches far beyond what we generally consider to be man made ideals and into the realm of what we know to be right and wrong.
In “The Stranger”, Albert Camus challenges our definition of morality. While many of us may consider morality to be natural law that predates human societal rules and guidelines, Camus’s character Meursault does not subscribe to this. To Camus, and Meursault, morality is a man made concept. This is demonstrated through Meursault’s actions, especially in his murder of an Arab man for which he feels no remorse. This is a continuation of Meursault’s indifference towards human rules of conduct that we as readers do not condone. Through this, Camus’s argument rings clear that what we often consider to be human ethics are not always innate parts of human beings and are not natural truths to our society.
Literature is often employed by an author through which he or she can convey a specific message. Through the characters, plot, and setting of a prose, a writer can effectively establish or raise a question which is, more often than not, resolved by the conclusion of the work. In The Stranger, author Albert Camus challenges the way his audience perceives reality and the human condition through the tale of Meursault; an individual who acts and reacts to his environment amorally. Through the incorporation of existentialism in his work, Camus raises the question of whether or not humans should confine themselves to social constructs. As the novel progresses, Camus explores this inquiry and inevitably provides the reader with an answer.
ReplyDeleteCamus’ exploration of existentialism first arises when Meursault, the main character of the novel, is faced with the death of his mother. Instead of reacting with a plethora of negative emotions, Meursault remains indifferent to the passing of his mother. In this instance, Camus challenges the idea of emotion as a quintessential part of humanity. It would be inferred that he would experience feelings of anguish or despair, yet Meursault smokes and consumes coffee in front of her coffin, mocking her in a sense. While his indifference toward his mother may initially seem aberrant to the reader, Camus challenges the way in which he or she may see the world. In essence, the death of his mother has no direct effect on him or his condition. Retrospectively, it may even be perceived as childish or aimless to mourn the death of his mother. By presenting Meursault as if he is unaffected by his mother’s death, Camus challenges his audience and the way in which they perceive the human condition.
Throughout the novel, Camus continues to question his audience's perception of their environment. When Raymond, who is an acquaintance of Meursault, requests his assistance in getting revenge on his mistress who has cheated on him, he willingly agrees with little to no hesitation. Initially, it would seem immoral for Meursault to accept this request, but through this interaction Camus challenges his audience’s perception yet again. Meursault has no reason to not help Raymond, even though his request is morally unethical. He is helping him solely off the basis that he is a distant acquaintance and that the events that may unfold as a result of his assistance may be interesting. In Part 2 of the novel, Meursault is threatened by the brother of the mistress, and subsequently shoots and kills him. Although already dead from the fatal shot, his body is pierced by four more of Meursault’s bullets simply because he is agitated by the hot weather. This thought process may be initially deemed as sociopathic, but in retrospect, the four additional bullets Meursault fired were justified because he was bothered by the scorching weather. In essence, Meursault is acting with a disregard of social constructs and stigma and simply on his individual morality; albeit, his morals are established with a lack of empathy.
Throughout the novel, Camus challenges the way his viewers perceive the world through the actions of Meursault. The question of whether or not humans should confine themselves to social constructs is resolved at the end when the reader realizes that Meursault prioritized his personal gain rather than the morals entrenched by social constructs.
[1] Time is perhaps one of the most bizarre things humans have created, yet we live our lives by it. There is a time to get up, a time to go to school, a time to have a lunch, a time to do quite literally everything. Something we created to make our lives easier has inevitably structured the every day aspects of modern life, creating a world just perfectly timed out, but for what reason? Albert Camus’ The Stranger explores time, and timing, in a thoughtful and accurate manner, discussing how both major and minor events can shape one’s life, but the only guarantee is that one day we will all die.
ReplyDeleteThe opening of The Stranger is an abrupt confirmation that our main character’s mother has died. With this exposition, we see Meursault, the aforementioned main character, journey from this presumably pivotal moment into the rest of the novel. Once he learns of his mother’s passing he requests time off from work in order to go to the services for his mother. Although his mother’s death is certainly out of Meursault’s hands, he still feels the need to apologize because he realizes his boss probably thinks he is just trying to get a four day weekend. One would think that the tragedy would be so clear someone’s boss would not question the validity of it, however Meursault’s boss only truly believes him once Meursault comes back to work on the Monday in mourning attire. In this passage of events, Camus is commenting on the absurd amount of value we place on time, specifically when time is being equated to money and productivity. It should be no issue that someone would need to leave work for just two days to go to their parent’s funeral, however we have become a society which guilts people into believing honoring life is a bad thing. The irony here is that by the end of the novel Meursault would probably agree that going to a funeral is a waste of time because we’re all going to be in that coffin some day, the only thing we can give people is a period of less loneliness before they inevitably pass.
[2] After Meursault’s mother’s death, he reunites with an old flame, Marie. The timing of this is no short of predominant, especially once Meursault is on trial for murdering the man on the beach. When the two spend the weekend together, a day at the beach and eventually having sex, it could be interpreted in a multitude of ways; perhaps it was just random, maybe Meursault was in such shock that he could only be healed on physical levels, maybe he didn’t care about his mother’s passing at all, or maybe he simply just wanted to have sex with Marie. Regardless of intent, the prosecution uses this fact against him, trying to paint Meursault as a psychopathic monster, meanwhile Meursault is utterly convinced that his mother’s death and the subsequent events have nothing at all to do with his crime.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Meursault is in jail for his crime of murdering the man on the beach for a little over a year, yet this is the shortest section of the book. During his time incarcerated, Meursault recalls his mother telling him that people have the ability to adapt to a place and get used to it so long as they’re exposed to it long enough, and Meursault fully embraces this and eventually comes to the conclusion that being in jail isn’t so bad after all, and that we’re probably just as trapped outside of prison as we are inside. Although this section is of course sped up, the monotonous tone of Meursault’s conscious coinciding with the similar tone of the jail, this part of the novel feels just like the rest of the book, truly proving the theory of humans ability to make any place a home of sorts. When Meursault’s death sentence is finally promised, Meursault comes to the conclusion that nothing matters. All of his questioning, the “to be, or not to be”’s of the world mean absolutely nothing, because the only thing certain in this world is the life that has been lived and the death that is soon to come. Although Meursault settles on this thought rather easily, the quickness of it is contrasting to his thoughtfulness and over analyzation shown throughout the beginning of the novel. Were it not for these contradicting yet confirming aspects of time and Meursault’s perspective on life, the novel would probably not have as much weight and validity in telling the confusing manners of the way we live our lives and the probable triviality to it all.
1982 - Society is intrinsically drawn to binaries, male and female, black and white, and most poignantly good and evil. Albert Camus defies this way of thinking in his novel The Stranger, a work based off of the ideology of absurdism. The main character, Meursault, who lives his life without meaning, simply observing and never making choices based on morals. At the end of the first part of this novel the reader is confronted with an abrupt scene of violence, where Meursault shoots a man five times, motivated only by the sun’s rays on Meursault’s face. This act of bloodshed serves multiple purposes, it advances the plot and allows the reader to gain a deeper insight into the workings of Meursault's mind, while also spotlighting Camus’s absurdist philosophy.
ReplyDeleteAfter Meursault kills this man he is sent to jail, and put on trial for murdering an Arab man, which is only considered a misdemeanor. It is in jail and in the courtroom where Meursault first begins to go through a period of character development and insight. At first he is discontent in jail only because he missed physical sensations such as smoking and sex. He is not concerned with his fate, his freedom, or his free will. A reader is able to see what Meursault values in life, and how his attitude for life is self serving and cold. He cares only for his external feelings and physical sensations. Once he becomes used to jail not even these small grievances bother him anymore, he adjusts quickly to this new environment. He moves through life with no emotional attachments and no feelings that would prevent him from coming to terms with imprisonment. Meursault's life in prison has no more or less meaning than his life out of it. After his trial, where is condemned to death, Meursault finally begins to see his life as more than a day to day happenstance. When faced with death he has a realisation that death is the inevitability of life, and to die now is no different than dying later. This consciousness to the cruelty and workings of the world is a new level of observation for Meursault, who previously only focused on the immediate world that affected him.
Meursault’s realisation is a part of Camus’s beliefs about absurdism, a philosophy that puts forth the idea that life has no meaning and society attaches “absurd” purpose to life. Camus demonstrates this with Meursault’s fascination with a newspaper clipping he finds in jail, that details the story of a man in disguise being killed by his family because they did not recognize him. This is a direct link to the murder Meursault had committed, yet another meaningless death that never needed to happen and was committed with no true intent. Both acts of violence shed blood and light, showcasing that people die as they live, with no greater purpose than to exist at all. Another event that Meursault’s moment of violence induces is Meursault's eventual sentence to death, a life for a life. Yet Meursault was never meant to die this way, he committed merely a misdemeanor, it was his atheism and lack of remorse for his mother’s death which led him to being charged so harshly for his crime. The world is indifferent to Meursault, such as Meursault is indifferent to the world. His violence comes back to haunt him, but to Meursault it doesn't even matter in the end. He will die no matter what, for life is just a means to the end.
Camus uses the story of this man with a lack of regard for life or the world around him as a symbol for the grain of truth that all humans share; there is only one ending to life. As the reader experiences their personal discomfort when confronted with Meursault’s point of view, they are forced to examine how they view the world compared to this indifference. Camus uses the craft of narrative to philosophize on violence, perspective, morals, and life.
Those deemed evil by society are done so based off an unwritten set of rules that govern the way one is to think and act. Those that break these rules and engage in behavior society sees as unacceptable will often be labeled as evil or immoral without the opportunity to explain themselves or defend their actions. People jump to conclusions about these evil characters without taking the time to see things from their point of view. One such character is Meursault from The Strangers by Albert Camus. Meursault acts very differently than the average person. He does not express his emotions and does not believe in a higher power. Even though Meursault commits a senseless murder, the way he is mercilessly attacked in court about being different elicits a feeling of compassion from the reader.
ReplyDeleteWhen most people experience the loss of a loved one, they are in state of mourning and it often takes a great deal of time to come to terms with a loss. Meursault has a different approach to coping with loss. When his mother dies he carries on his life as if nothing had happened and shows no signs of sadness. Although there is nothing inherently wrong or illegal about this method of coping, it is not the typical reaction that one is supposed to have to a death and the family and Meursault is viewed as immoral. He is attacked viciously by a prosecutor in court tells Meursault that he is completely devoid of a soul. Even though Meursault did commit a murder, the way that those around him attack him for coping with death differently makes Meursault look like a hero while making the prosecutor look like the villain.
When Meursault is in jail in the final moments before he is executed he speaks to a preacher that tells him he must find God before he dies. The preacher is baffled when he learns that Meursault is an atheist because every other person on death row whom he spoke with found solace in religion. The preacher than villanizes and attacks Meursault for being different in his religious views than most people. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong or illegal about being an atheist, yet the preacher calls him a monster just for being different. The reader feels sympathy for Meursault in this moment because he does not back down the preacher’s assault and owns up to his being different. Those who do not adhere to social norms like Meursault should be listened to and have their opinions valued rather than being called evil. Calling a person like Meursault evil is just an excuse for not wanting to have to take their opinion into consideration or change an established system of beliefs or way of life.
In literature, there is often an “illuminating” incident that greatly impacts the mindset of the characters, the atmosphere of the situation, and therefore the outcome of the story. These incidents are used as a way for the author demonstrate the meaning of their work. In The Stranger, the illuminating incident occurs when Meursault shoots the Arab that leads to various consequences; this event functions as Albert Camus’ “casement” that opens onto the meaning of the work as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the novel, Camus presents the reader with a character, Meursault, who is unemotional and unaffected by what he encounters in his day-to-day life. Camus begins the novel with the death of Meursault’s mother and his prominent reaction of indifference to what would normally be considered a tragic, life-changing event. During the funeral, Meursault is unaffected by the emotions of others attending as his mother’s death does not matter to him; the beginning of the novel introduces Meursault’s character through his point of view and the way he responds to life with such little feeling. Camus sets up the tone of the story and hints at Meursault’s eventual realization that aspects of life are only meaningful because humans have attached meaning to them; the sudden murder of the Arab is the critical point in the story as it contrasts greatly with the events that take place in the beginning of the story and is what allows Camus to demonstrate his theory of life’s absurdity and existentialism.
Camus has Meursault make small remarks about obscure details of what goes on in his life in order to illustrate his inner belief in existentialism. For instance, at many points in the novel, Meursault comments on the nature around him such as “the hum in the sky before night engulfs the port” or how “the sun was getting low outside and it wasn’t as hot anymore.” Small remarks such as these are present both before and after Meursault shoots the Arab further highlighting Camus’ belief that actions are mostly meaningless as Meursault is not really affected by what he has done. This illuminating moment in the novel is what allows Camus to express his belief in existentialism through the experience Meursault has in prison and during his trial. As soon as Meursault’s “only thoughts were those of a prisoner,” Camus shows that human existence has no rational order or meaning and because people cannot recognize this, they continuously attempt to create meaning in their lives.
In The Stranger, once Meursault suddenly shot the Arab halfway through the novel, this created a window that opened onto Camus’ meaning. Earlier in the novel, Meursault is passively content with his life as he is exposed to the reality of human existence. However, once he shoots the Arab, he is exposed to a more tangible understanding of life due to his experiences with the prison system and with the people who attach meaning to every one of his meaningless actions. In addition, Meursault’s observations of nature, as well as the fact that he states that he shot the Arab “because of the sun,” further to highlight his ultimate acceptance of life’s absurdity and realization that the universe’s indifference to human activity mimics his own mindset.
In the novel “The Stranger”, Albert Camus uses the death of two protagonists as “illuminating” moments that act as a “casement” to explore the philosophies of absurdism and existentialism and to deepen the meaning of the work. These deaths and their consequences allow the reader to follow Meursault's shifting perceptions on life’s meaning and witness his revelation. They also give Camus an opportunity to delve into the theory that the universe is meaningless and irrational, and that the search for a purpose brings conflict, proving his belief that the importance of individuals’ lives can only be determined by their morality and the inevitability of death.
ReplyDeleteCamus begins the novel with the passing of Meursault’s mother to which the character reacts with complete indifference due to the fact that it “doesn’t mean anything”. Soon after, his neighbor’s dog dies and that causes him to subconsciously think of his mother, but he remains unconcerned and decides to go to sleep. Meursault places no significance on either of these deaths and accepts them both as natural parts of life, continuing his daily routine and showing none of the expected grief emotions. Detached from his feelings, he is indifferent to anything that happens to him and around him, acting nonchalantly. The absurdity of his emotional vacance on serious events, such as death, is used by Camus to question the meaning of life.
(1/2)
ReplyDeleteIt is only when Meursault was on the beach with his neighbor Raymond, when he gets in a dispute with two Arabs, that he has a breakthrough moment. He starts contemplating the insignificance of his actions, and all actions. When he is pointing a gun towards one of the Arabs, he “realizes you could either shoot or not shoot… and it amounted to the same thing”. Meursault realizes that not only does he not care about anything, but the universe itself does not care either. The unimportance of human existence as a whole is made clear when he recognizes that the loss of a life would have no effect on the universe. Then, he continues and explains, “the Arab drew his knife and held it out towards me in the sun... All I could feel were the cymbals the sun was clashing against my forehead” drawing a parallel to the previous two deaths. Regardless whether he is in danger, he is still only concerned about his tranquility being disturbed by the Arab and the sun. In this serious situation, he is disregarding the gravity of his own death, the same way he overlooked the past two deaths. As a response to his discomfort, he continues to describe how he, “tightened my grip on the gun. The trigger gave… I realized that I'd destroyed the balance of the day and the perfect silence of this beach where I'd been happy”. Camus uses this to demonstrate the ideas of existentialism. In his thoughtless actions, Meursault abandoned all sense of morality and disregarded religion and any possibility of an afterlife, as he refused to consider any deeper purpose or meaning in human’s actions and existence.
Even after the murder, Meursault remains emotionless. Faced with the death sentence, he realizes even more the depth of the theory of absurdity of life. Meursault's developing consciousness throughout the events, exposes how facing the possibility of death can have an effect on one's perception of life. In the morning of his execution, he wakes up calm and clear as he has accepted and come to terms with the universe’s indifference. In fact, he feels "sure about himself, about everything… and sure of the death he has waiting for him." He accepts it, as it is going to come sooner or later. He recognizes that his death is no different from the death of those that have passed before him and that at the end of the day, everyone is equal due to the fact death is the final moment for all of us. He is now aware of the meaninglessness of all struggles in the face of death and no longer has hope or ambition to follow society. The novel ends with him describing, “As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again”. At the end, Meursault accepts fully the absurd idea that the universe is irrational and human life totally meaningless. He also realizes that the universe’s indifference to human affairs echoes his own personal indifference, and the similarity evokes in him a feeling of companionship that leads him to label the world as “a brother.”
(2/2)
Many novels use cruelty to help convey an important message. In Albert Camus The Stranger, the theme of cruelty reveals the absurd complexity that the world has created around life.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the novel, Meursault responded to many situations in a very straightforward, simple way. He was not emotionally engaged in anything and was indifferent to almost everything. At times when expected to respond sympathetically Meursault would speak his mind. When Marie asked him about their relationship, he said that “it didn’t matter to him” (41). Though Meursault was just speaking his thoughts, the situation makes his remarks look cruel. Readers would expect to him to respond affectionately regardless of how he felt. His cruelty comes off to be very unusual and out of place because unconsciously society has placed an expectation on conversations involving love. There is a universal understanding that emotions are a fragile idea that must be dealt with great care. This understanding is an absurdity that many of us ignore. Meursault’s cruelty helps the reader recognize how opinions have been associated with unnecessary ideas, creating a complex boundary which most are forced to live within.
Similarly, when Meursault was arrested for his crime he showed no remorse. The audience would expect Meursault to express some form of fear, guilt or regret, however Meursault had no response. He did not have a reason to murder and all he could remember was “the red sand” and “the burning of the sun”. Meursault can only recall the physical details of the event and cannot associate emotions to the scenario.The reader is now left with no possible explanation for the murder, making the situation incomprehensible. Meursault then realizes that there is “no way out” (81). This suggests that life always ends with the inevitable death. This connection with death and the murder suggests that the murder had no reason, and that it was the inevitable end. With no complex reason to explain the murder, the reader can easily understand that death, which is a common idea, has been bounded to irrelevant details. This idea reflects Camus’s philosophy of existentialism, specifically the idea that human existence is simple.
Humans tend to cling to ideas and connect them with intangible ideas.
Meursault has a simple character that ignores the absurd details of life can be considered evil or immoral. He is cruel in respect to intangible themes and doesn’t find any significance in it. Meursault’s view contradicts the society’s view, which is an important idea that Camus conveys through the cruelty. He also helps the reader realize that there is a complexity in life that doesn’t need to exist. Meursault’s cruelty is essential in evoking a realisation in the audience in respect to the simple philosophy of life.
Kaby
1979- In works of literature, authors can use their characters to make a statement against conventions of society and our perceptions. In The Stranger by Albert Camus, because of the first person narration, the uniqueness of his personality, and our ability to see so deeply into his mind, we as readers get a completely different impression of Mersault than his fellow characters do. First, due to the first person narration, everything we see is through his lens, because of his honesty and impartiality, as readers we get to see his actual impressions. Also, as readers we do not condemn him as easily as his counterparts because we undertsand him soully through his blatant personality. Lastly, our ability to read his true thoughts and emotions allow for us to react more sympathetically than we otherwise might because we become involved and attacted to his character because of the familiarity that our direct connection to his thoughts creates.
ReplyDeleteThe first person narration, allows us to see everything through his lens, and we see that he percieves things without a bias. Being able to see things through his interpretive lens, gives the reader the impression that he truly does not see things with a bias and a motive. He is matter of fact about his thoughts and feelings and we see that he actually is not malicious and premeditated about anything. His fellow characters do not have the ability to see things as we seen them and this causes them to feel as though he is an insensitive sociopath. He did kill man with seemlingly no reason, but we actually see the thoughts leading up to it and we know that he really didn’t mean to kill him and it was not a malicioius act. He is insensitive, but first person style makes it seem as though the character is talking to the reader directly which leaves them feeling closer and in more of an understanding with the narrator. I feel that this style of writing allows for a connection between the reader and the narrator that makes the reader more biased towards the goodness in the narrator. We become accustomed to his lack in emotions towards getting married to Marie, or his mother dying, or his killing of the man on the beach. All of these instances from an outside perspective seem peculiar and concerning, yet as a reader we feel a sense of sympathy towards Mersault simply because he is the character we know the best.
Also, as readers we do not condemn him as easily as his counterparts because we undertsand him souly through his blatant personality. This uniqueness is what initially draws the reader in. The story begins as he is going through the motions of his mothers funeral and death, and we normalize his reactions because as more and more things happen, we already know how he will react and behave and we are no longer suprised. It only adds to the understanding of his personality when he does not respond to Marie’s idea of getting married, with any excitement or emotion.
Lastly, our ability to read his true thoughts and emotions allow for us to react more sympathetically than we otherwise might because we become involved and attacted to his character because of the familiarity that our direct connection to his thoughts creates. Since we can see the thought process behind his every moment and life choice, we percieve it much differently than his fellow characters. When the other characters see an insensitive, calculating and plotting, we see a truly honest and nuertal person. When Mersault is on trial, the prosecution paints Mersault in a light that makes him seem like he is a sociopath and lacks any meaningful attachments that make him not care about other people, and even Mersault reliezes that this is not going well for him. But our ability to see his thoughts allows us to understand him fully, emphasizing that we truly to not know anyone just from their actions, because things can be lost in translation.
ReplyDeleteIn The Stranger by Albert Camus the character Meursault does several immoral things that in the reader's eye would cause him to be an evil character if it weren't for the techniques Camus uses to make the readers instead sympathize with him. In the beginning of the novel we learn that Meursault has just lost his mother and his heading towards her funeral. The death of loved one forces an emotional response form the reader and we automatically sympathize and feel bad for Meursault. Even before we know his personality we have already connected the feelings of sympathy with Meursault which will be hard to shake no matter what he does later in the book. Throughout the book readers also become introduced to Mersualts extreme existentialism and indifferent outlook and attitude. Besides making readers slightly uncomfortable it also drains more sympathy as we believed anyone with such a seemingly negative outlook is worthy of our compassion. However the technique most effectives is the first person narrative Camus uses for the duration of the book. By hearing exactly what Meursault is thinking and reading it from his point of view allows us to better connect with him on a emotional level.
At the beginning of the novel we are introduced with Meursault traveling to his mother's funeral. He is recalling when he asked for time off from his boss due to this and his boss responded almost angrily instead of sympathetic. At this point readers feel bad that one Meursault's mother died and two his boss isn’t understanding. “I asked my boss for two days off.. He wasn't too happy about it. I even said “It not my fault” He didn't say anything” It was upsetting to hear that Meursault's boss didn't even apologize for his loss and we could predict Meursault's work life probably isn't the most enjoyable. The first person narrative also comes into play here furthering the sympathy. By hearing his recollection of his moms funeral in his own point of view and voice helps readers make a connection. Even though his indifferent attitude is obvious we feel more compassionate knowing how hard it may be to lose a over one, though he is not showing it. He furthers shows his indifferent and existentialist attitude during his interactions with Marie especially when she asks him if he loves her. “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 is shocking to readers to hear and we realize even when he is talking to MAaire about marriage it seems more about convenience than any emotional feelings he may have. In this moment I felt bad for Meursault because of his seemingly incapability to fall in love.
The first immoral act we are met with is when Meursault decides to write a letter to Raymond's mistress to woo her back so that Raymond can then have sex with her and then beat her. Meursault is knowingly putting the safety of a women in danger which by itself would be infuriating but accompanied by his extreme existentialism the readers feelings of anger are numbed. For example when Mersulat says “I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world” It completely sums up his feelings toward everything and everyone. We can assume that Meursault doesn't care whether he writes the letter or not and has no moral obligation to do or not to do it. He does simply because he is there and why not. Reader feelings of initial anger are soothed because we realize that Meursault is doing this not because he hopes to hurt Raymond’s mistress and has no feelings of violence behind his decision. Similarly one of the most immoral acts in the book is when Meursault kills the Arab. Of course murer is extremely evil and immoral but we know that Merualt didnt do I out of a place of malice. It was also interesting to see that every choice Meursault had made led up to him killing the Arab furthering tiening in the theme existentialism. It was refreshing to see that Meesult owned up to his action and didn't sugar coat it at all but readers ill felt bad when he was sentenced to death for something that wasn't premeditated. By ending the story with the death penalty Camus forced one last feeling of sympathy from the readers a man that some could argue wasn't guilty was given the worst punishment of all.
ReplyDeleteOverall looking at Meursault from a more analytical standpoint basing his just off his actions he is no doubt an immoral character but paired with his existentialism and the first person narrative of the story readers are compelled to feel more sympathy.
Alex Goldberg
ReplyDeleteAP Lit/Mr. Pellerin
5/3/2018
The Stranger Q3
One can justify almost anything--as long as someone else is not responsible. Behaviours that in other people would seem unacceptable or downright evil can be excused in oneself easily; one always has his or her own reasoning, and a benefit to oneself can cause even the most despicable acts to seem appropriate. In Albert Camus’s The Stranger, the narrator Meursault, despite his cold-blooded killing, apparent indifference to his mother’s death, and compulsive antisociality, appears a pleasant, even likable narrator; by never examining the morality or ethics of any of his actions, they feel neutral to the reader, events as inconsequential as Meursault’s swims and trysts. In Albert Camus’s The Stranger, Meursault, despite his antisocial behaviours, appears sympathetic to the reader due to Camus’ use of a first person narrative and lack of examination of the consequences of Meursault’s actions.
Camus’s use of a first person narrative results in the reader hearing Meursault’s justification for all his actions, making them more palatable even when Meursault is clearly in the wrong. Meursault is accused of being heartless for his indifference to his mother’s death; however, from reading his telling of the experience, Meursault is in deep discomfort due to the sun and heat, internally seeming as distressed as Perez, who is held up as a paragon of virtuous grief. From Meursault’s inner perspective, his indifference to his mother’s death becomes justified through his inner turmoil. Similarly, the killing of the Arab is the second act that prompts the magistrate to compare Meursault to Satan, especially his apparent premeditation of the murder. However, from Meursault’s narrative, no such forethought is evident. Meursault appears to be in almost a fugue state, not in control of his own body despite thinking clearly on his options when faced by the armed Arab. Meursault’s feeling of the oppressive environment forcing him to act irrationally, while an unacceptable and unprovable statement in court, due to his first person narrative, makes his actions if not supportable at least palatable to the reader. Thus, Camus’s use of a first person narrative functions to make Meursault’s actions more acceptable to the reader.
Camus’s concise, pared-down writing style also helps the reader sympathize with Meursault. Camus, through very little examination of situations besides the facts, presents no justification for Meursault’s sins: instead, the reader is left to assume his or her own justification for Meursault, allowing one to sympathize with him more. Meursault attempts to offer no reasoning for his lying to support Raymond when asked: he removes agency from himself through his lack of internal conflict, simply doing as he is told by Raymond. Camus’s bare writing style emphasizes Meursault’s lack of thinking, stating only the facts of the situation, and thus allowing the reader to more easily sympathize with Meursault. Meursault practically becomes an observer in his own life, recounting events play-by-play without any insight into the internal machinations of his mind, whether good or evil. Thus, Camus, through his literal and concise writing style, makes Meursault into a more sympathetic character as the reader is forced to come up with his or her internal monologue for Meursault’s thoughts.
Thus, Camus, through use of a first person narrative and a pared-down writing style makes Meursault, arguably a morally bankrupt sociopath, into a sympathetic narrator. Just as one can excuse any of one’s own actions with minimal remorse, Meursault’s senseless lying, killing, and indifference suddenly becomes palatable when it is presented from a first-person and pithy narrative.
1982 There lies a certain curiosity in the way a person’s mind can race at any sudden moment. One moment, they’re thinking and processing one thing, the next they’re drowning in torturous thoughts, ranging from the heat of the sun to universal condemnation. In The Stranger, by Albert Camus, the main character, Mersault, acts violently in two distinct scenes. In the first, he shoots a man by the beach without motive or prompting. In the second, he verbally and physically assaulted the prison chaplain who visits him. While the former scene involved murder, it was not aggressive, and the latter clearly was, but both scenes affect the plot sequence, character development, and relationship with the reader.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning of the novel, the reader is stunned by Mersault’s indifference to important moments, such as his mother’s death and Marie’s declaration of love, but they try to comprehend his mind by putting themselves in his shoes. There are moments of shy steps forward, when Mersault describes his attention to light and temperature and desires. As a reader, one slowly begins to think one understands the main character because of simple things that one hasn’t previously considered but can see meaning in, such as the simplicity of actions and setting, like “tumbling in the waves” of the ocean or a “countryside flooded with sunlight.” The moment Mersault shoots the Arab man, the reader loses all sense of understanding that they thought was there. Camus used this scene as an opportunity to disconnect the reader from Mersault. He severs any ties that the reader was creating because he doesn’t want the reader to continue thinking they understand the concept of existentialism and absurdism when all they’ve done is compile minute, mundane pieces of the narrative to find a relation. Camus understands that it is a reader’s instinct to pick apart an author’s writing if they don’t immediately understand or relate because they need to feel secure. He took it upon himself to withdraw that translucent mirror in which the reader looked and saw Mersault.
The second scene of violence consists of the chaplain disregarding Mersault’s wishes to not receive his visit due to his disbelief and distaste for the idea of God. He condemns Mersault for denying God’s existence by claiming he was experiencing “extreme despair” and his “heart is blind.” The chaplain’s comment on Mersault causes him to “snap... yell... and grab him by the collar.” Herein lies the honesty of the human brain, capable of “snapping” into a state of rage in a split second. Following the initial outburst, the reader experiences an unexpected sympathy for Mersault as he describes the endless pain, confusion, and distress he feels. His realization that the only certainty he has in life is that death will follow creates a strong connection between him and the reader because it is an idea that all human beings must accept, and the reader knows that. His acknowledgement of the idea that “nothing matters,” not even “a mother’s love, the worth of a friend, or the lips of a woman” is specific to him but applicable to the reader.
The reader spends the majority of the novel struggling to understand Mersault’s character and outlook on life, but his demonstration of evident anguish as he “pours out cries of anger and joy” prompts the reader’s empathy because one finally understands who this stranger is. The meaning of The Stranger is to make the reader feel averse to the controversial, depressing indifference within existentialism but subconsciously invite them to realize the truth of the theory. Camus would not have been able to succeed in this without the inclusion of Mersault’s two scenes of violence.
1979.
ReplyDeleteWho are we to say what is evil and what is just? Since the beginning of time, as a society we have been told what is right and what is wrong. These ideals were formed to be a social construct in which we are able to conduct ourselves “properly”. However rigid these beliefs may be, someone can commit an evil act but not be evil. This is the same for a bad person who does something good for a change. They are not necessarily a decent human being after this. In his novel, “The Stranger”, Albert Camus writes about the life of Meursault through an existentialist lense. His reaction to the death of his mother and the ruthless murder he commits all correlate with his habit of living his life with his own free will. This type of life that Meursault leads is what influences his community to deem him as an evil person. Was Meursault an evil person who did not show remorse for anything, or was he just a person living his life according to his own ruleset? This question is posed to us by Camus to examine ourselves and our personal beliefs of what is good and what is evil.
Our society has created a certain standard for people who lose a loved one. You are required to be in mourning for a significant amount of time and are supposed to cry. Meursault’s reaction to his mother’s death is one of the reasons that he is deemed immoral by his community. His reaction is one without feeling and he carries on with his life as nothing has happened. While this is not “illegal” it is not the way that Meursault is supposed to act. His lack of tears, and his action of coffee drinking and cigarette smoking over his mother's dead body, aides the jury in their conclusion of his guilt. He is convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. However, he is not sentenced for the murder but rather he is sentenced for his moral disease. He is considered an evil and immoral being for not believing in God and for not loving his mother.
Even in his last moments of his life Meursault denies himself to feel anything- no fear, no sadness, nothing. The Chaplin of the prison attempts to get Meursault to believe in something other than himself, preferably God. When the Chaplin finds out that he is an atheist, even in his weakest moment, he deems Meursault an evil heathen. Meursault then becomes the object of the Chaplin’s rage because their ideas differ. The reader sympathizes with Meursault even though we may disagree with him. He is attacked for everything he does because it is not society’s norm. The Chaplin assaults him and calls him “evil” simply because Meursault disagrees with him. The reason that Meursault is outcasted as evil and immoral is because his community does not understand him and they will never try to. People generally dismiss things that they do not understand and Meursault’s life is no exception to this.
Colleen
2015 Prompt
ReplyDeleteIn the English language, there are few words with as markedly negative of a perception as the word “cruelty”. It is a word often reserved for only the most ruthless and is meant to convey absolute evil. Yet, its literal definition can be somewhat ambiguous. Supposedly, it is synopsized with the lack of compassion, but that lack can also be a product of simply not caring- a condition that we have since characterized as a mental illness under the pressuring name Schizoid Personality Disorder. In his novel Stranger, Albert Camus explores just this contrast through his protagonist Meursault, a man devoid of any cruel thoughts- or any other complex thoughts in general- but willing to commit some undoubtedly cruel things, and through it raises the question of what evil really is.
Camus beings hint at how Meursault is not the average man in terms of his emotional capacity from the very first paragraph when he coins Meursault’s response to his mother dying as, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from home… That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.” Even though Camus is writing in the first person- a style that usually leads readers sympathize and identify with the protagonist early on in the story- one can immediately pick up that something is not right about Meursault. His just heard that his mother died, he should be absorbed in shock and grief while recounting old memories of his mother. Instead he seems neutral, almost indifferent to that fact that the person who raised him and who he should have incredibly tight bonds with just died. His reaction immediately makes the reader associate Meursault- just as Camus intended- as cruel. It is a perception that Camus works to maintain and exaggerate throughout the rest of Part I as Meursault agrees to help his neighbor Raymond get in contact with his mistress so Raymond could beat her because he “did not have any reason” to argue against him and later in his murder of the mistress’ brother. As Camus seeks to portray, these are all “cruel” actions that are strongly looked upon in our society.
However, one’s actions are not the sole indicator of their personality, their thoughts are important as well. And in the case of Meursault, his thoughts are utterly devoid of cruelty. Even during his most “cruel” moment when he murders the Arab, there is nothing cruel in what he was thinking, “I fired the bullet four more times at the motionless body where the bullets lodged without leaving a trace. And it was like knocking four times on the door of unhappiness.” This is also when it becomes evident why Camus chose to narrate in the first person. Meursault never wanted to kill the Arab. He feels no hate for him and describes his shooting him as “unhappiness”; his only motivation was the fact that the sun was particularly bright that day. Yet what he still did was wrong. It is an ironic juxtaposition that leads the reader to question what should really be identified as right or wrong. Do beliefs really matter if they go against action? Should emotion be associated with personality? What does being cruel really mean? By posing such existential questions as this, Camus dives into a breadth of different ideas questioning traditional moral bounds and leaving his reader with much to think about even after the novel is finished.