From The Stranger: The Graphic Novel (2016) by Albert Camus, Illustrated by Jacques Ferrandez.
Overview and Directions: Please finish reading The Stranger by Albert Camus. As you read, take note of significant moments in your journal. When you complete reading the novel, take time to reflect. Then choose one of the following prompts from past A.P. Exams (see blow). Each one of the chosen prompts had The Stranger listed in the choices below the prompt. These are perfect matches. Compose a blog response using one of the prompts below as a guide in your writing. Think of it as a practice essay. See what you can do in 40 minutes. I look forward to your responses.
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.
One aspect of reading literature that is universal amongst most texts is the desire to relate to one of the characters. In Albert Camus The Stranger, the character that the entire piece revolves around is Meursault. Meursault is an interesting character due to how his actions and behavior seem extremely unhuman like. This deviation from social normalities dictates how he is viewed in the book. Meursault is viewed as inhuman and even the antichrist during his trial for the murder of the Arab. Despite the overwhelming reasons to shun and disliked Meursault, by the end of the text the reader almost becomes understanding of his thought process. The reader becomes sympathetic to Meursault and the way he views life.
ReplyDeleteFor the majority of the novel, especially the beginning, the reader is in awe at how indifferent Meursault is to major life events. At his mother’s funeral he shows no emotion and is rather curious about the cremation process. This reaction of bewilderment towards Meursaults’ lack of emotion at his mother’s funeral is felt by Marie. When Meursault casually mentions how his mother had died just recently, Marie takes a moment of pause as to how peculiar it was for someone to lose their mother and the next day act indifferent - having sex, swimming, smoking cigars, laughing, and drinking. This behavior of Meursault that deems him immoral is exemplified during his trial for the murder of the Arab. During his trial, he is asked questions regarding his mother's death to get a moral compass that can be assessed by the judge. The testimonies of him being indifferent to his mother's death deem him as a threat to society because he appears to have no emotions. Even religion becomes a key aspect of the text as his atheism further brings doubt as to him being fit as a member of society. The magistrate deems his lack of faith and the way he handled the death of his mother makes him a threat to society due to his attitude on those matters. Meursault even looks at his imprisonment rationally with him being pleased with his free time. Up until this point it seems that his immorality is justified due to how he lacks all the qualities of what makes a human human. However, right before he dies he reaches a thought that can be considered to be a moment of enlightenment for Meursault. He deems the execution as just an ordinary event, analyzing how it forces the victim to want the execution to work oracle it would result in more pain if messed up. He realizes that there is no way out of a life that will inevitably lead to death. He then starts to view his death as a way out - a sort of freedom. At this point, I think the reader can feel sympathetic towards Meursault in the sense that he himself didn't do anything wrong in shooting the Arab. He obviously should not have been charged with premeditated murder. Due to the court, which Camu represents as a society, not being able to see how being indifferent is acceptable - they sentence him to death.
As graduation approaches and a major switch looms, many high school seniors are looking back at their lives thus far. When comparing pictures of then vs now, the difference is obvious, yet this change was measured and incremental. That terrible haircut eventually grew out and those friends have slowly drifted away. Nearing is an “illuminating incident,” making realizations like a newfound love of home and childhood friends rise to the surface. In the same way the change of leaving high school is bringing about these realizations, the illuminating incident of Mersault’s murder of the Arab reveals the beauty of life and the perils of being an Atheist.
ReplyDeleteBefore Meursault’s imprisonment, his perspective on life was frustratingly unsentimental. He has very little emotional attachment to anything that brings most immense joy or pain. He explained this to Marie, explaining, “But when I had to give up my studies I learned very quickly that none of it mattered.”
Not only is this apathetic, it appears pessimistic: his life appears full of love, what is the harm of appreciating this? This same sentiment is expressed again when he repeatedly complains about the weather at a seemingly beautiful beach day: “I gritted my teeth, clenched my fists in my trouser pockets, and strained every nerve in order to overcome the sun and the thick drunkenness it was spilling over me.” However, right away after the gun shots go off, Meursault looks at the beach and the day much more favorably. He quickly admits to himself, “I knew that I had shattered the harmony of the day, the exceptional silence of a beach where I'd been happy.” Although not cheery before the incident, he admits his contentment only as it falls away. When offered a promotion in a new city, he replies with complete indifference. By contrast, as he awaits his fate in his jail cell he is mesmerized by “all the familiar sounds of a town I loved and of a certain time of day when I used to feel happy. The cries of the newspaper vendors in the already languid air, the last few birds in the square, the shouts of the sandwich sellers...” The murder, the sudden loss of an expected freedom ignites something in Meursault, an acklowlegement of the surrounding beauty. However, he is still not over sentimental. This reveals that appreciation does not have to fall victim to frivolity, that one can keep their wits about them while treasuring their surroundings. Can this feeling happen without the threat of losing it?
People of different faiths rarely talk about religion, and that is understandable. They risk getting to the scary part, what happens after death. It is entirely more comfortable to keep with one's own belief. Death is scary, people rightfully do not want to face the possibility of endless nothingness. However, impending death pokes a hole in this plan. The chaplain comes to Meursault’s cell and begins to talk of God. When Meursault remains unconvinced, he exclaims, "Every man I have known in your position has turned to Him." By turning to God, Meursault could elevate the guilt felt by the chaplain about the execution. When Meursault holds to his views, the chaplain reveals the dangerous question: “And then the same question will arise. How will you face that terrifying ordeal?” There is no avoiding this bone-chilling question. The impending execution brings this question to the immediate attention of the characters like it rarely is, but this unanswerable question is constantly swirling in the minds of atheists. It is the essential question of humanity. The murder of the Arab and the subsequent sentencing illuminates this deepest of ponderings.
Part two (it wouldn't fit in the same post): The illumination incident of the shots fired at the Arab, reveal the quiet appreciation of life as well as the frightening fleetingness of it. As high schoolers graduate, they race towards a possible “illuminating incident.” Never before has a change in life been so sudden, so pronounced. While this means an end to the gradual pace life has taken so far, it allows for realizations no one has yet imagined. Not knowing where this shift will lead is frightening, but without it, new ways of thinking are left undiscovered.
ReplyDeleteIt is a commonly known fact amongst those preparing for their first interview that an initial impression is made within just seven seconds, so the handshake and greeting are extremely important. This is because humans are naturally judgemental creatures, it is how we survive in the world - judging who is trustworthy, who will help, and who will hurt. However, sometimes in works of literature a character defies judgements, and through their portrayal demands a more sympathetic view than one would give a living and breathing human acting in the same way. This is the case in “The Stranger '' by Albert Camus, where Meursault defies societal norms and expectations, acting in a way that would typically be met with shock or disgust. Despite all of this, due to the readers knowledge of his motivations, or lack thereof, we react more sympathetically than we normally would.
ReplyDeleteThrough the eyes of a bystander, Meursault’s actions are undoubtedly immoral. He begins the novel off by attending his mother’s funeral. The average human would react to such an event with solemnity at the very least, and likely with tears and sadness. Meursault gives no sign of any of these things, instead drinking coffee next to his mother's closed casket, and declining to even take a look at her body one last time. These are objectively callous actions, going against the general moral code that everyone follows. When this detail is shared with the court at Meursault’s trial for murder, he notes that “It was then I felt a stirring go through the room and for the first time I realized that I was guilty”. The impact of his lack of care is clear. Similarly, when he shoots The Arab, it is without motive, without significant emotion. If he was angry, desiring revenge, or even sad, then his actions are more easily swallowed, and written off as a crime of passion. This is not the case however, and it makes the killing all that much more disturbing to the jury at his trial: he took a life for no reason, committing the most heinous of acts unexplainably.
However, we as the reader do not feel quite the same way. We know that his indifference towards his mother’s death does not result from malice or evil intent - it is his nature. When his lawyer is inquiring about his actions the day of the funeral, Meursault responds with “I had pretty much lost the habit of analyzing myself and that it was hard for me to tell him what he wanted to know”. He is a man who lives in the present, thinking about the past, the future, and his own feelings are all a waste of time in his eyes. Camus demonstrates this through the way Meursault describes himself, and his surroundings. When it comes to talking about himself and his feelings, he gives short answers, responding to his lover, Marie’s, question of whether he loved her with “I told her it didn't mean anything but that I didn't think so.” On the other hand, when it comes to the weather and the external conditions though, he describes using figurative language such as “ The tar had burst open in the sun. Our feet sank into it, leaving its shiny pulp exposed”. This serves to emphasize the effect of the physical world upon him, as well as the greater amount of care he gives to the present actual moment as opposed to the hypothetical and the cerebral. Since he acts as he feels in the moment, this serves to explain why his killing of the Arab is unexplainable. Yet, the jury wishes to explain it as they cannot fathom a crime without a reason, thus they impose their own reality onto the crime. They connect his lack of emotion for his mother with the shooting, when there is no connection present. We as the reader understand this however, due to the nature of us hearing his thoughts and seeing his motives and lack of motives, and thus we can view him with a sympathy that the characters in the novel cannot.
Part 2
DeleteThe reason for Camus eliciting this sympathy is revealed quite clearly right at the end of the novel. Meursault states that “I had lived my life one way and I could just as well have lived it another”, but in the end it does not matter for “we’re all elected by the same fate”. In the end, death takes us all, and what else is there to do but live in the moment. He makes peace with himself and his nature as an outsider, even going so far as to “wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate”. His journey has the goal of demonstrating the principles of absurdism, and it is shown the the reader how truly absurd his life is, as everyone else tries to apply meaning and reason to a life that is lived without either. But it is not lived as such by a man who is unhappy, instead he is content with his lot in life, eking out an existence despite his knowledge that none of it matters. Our sympathy for him allows us to understand the idea of absurdism. Through the use of this purposely incomprehensible protagonist, Camus shows the incomprehensibility of life, and draws us into the idea by requiring us to feel some modicum of sympathy for a man who does not love, and kills without a thought.
One of the central experiences all readers can relate to is that of how they judge and analyze characters in literature. Being human, readers try to understand a characters actions and why they behave a certain way. All readers use the information they are given to make certain judgements about the character as a whole. Albert Camus’ The Stranger follows Monsieur Meursault, who behaves almost as if he is inhuman. As Meursault is brought to trial after a murder the reader sees how others view his actions and how these views differ with their own after reading the book. By including a view into Meursault’s mind before his judgement during the trial, Camus is able to allow the reader to see how his mind works and judge him differently than the characters in the book.
ReplyDeleteMeursault is introduced to the reader as incapable of attaching meaning and purpose to the events in hs life. Meursault sleepwalks through life, making questionable decisions for ambiguous reasons. For example, when his neighbor asks him to help him write a letter that would help him get revenge on his girlfriend, Meursault agrees simply because he doesn’t “have any reason not to.” These are not the actions of someone who thinks about the consequences of his actions and decisions. Meursault does not question whether what he is agreeing to do is right, instead going along blindly. It is here that the reader sees that Meursault is largely incapable of attaching meaning and feeling to events. The reader is able to see through his actions and thoughts that he does not feel complex emotions such as empathy or guilt. This information that is provided to the reader is important when he goes to trial for murdering someone. The reader also sees his lack of emotion and meaning when Meursault loses his mother. When he finds out about his mothers death, he isn’t very upset. Instead he worries that his boss is upset that he will be out for two days of work. At the funeral he does not cry and becomes annoyed when his mothers friends from the home she was living in start crying. By including Meursault’s reactions at his mother’s funeral Camus demonstrates how Meursault does not attach meaning to events. Instead of being upset about losing his mother at the funeral, Meursault is upset about the heat and having to listen to people cry over her. The reader sees that Meursault does not feel emotions in the same way that people usually do.
Part 2
DeleteDuring Meursault’s trial, the reader sees how other people in the story judge the way that Meursault acts. Merusault is arrested and goes on trial for murdering a man who was an enemy of a friend of his. In his trial the prosecutor brings up details from his mother’s funeral and after that convince the jury that he is a “monster.” He uses the fact that Meursault was calm and did not cry at his mother’s funeral as a way to prove his inhumanity. He also recounts that Meursault has not “expressed any remorse” for his actions. With this information the prosecutor is able to convince the jury that Meursault is guilty and deserving of being put to death. However, the reader feels more sympathetically towards Meursault knowing what they do from the beginning of the story. Camus has revealed that Meursault is not capable of attaching meaning to his life, and thus does not see the consequences of his actions. Meursault does not understand that what he did was wrong and thus cannot feel remorse for what he did. He is incapable of understanding how his actions affected another human life. Knowing this the reader sympathizes with Meursault, believing that if he was able to understand that life has value and meaning that he would not have done what he did. The jury and prosecutor do not understand that this is what is happening to Meursault and conclude that he acts the way he does because he is a monster. Since the reader is able to see how Meursault thinks, they are able to sympathize with him.
As humans, it is common that readers try to sympathize with characters or try to understand why the character acts the way that they do. Camus was able to make the readers sympathize with Meursault in a way that the jury was not able to by showing them how Meursualt thinks and feels. The reader is able to see that Meursault does not understand that his actions affect others and thus feel sympathy for him when he is on trial.
We all have consequences for our actions, but what if we were punished for our personality? For Meursault, that idea became a reality.
ReplyDeleteWhen his mother died, Meursault was cold and detached from reality. Of course, this opened the door to judgement. Everyone around him was criticizing his lack of emotion. This is unfair to him because everyone reacts differently to trauma. Its understandable that he would react this way, we all need a break when we are sad, and the easiest thing is to get lost in ourselves and almost kill our own selves off, and this is his way of treating his pain.
After the events of the funeral, it is brought up in his trial. The judge is more focused on his detached personality then the crime that is committed. Yes, in the legal system, the personality of a murderer is evaluated to see if there is a pattern, but for Meursault, it seemed to be the focal point of the trail. Again, this is unfair because past actions shouldn’t affect future actions. Meursault felt that he was acting in defense, the two men were following them and one of them held out a blade in front of him. He also felt on edge because he said the sun was the same as the day his mothers funeral took place. He was on edge, afraid, and in pain, anyone could have reacted the way he did. His personality and actions at his mothers funeral has nothing to do with his actions that day at the beach.
As you read The Stranger by Albert Camus, you can be overwhelmed by strong emotion towards how Meursault’s acts. He seems to be heartless and uncaring. This is why it is almost unsurprising when he commits a horrendous act of violence: shooting a stranger to death. Although this is cruel and unnecessary, it reveals a lot about the character and what Camus is trying to say through this story.
ReplyDeleteOnce Meursault murders the Arab man, the rest of the book moves fairly quickly. We join Meursault through his suffering in the jail cell, through his brutal trial, and finally, to his demise. In this way, the murder is the peak of the story, the climax, the thing that we all have been waiting for. But, even so, you can’t really see it coming. There is clearly no evil motivation or angry thoughts to go along with it. It wasn’t exactly instinct, but something more random than that that made him do that. It is Meursault’s brutal honesty and unemotional thinking that has driven his actions. He is not moved by cruelty, the notion of the book is about how we perceive things and how we attach meaning to different things. The cruelty, the act of violence, is just the most clear example of the perceptions we have around emotion and purpose. They argue about why Meursault kills the man, when really Meursault doesn’t know why he does. The trial becomes about how Meursault doesn’t show emotion, instead of how he killed a man. This is because society isn’t comfortable with his lack of caring about other people’s trivial emotions and his own. The murder is almost an excuse to put him on trial for his lack of emotion.
In France, there are still executions, which ends up being Meursault’s fate. He gets murdered for murdering. His execution is a public event, and as he waits to be taken away, he thinks to himself “I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution”. A cruel ending for a man who’s worst crime was not feeling emotional enough for the public to see. Meursault understands his end and how he will not be able to conform with society's views. It feels like a give-them-what-they-want moment, which fit’s Meursault because he was always more blunt and honest than anyone in the book.
In "The Stranger" by Albert Camus explored the ideas of philosophy of the absurd and existentialism. The main character, Meursault is very indifferent. He has no feelings toward his actions or what happens around him. A crucial part of the story is when he murders an Arab man. However as he enters the court case the key part of the story is looking for the “why?”.
ReplyDeleteDespite the action of murder, the case was very much in favor of him. The man was of Arab descent and was attacking him so the judge would have been more forgiving of the murder. However, when asked why he commited the murder he couldn’t give a good answer. Especially the fact he shot the dead body an additional 4 times. The fact he couldn’t answer why other than that the day was bright and hot is concerning because it lacks any meaning to the death of the Arab man.
Another issue in his court case was his indifference on the day of his mother’s funeral. The lack of emotion during the funeral concerned the court that he doesn’t care about anything. During the funeral, he cared more about the weather and the annoyances of other people rather than grieve the loss of his mother. Like in existentialist fashion, since he gave no meaning to his mother’s death it held no meaning for him.
Finally, the fact that Meursault does not believe in God is a major problem for the magistrate. He is nicknamed “Monsieur Antichrist” because of this. This is very much an existentialist viewpoint where the meaning of life comes not from a higher power but an individual themselves.
At the end, he finds himself in his jail cell remembering the best parts of his life. Such as smoking and hanging with Marie. It could mean he is starting to find meaning in life as he is threatened with the end. In "The Stranger" the ideas of philosophy of the absurd and existentialism are explored through Meursault.
In Albert Camus’s novel The Stranger, the main character, Meursault, is very clearly dissociated from the reality of his life. The most prominent example of his dissociation is when his mother dies. Meursault seems to be completely unaffected and shows no emotion during his mother’s funeral. He declines an offer from the funeral director to open the casket and view his mother one last time. He also learns about a relationship that his mother had with a man, but he makes no attempts to get to know this man and the only observation he makes note of is that he faints from heat exhaustion at the funeral. Meursault is also able to move on from the death of his mother so quickly that the next day, he goes to the beach and asks a girl out on a date. There is no meaning to Mersault’s life, he just goes through the motions without experiencing any of the feelings and emotions that he should. While all of this is important, it is just setting the reader up to understand why Mersualt does what he does later in the novel.
ReplyDeleteMeursault murders an Arab man for reasons unknown to everyone, including himself. His lawyer struggles to defend Meursault, and while in court, the judge asks why he did it, but Meursault could not think of any reason. He is so detached from reality that he could take the life of an innocent man and not feel any sort of regret afterwards. When the court finds out that Meursault revealed no emotions at his mother’s funeral and the people around him perceive him as uncaring or cold-hearted, it seems like his fate is decided. His trial has become more about his detachment from society rather than the murder. During the trial it is revealed that Meursault also does not believe in God, which just reinforces his lack of emotion. Although Meursault has no evil motivation for what he did, he should be considered evil or immoral based on his actions alone. By the end of the novel though, the reader begins to pity Meursault and even begins to feel sympathetic towards him simply because of his lack of feeling towards the whole situation.
Sara Boese
DeleteWhile reading “The Stranger” by Albert Camus, it is not hidden that Meursault does not feel or show any emotion referring to any significant events that have happened in his life. For one, his Maman’s death. Starting off knowing that Meursault didn’t seem affected by his mother’s death showed the reader what kind of person he is and how the rest of the book was perhaps going to play out. Not only sadness, but also with love, when he and Marie began their relationship and the topic of marriage arose, he did not show any sign of happiness or any emotion at all. Knowing that Meursault did not show the significance of these types of events on his emotion, the scene of violence towards the end of Part 1 was not necessarily surprising however it did alter the meaning of the novel as well as Meursault’s character as a whole.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Meursault didn’t show much emotion, he didn’t seem depressed or sad at any point, his feelings were simply neutral for the majority of the novel. However, the scene of him shooting an Arab began his downfall as well as the beginning of the end for him. To me, he seemed as if he were living in a dream for the first part of the book and this scene of violence brought him abruptly back to reality - even though he didn’t seem fazed by his murder and was acting as if he hadn’t done anything wrong simply because he couldn’t see. This scene of violence spoke to the reader because it really showed us how emotionless Meursault was. Although I am not saying that his mother’s death was not significant nor was Marie’s subtle proposal of marriage to him, this event had to do with his life on the line and I would’ve thought would affect him more emotionally, but didn’t see any change in him. The book seemed to be fast towards the end but only because of the repetitiveness of Meursault’s days in jail. This reminded me a lot of “The Myth of Sisyphus” because in this, it said “the repetitiveness of life brings absurdity back to consciousness”. This quote from another work of Camus’ reminded me of this novel because each day for Meursault is the same, which makes him and his life feel very absurd - which also portrays a kind of closure for his life. All of this contributed to the meaning of the novel because his life had always seemed boring and emotionless in Meursault’s mind and this finally gives the reader an idea of how he has been living absurdly.
While reading past the violence scene, I also recognized the fact that Meursault was never thinking about the future and was always focused on the present. For example, when Marie visited him in the jail cell, she mentioned getting married after he gets out and his response was “You think so?”. This immediately struck me because I realized that he was never confident in the future and normally, one would be happy about this topic however he didn’t show any emotion at all. I believe that this contributed to the meaning of the novel and of Meursault because it showed me who he was as a person even more at the peak of his downfall into death. This scene of violence began the downfall for Meursault as well as the book and helped me to understand his character and emotions even more.
Meursault, the protagonist of the novel “The Stranger” is a disputable character that is indifferent towards those around him and is an emotionless person as a whole. People tend to argue if he is just an awful inhumane person or if he just had no filter and looked at the world differently. Meursault's act of violence is framed by the author allowing us readers to sympathize with the evil character of the novel, “The Stranger.” Meursault is a strange emotionless character with immoral actions but since he is the narrator of the novel we perceive him more sympathetically primarily because of the unique way he views the world. With Meursault being the narrator we feel closer to him because we see everything from his perspective which justifies or at least gives us a reason as to why he does the immoral actions of his. If you focus just on his actions and not let yourself sympathize with him, you could most definitely tell that Meursault is an inhumane person. His number one action or crime I should say that truly conveyed his evil character was when he shot the Arab man for no apparent reason, and he was more concerned about how his day went horribly than the actual murder he committed. Earlier in the novel when his mother died he didn’t even shed a single tear. Not only did he not cry he sat down next to his mother’s coffin and smoked. These examples of his actions show his indifference towards society and lack of empathy. Even when Meursault’s actions label him as immoral, readers still see him as a person that just has no filter and as a person that doesn’t understand the importance of his actions in the society he lives in.
ReplyDelete1979. 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.
ReplyDeleteMeursault's actions are completely immoral because he has no moral compass, the way humans should and usually do. This immorality can be drawn back to the fact that though Meursault is a human, he is not a person. People have moral compasses, but Meursault is more similar to animals in that respect. He is completely instinctual like an animal in the wild, or a human without a moral compass. He doesn't tie emotions and he doesn't dwell on the past or the future. He lives completely in the now and reacts honestly without thought. He is built for survival only, and doesn't think of consequences and how they will affect people. "All I could feel were the cymbals of sunlight crashing on my forehead and, indistinctly, the dazzling spear flying up from the knife in front of me." He even claims that all he can feel is the hot sun and he doesn't like that. He lives only for pleasures and because he lacks a moral compass he doesn't realize how upsetting his responses may be and why he shouldn't act the way he does. It upsets readers or causes a feeling of pity because while all these emotions are a hassle and relationships with people that go deeper than simple pleasure and instinct can be difficult, it is hard to live without all that emotion because they can be so much more. Without a moral compass he is just a living being wandering around without real attachment and meaning. If he had a moral compass he would've felt some sort of emotion with most of his actions. He didn't feel any deeper emotion when his mother died or when he shot the Arab man. He just acted and did not feel remorse. It's what makes the 4 extra shots so much more upsetting. There is no reason for his actions unless he is either a sociopath or just without a moral compass. It's really upsetting because he can't see what is wrong and readers are sympathetic in that tragedy. Overall, Meursault's lack of a moral compass shows he only acts on instinct and cannot be treated as most humans are, because he is not a person.
ReplyDeleteIt can be seen that when the main character of books is first introduced, they create a mood and atmosphere of the novel. The readers follow their storyline and react and experience the consequences of their actions. In the novel The Stranger by Albert Camus, Meursault is very offputting, His unique narration of the storyline allows for a different perspective to the reader. Following him through his life we see what he deems as important. This is the basic idea of what a novel encompasses, a new reality, a different perspective from what is the reader’s reality, this is the attraction to reading. Usually, readers are able to align themselves with a character feeling as if they share the same characteristics, but the character of Meursault is so unconventionally unattached to the people around him that the readers feel a distinct unfavorability towards him. But the problem is that he also dictates the was the other characters are described and makes it harder for readers to align with any character at all. But this is what makes this book so important to readers, to be able to shift the pre-designed ideal of the main character and to reset expectations. In turn, this is when the reader starts to be more thoughtful and inquisitive, Meursaults actions are very unexpected but this what the reader learns from. The true take away is the interpretation of his actions and the consideration of the scale of morality and then, there is when we start to understand viewpoint of Meursault.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1975-
ReplyDeleteMany may consider Monsieur Meursault, in the novel The Stranger by Albert Camus, to be the epitome of immoral actions, yet reading the story that is not how he is viewed. He has proved himself to the reader in many ways. Knowing his backstory also helps to explain why he is the way he is. While that may not logically excuse any of the immoral things he has done, it does make them seem more understandable.
Meursault suffered the loss of his mother. He hadn’t been able to care for her himself because he did not have the money for it. After she passed, this may have caused him to feel guilty, as he could have spent more time with her in the end. With something as traumatic as death, everyone reacts differently. Some people simply need to cry their eyes out, while others may be emotionally paralyzed and struggle to feel anything at all. Other people may even be relieved that their sick loved one is no longer suffering and being a costly issue. For Meursault, he appeared to be lacking emotions for one reason or another. This appears to be the beginning of his mental struggle and lack of care for the world.
His outlook on life can be compared to that of a teenager or a child. He does not seem to have much of a long-term plan. Teenagers, since their brains are not fully developed, tend to make decisions that may harm them down the road, because their minds are focused more on the present fun than a hypothetical future. Meursault also seems to have a similar mindset where he does not consider the consequences of his actions very much. When Marie proposes to him, he does not even care what happens, yet he would still be perfectly okay with marrying her. If he would take something like marriage so lightly, that likely means that he may not see much of a future for himself.
Meursault has also done kind things in the book that seem to show his goodness as a person. When old Salamano is abusing his dog, he is bothered by it. He asks the man why he does it and what the dog had ever done to him. He also seems to show some sympathy when Salamano loses his dog and is torn apart because of it. Meursault is there for him to talk to and gives feedback and advice, as if they are friends. He realized that the man had no one else to talk to, and was being compassionate and understanding.
While there may be no excuse for shooting a man four times and killing him, yet he does not seem like an entirely bad person. He seems to have had some bad cards thrown his way, and the way he dealt with them seemed somewhat natural.Though it is common for people without emotions to actually be quite charming, like Ted Bundy, this does not seem to be the case as many people don’t like Meursault and can tell he is struggling. He may not be the best person, but he certainly is not strictly a bad person.
As a race, humans often attach more meaning to events than truly is present. It is in our nature, something we cannot help but do, and thus it seems strange when a person can be observed attaching no meaning. This is what Albert Camus shows us in his novel, The Stranger. The main character, Meursault, goes about his life living only in the present, and creating no emotional meaning to events beyond the basic facts of what has happened. Thus, when he defends himself from a lowlife gang member with a knife, the resulting murder, and his lack of empathy, is enough to put him against the death penalty. How could a man be put to death for his survival? What jury could undo something for which a man fought so hard? The jury comes off as cruel for this sentencing, but, due to Meurault’s lack of emotion during the trial, it becomes easier to understand why this group of people could comfortably send a man to his death.
ReplyDeleteMeursault’s trial involves many time consuming interviews of those who knew him in the time leading up to the murder. Primarily, this involved those who had been in attendance of his mother’s funeral, just a few weeks prior. Their accounts of his actions prove troubling to hear, as a dry face and seemingly cheerful actions take the place of the expected tears and sorrow. Meursault did not even wish to see the body upon arrival. If the defendant felt no sorrow at his own mother’s death, something that would send most into a depressive spiral for weeks if not months to come, it is likely that he did not feel badly about the murder he committed. The justice system should most definitely be based on more than the way a jury feels about the defendant, but it unfortunately is not, and the cruel sentencing of extreme punishments can often be understood by viewing the way the jury might perceive the defendant.
Another witness brought to the stand during the trial was Marie, Meursault’s girlfriend. While it may seem that she is of no significance to the trial, she recounts the day she met him, which happened to be the day after his mother’s funeral. The jury is horrified to learn that the defendant began a relationship the day after burying his mother, and more horrified yet when Marie recounts a day of swimming, seeing a comedic movie, and going back to Meusault’s house after. Not only did the defendant show no sadness at the funeral of his mother, he showed apparent happiness the very next day. Based on this, the jury feels that their initial suspicions, that the defendant felt no remorse after commiting murder, must be true. While it may seem unfair to send a man to death for self defense, it really does make sense when one can observe the man as generally careless in his day to day life. The jury believes that the defendant should feel bad for his murder, even if it was in self defense, but because he does not, they cannot bring themselves to acquit him.
All said and done, the death penalty is overkill for the offence Meursault committed. A gang member was charging at him with a knife, and Meursault had a gun. His alternative to shooting his attacker was to be attacked, and potentially find himself a murder victim. To sentence him to the death penalty (for surviving) is cruel of the jury, and a severe over sentencing. However, the jury is not truly a group of evil people. Meursault demonstrated no remorse for his actions, and upon interviewing those who knew him, the jury learns that this is not just a one time occurrence but an overall trend in his life. It is hard to sympathize with a man lacking sympathy, and harder still to understand or excuse his actions. Thus, the sentence, death, given by the jury, seems less harsh when viewed in this way.
In Camus’ novel, The Stranger, the author uses displays of cruelty as a crucial element in the understanding of Meursault’s indifference to the world around him. The acts of violence seem to escalate throughout the plot, becoming increasingly more vicious and detrimental to the victims of the perpetrators. These acts not only exemplify Camus’ theory of the absurd, but they also serve to connect that theory to Meursault lack of empathy towards others, and therefore his lack of a moral compass, a critical theme to the piece as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThe first clear act of violence Meursault is certainly aware of is the beating of his neighbor's dog. Upon observing the “pair” out on a walk, he claims that “presently the dog forgets, starts tugging at the leash again, gets another hiding and more abuse.” Such shallow description would suggest that Meursault is neither unaware nor blind to such acts or violence, but rather indifferent to its occurrence. It does not bother him that such an act occurs in a repeatedly fashion: “Every time they’re out, this happens.” Although Meursault does not display his feelings and emotions, it is clear that he is not oblivious to the world around him, yet he prefers, whether consciously or unconsciously, to remain impartial in those matters. Such attributes play a major role in the novel, which is centered around the character’s lack of attachment and feelings.
Escalating from his primary encounter with violence, Meursault is now faced with Raymond, a man with whom he has acquired some kind of unprecedented friendship. When recalling the events he had observed earlier that day, Raymond “said it had all gone quite smoothly at first, as per program,” the man had not only told Meursault about his plans to beat his mistress, he had carefully laid out details as to how he planned to go about doing so, sharing these with Meursault. “Only then she’d slapped his face and he’d seen red, and started thrashing her.” said Meursault as if the woman’s pain meant no more than any other would. It could be said that perhaps Meursault had simply not been faced with the truth, and thus was too scared or apathetic to act in opposition to such occurrence; however, such a claim can be debunked by the fact that his fiancee was there with him, and voiced her condemning of the action. “Marie said, wasn’t it horrible!” to which Meursault did not respond, she then “asked me to go and fetch a policeman” as a means to resolve the situation and end the woman’s suffering, to which Meursault responded “I didn’t like policemen.” Meursault was not only an accomplice to Raymond’s crime, he was also an enabler, and he did not stop once the crime had been committed. Being now in a friendship with Raymond, Meursault helps him by sending letters claiming his friend’s innocence, and attesting against the woman he had severely beaten.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteViolence peaks in the final section of part 1, when a fight breaks with “the Arab” who was Raymond’s mistress’ brother. The altercation first results in the stabbing of one of Meursault’s friend, the oddness comes from the fact that Meursault himself appeared to indifferent to what had happened, rather focusing on other people’s reaction to the occurrence, “Marie had gone quite pale, and Mme Masson was in tears.'' Instead of looking inward into his own feelings, he prefered to expose others’, a continuous trend throughout the novel.
The last act of violence experienced or executed by Meursault is the killing of
“the Arab” himself. During a second altercation, the man who had previously threatened Meursault with a knife reapers, only this time Meursault does not excitate to shoot him, killing the man in a supposed act of self defense, however, he does not only kill him. Looking at his inert body, Meursault proceeds to shoot the corpse four more times, for reasons Meursault himself is unable to decipher. And the only aspect of that situation that seemed to bother him was the fact that it had “shattered the balance of the day, the spacious calm of this beach on which I had been happy.”
Meursault's inability to respond to his surroundings or display empathy towards others can be demonstrated by the vicious and violent acts that occur around him, to which he conveys no emotion towards. The author deliberately manufactured these events in order to further exemplify the numerous ways in which Meursault is detached from the world around him, navigating his mediocre life as an spectator, rather than a human being.
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.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Stranger” by Albert Camus, Meursault’s actions are often perceived by others as unusual or disconnected. This separation between Meursault and the rest of society paints him as an evil and immoral man to those around him. At his mother’s funeral, he acts uninterested and is seen smoking and drinking. This is quite disturbing to the other attendees and definitely raises some questions. This is extremely odd behavior for someone whose mother just died. According to societal expectations, Meursault should be grieving, in a way that is visible to others. From the reader’s perspective however, Meursault can come off as misunderstood- making those who disapproved of his behavior judgemental and ignorant. The reader has the ability to see the situation as a whole. They understand Meursault’s existentialist view on life. He simply doesn’t view life and death like others do. Camus wants the reader to feel sympathetic towards Meursault.
Later in the novel, Meursault has an encounter on the beach with an Arab man. He is agitated by the harshness of the sun and ends up shooting him multiple times. The fact that he killed someone for no obvious reason combined with the amount of overkill is a very concerning fact. Those in the community have no sympathy for Meursault. Witnesses bring up his behavior at the funeral and this paints a very grim picture for Meursault. It is interesting to take a step back and realize how the reader reacts to this. The reader feels sympathy for him, which can be confusing, but is intentional. The reader understands his existentialist view while the characters in the story do not. Understanding his thought process puts his actions into perspective. Meursault's strange behavior at the funeral was not because he hated his mother, it was more because he doesn’t really view death as a negative. He didn’t really kill the Arab man as an act of vengeance. He was just triggered by the intense sensation of the sun, and it just happened.
This contrast in perspectives creates an interesting theme of disconnection throughout the novel. It makes the reader question what it truly moral and what draws the line between right and wrong or acceptable and unacceptable.
1979 prompt:
ReplyDeleteIn the world we live in, we see mental illness as a threat. Sociopaths that lack emotion and empathy on the surface are often the culprits of killings and other acts of crime. We view them as hopeless and immoral, but sometimes they find their feelings in ways we don’t understand. In “The Stranger” by Albert Campus, Meursault is sentenced to death for murdering another man. Even though the court saw him as a killer with no morals and no hope of functioning in society, the reader develops sympathy for him through the text's use of his perception of the world including his attention to little details, existential beliefs, and relationships with abusive neighbors.
Throughout the novel, Meursault has trouble finding his feelings. He does not feel for his mother when she dies, for his girlfriend Marie, nor for his neighbors. When taken to court, none of them can persuade the judge that he is a man of emotion and caring. While he doesn’t carry these emotions that we determine to be essential for a person living in our society, he is very observant of his environment and the little things he sees. He pays attention to the apparent emotions from others, their sweet and bitter actions. He notices the phenomena of nature, including the heat from the sun and the sweat on his brow. He sees things through the things that happen, allowing the reader to see him as a child who is still discovering the world around it, yet to come to their own conclusions of right and wrong. This is significant to the development of Meursault because the final pages of the novel show him finding true anger for what he sees as the meaningless void of religion and belief. While before he viewed the world as only a droplet of water under a microscope, he found his emotions when he broke from the bonds of conformity and expressed his own existential beliefs that tore from the Christian ideals from the rest of his world. This causes the reader to see that Meursault had emotions all along, he just didn’t know how to express them in the society he lived in, allowing for more sympathy toward him during his trial.
Without context, one will always look at a murderer as an evil criminal with no moral conduct. We don’t fully understand the way people think until we look at the lives they live, especially when those lives are forced upon them. Meursault's neighbors are both very abusive, one toward his dog and the other toward the women he partners with. It is visible how much Meursault witnesses violence on a daily basis, and it brings into thought what other violence he witnessed throughout his life that would end up causing him to kill a man with no remorse at all. It strengthens the idea that all things have a reason and they don’t happen because of fate or God. While Meursault commited murder, the reader sympathizes with him because they have a contextual understanding of his life and how it could be the cause of his desensitization. We sympathize more with what we know and what we’re exposed to. Sometimes it takes a novel to expose you to the inside of another person's head.
“The Stranger” by Albert Camus opens with the line, “Maman died today.” This is the first introduction of the narrator and main character, Meursault. It sets the tone for the rest of the story and familiarizes the reader with Meursault’s seemingly strange impartial view of the world. Translated from its original writing in French, “The Stranger” has many nuances that contribute to the message of the novel as a whole. Camus’s choice to feature Meursault as both the narrator and main character is one of the most critical choices made to effectively challenge the reader’s views of morality.
ReplyDeleteIn the original text, the first line of “L’Étranger” is “Aujourd'hui, maman est morte.” Simple yet complex, this particular wording has profound impact on the reader’s introduction to the work as a whole. This seemingly elementary French sentence is dense in power and maintains the ability to be interpreted in endless ways as is true of the nature of language. With that, one cannot help but wonder, has anything been lost in translation? Each reader has a different experience, viewing the text through a perspective built from their experiences and view of the world. Similarly, Meursault has a unique outlook on life and its meaning. His views are often lost in translation as society cannot see anything beyond its line of vision. Mersault’s position as the narrator allows the reader to befriend a social outcast, giving insight into the inner workings of his mind no matter how irrational his actions may seem to an observer.
Meursault believes that the universe is pointless and life has no meaning. He does not embody order in his life and does not appear to have any type of moral compass or guiding beliefs. His actions appear highly irrational yet the reader can understand his reasoning behind his actions from his narration. For example, Meursault claims that he shot the Arab “because of the sun” (pg 103). This simplistic cause and effect is alarming to others and leads them to believe Meursault is evil and immoral. But the reader has a broader understanding of Meursault’s ways. Knowing his tentative manner in observing his surroundings, the reader sees the impacts of the events, the sun in his eyes and dripping sweat, as legitimate causes that lead Meursault to commit his crime. The reader’s understanding of this reasoning does not indicate the reader may agree with Meursault’s reasoning or rationality. With this deeper insight, the reader is more inclined to view Meursault as troubled or misunderstood rather than evil.
The trial is an important embodiment of the message of the novel as a whole. Desperately seeking rational explanations for Meursault’s actions, the trial is concluded by other’s perspectives and moral compass. They attempt to try Meursault on the basis of their view of right and wrong, putting his morality on the stand rather than his actions. His lack of concern for his mother’s death is viewed as a crime as is his resistance to Christianity. In reality, he does not act in vengeance or malign, he embodies a poker face, observing the world without intention or reaction. The trial demonstrates human’s incessant need to find meaning and order in life. No one can face the possibility that Meursault is right because the idea that life has no order or meaning is scarry. Even those of the freest spirit need guiding rules and structure to live by. Anything less than such appears immoral.
“The Stranger” has been passed from country to country, translated to every language imaginable, and examined through millions of unique lenses. Yet, Meursault’s story remains. The danger of indifference plagues society, isolating those with perspectives different than the majority. It takes a man numb to the world to teach others the importance of empathy and the dangers of stubborness. The fear provoked by Mersault alone indicates a static society that has yet to confront the fears of reality.