The relationship between Meursault and his mom seems to contrast with the Old Salamano's relationship with his spaniel. Even though the old man and his dog don't get along well, he still cares for his dog because Old Salamo said " 'They're not going to take him away from me, are they, Monsieur Meursault? They'll give him back to me. Otherwise, what's going to happen to me?'...And from the peculiar little noise coming through the partition, I realized he was crying"(pg. 39). Old Salamano's tone sounds like he is yearning for the spaniel's company despite the abusive way he treated the dog. This creates an emotional effect to show how the dog means to Old Salamano. It's not like the spaniel has much use to Old Salamano's because not only is the dog old and unable to perform physical tasks like watching for burglars and do simple chores, he is sick and pretty much useless. But Old Salamano's doesn't know what's going to happen to him if he don't have his dog because he depends on the dog. This shows that the dog serves as an emotional support to Old Salamano. Although it's not expected that Meursault and his mom doesn't have a bad relation, Meursault seems indifferent to his mom's death. While Meursault and Raymond are eating sausage and drinking wine, Raymond "explained that he'd heard about Maman's death but that it was one of those things that was bound to happen sooner or later. [Meursault] thought so too"(pg. 33). It's ironic how it doesn't seem like Meursault and his mom dislike each other, but Meursault shows little to no sign of grief when his mom dies. On the other hand, Old Salamano's longs for his dog to be back and even cries for his dog. Even though Meursault's mom is a human, which we would agree that mother-to-son bonds should be stronger than master-to-dog bonds, Meursault has never shed a tear to his mom's death. The author makes Old Salamano's relationship with his dog the foil to Meursault's relationship with his mom to emphasizes Meursault's indifference towards the people that he should love.
I totally did not see the foil technique you mentioned before--wow, I so agree. But perhaps the difference between Salamano and Meursault is not that Meursault doesn't care for those he should and Salamano does, I think it's more along the lines of existentialist thinking, that Meursault has accepted death as a major component of life and therefore values his mother's life so much so that he does not feel the need to grieve for the loss of her previous existence.
I believe dependency on another creature doesn't equate to a love for them. Old Salamano's relationship with his spaniel was an abusive relationship that needed to end, no matter what others may say about how they need each other. In human relationships where person is beating another or controlling them emotionally, that is unhealthy and must end. There are prosecutions against such for exactly that reason. The abuser tends to go back to the victim and claim love and affection for them after the beatings, despite their previous actions showing otherwise. I don’t believe Old Salamano actually cared about his dog’s well-being, despite the tears that were shed. Although I enjoyed your observations, I would have to disagree with you there.
I agree with Audrey that the relationship needed to end. It can be compared to parasitic relationships in nature. Only one organism is nurtured at the cost of the health of the other. There is a reason doctors get rid of parasites when they occur.
Throughout Chapters 3 and 4, I noticed how Albert Camus used vivid imagery to describe Meursault’s ordinary, everyday life. Meursault goes to have dinner with his neighbor and he thinks to himself, “ I figured it would save me trouble of having too cook for myself, so I accepted,” (pg 28). Camus describes Meursault eating dinner with his neighbor. He describes him to be bored. Also in Chapter 4, Meursault goes on a date with Marie and the author vividly describes his relationship with her. Marie asks him, “She asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so,” (pg 35). This is not something that you would usually say to your significant other. It seems as if Meursault tries to be excited about things in his life, but he becomes distracted and drifts off, thinking about other things.
It seems that by showing that Meursault thinks love is meaningless, Camus is trying to show how in general, things in life are meaningless, unless you give them meaning. Meursault's clear indifference shows how he doesn't care enough to give his life a meaning. And Perhaps that is why he suffers at the end of the book.
In Chapter 4 , the reader is exposed to an authority figure: a police officer. This officer takes the role of a justice figure as he shows up in order to hold Raymond accountable for the extreme violence towards a woman. He is brutally beating up his supposed lover because of assumptions that she was using him. As Raymond opens the door and addresses the cop in a disrespectful manner, "the cop slaps him-a thick, heavy smack across the face and the cigarette flies across the landing"(36). The vivid imagery of the smack gives the passage a very harsh tone as Raymond receives such smack across his face. He needs to face consequences because of what he did to a woman, and his brutal aggressiveness needs to be dealt with in order to prevent future accidents. From a moral standpoint, a man is never supposed to touch a woman in such manner, and as Raymond crosses the line, the cop is the figure to make the situation just for both sides. Unlike Mersaul, the officer cares enough to hold Raymond accountable therefore they are complete foils of each other. The officer adds that "Raymond ought to be ashamed to be so drunk that he'd have the shakes" (37). The statement possesses a harsh tone because the officer is noting all of Raymond's sinful actions. He drinks, smokes and disrespects women, qualities that are frowned upon from a moral standpoint. The officer is the only character, so far, to stand up to Raymond's shenanigans and makes the passage more realistic in the sense that punishment exists and that no one is above the law.
I agree with your point that the police officer is an authority figure. When Raymond's with Meursault, he gets away, and is even encouraged, to do certain things. Meursault even enables him by writing the letter for Raymond. I also agree with how you said the officer makes the situation more realistic. Showing Raymond's respect and fear for the officer made the whole encounter more relatable. Having the officer stand up to Raymond while showing Meursault on the side just watching shows how different both of them are too, like you pointed out.
Camus seems to emphasize the importance of the physical world through his use of imagery. It seems like the only things that are described in depth and inanimate objects or small details. The imagery seems to solely focus on the physical state of being, never the emotional or spiritual. Even when describing people, for example Raymond, " He's short and thickset, he has a nose like a boxer's, and always dresses very sprucely."(34). Never does Meursault describe or say what people are like emotionally, and he seems to only care about the physical state of people and things. Even with Marie, who he's romantically involved with, he seems to have only taking a liking to her because of her appearance "...and I couldn't take my eyes off her. One could see the outline of her firm little breasts, and her sun-tanned face was like a velvety brown flower."(43). The fact that Meursault only cares about physical aspects of people and objects further presents the existentialist idea of living in the now and that life is meaningless. Meursault describes details of the now and only of what is happening in the moment. He never speaks of the past of future. he doesn't know love or want to know it because it seems meaningless to him. His emphasis on the physical world allows the reader to get a feel for Meursault's indifference to emotions and feelings.
I agree with your interpretation! I think that Mersault's inability to look past the surface and see a deeper emotional level restricts his understanding of the world he lives in. For example, when Marie asks if he loves her, as you mentioned, Mersault does not understand why that is so important to her because like you said, it is meaningless to him. Mersault's inability to relate to other people emotionally makes it harder for the reader to understand him emotionally and I think that is a big reason why many people don't like Mersault.
The relationship between Raymond Sintes and Meursault is a very intriguing one as they are complete foils of each other. Meursault is passive and indifferent to occurrences in life while Raymond, on the other hand, is highly temperamental and aggressive. Their relationship forms an ironic harmony as they completely contrast each other in personalities. After the cop visits Raymond, Raymond tells Meursault that "he knew all about cops and how to handle them. Then he asked me if I'd expected him to hit the cop back. I said I wasn't expecting anythings, and besides I didn't like cops." (37). This short exchange between the two is very telling and serves to distinguish vital contrasts in the opinions and moralities of the two characters. Raymond carries confidence and values his 'manly' ego. He has obviously run into conflict with the law on multiple occasions has he claims that he is adept at handling them. This contrasts greatly with Meursault because unlike Raymond, Meursault does not care for cops. He does not hold himself higher above them or lower. His dislike for cops stems from the existentialist views of equality among living things and the meaninglessness of life. Meursault, albeit unknowingly at the moment, holds these views because in his point of view, each living being is has its own rules to follow, therefore whose to say whats right or wrong. This is why Meursault dislikes cops because he does not believe in society's common justice system. Raymond, however, rebels from this common justice system and tries to elude the law. This leads into Raymond's confession to Meursault about his desire to take revenge on his mistress. He wanted Meursault to write a scathing letter to his mistress as part of her punishment, and Meursault agrees to write him the letter "because I didn't have any reason not to please him" (32). This further illustrates the contrast between the two characters. Raymond is violent and abusive and only intends to use women whereas Meursault finds joy in women and does not harm his own (Marie). While Raymond is enraged at his mistress's actions, Meursault is indifferent and only goes along with Raymond because he does not see it as a serious matter. This further characterizes Meursault's apathy towards morals in life because in his opnion, Raymond's motives for his actions are just as good as any other person's. Because of these reasons, Meursault's amorality and Raymond's immorality serve as a contrast and makes each character a foil of the other.
The first thing that stood out to me in these chapters was Marie's visit. Mersault describes her in such beautiful ways, "She had a very pretty dress, with red and white stripes, and leather sandals, and I couldn't take my eyes off her. One could see the online of hr firm little breasts, and her sun tanned face was like a velvety brown flower."(43). Out of every brief enchant mersaukt has with other people and the outside world the way he describes Marie is the most caring and detailed. But when Marie asked if he moves her, Mersault blatantly says no, "A moment later she asked me If I loved her. I said that sort of question had no meaning, really; but I suppose I didn't." (44). Why do you think Mersault said this? Do you think he doesn't believe in love and that is why is "had no meaning"? I think that Mersault has never experienced true affection even with his own mother, and that is why he can't commit to love. Mersault is seeming to become similar to a Nihilist in the way he goes about his life and the feelings he has. What do you guys think?
Can you also look at it in terms of the theory of the absurd universe? Perhaps trying to assigning meaning to a relationship is the same as trying to assign meaning to a universe where there is no meaning? Another question is why Marie "content" to stay with someone who isn't in love with her? Ms. Ballard
As we can see from the previous chapters, Meursalt lacks the ability to connect with others on a deeper level. This is shown in both chapters 3 and 4 with Raymond and Marie. In chapter 3 we can see this lack of emotion, “I didn’t say anything, and he asked me again if I wanted to be pals. I said it was fine with me: he seemed pleased” (29). It seems that Meursalt could care less about being friends with Raymond and was only there because he got out of having to cook himself. While on the other hand we see that Raymond is delighted to create a new friendship with someone just like anybody would. This idea of him not caring about creating this relationship with another human seems bizarre but makes sense when looked at it from an existentialist view. Then in chapter 4 we see a sort of juxtaposition of emotion within Meursalt when Camus writes, “When she laughed I wanted her again. 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” (35). To the reader, this is somewhat of a surprise considering that this is one of the first times that he expresses somewhat of his emotions in the fact that he wants her. Then again, confusion also arises in the reader when he tells her that he does not love her. I think that he isn’t giving himself the chance to connect with Marie on that deeper level and see’s her more as a mistress. However I believe that this again goes back into the existentialist views on not letting an opposing force get in the way of finding your own path.
In Chapters 3 and 4, the thing that struck me was Salamano’s relationship with his dog. Salamano treats his dog horribly. “Then he beats the dog and swears at it... When the dog wants to urinate, the old man won’t give him enough time and yanks at him so that the spaniel leaves behind a trail of little drops.” (27). In discussing Salamano, Meursault only states what he notices about the relationship and seems indifferent about Salamano’s treatment towards his dog. This supports Camus’ belief that everyone is guilty, suggesting that the dog did something wrong in order to receive the punishment he deserved. When Meursault talked about Salamano, it seemed as though Salamano was just letting out his anger at his dog, and just overall treating him very inhumanely. He didn’t seem as though he loved his dog. Conversely, at the end of Chapter 4, Salamano shows that he cares about his dog which was not explicitly shown earlier, “They’re not going to take him away from me, are they, Monsieur Meursault? They’ll give him back to me. Otherwise, what’s going to happen to me?” (39). This completely contrasts with how he treats his dog, but it still cannot be said that he truly loves his dog. He worries about his future without his dog, but what he said can be interpreted many different ways: does he really miss his dog or is his dog a means of protection for him? The fact that he said, “what’s going to happen to me?” gives a hint of selfishness, suggesting that the dog benefits his (Salamano’s) life more than the dog himself. Camus’s inclusion of the relationship between Salamano and his dog in “The Stranger” indicates that the world is full of deception and hypocrisy, portrayed by Salamano’s relationship with his dog.
At the end of chapter 4, Meursault seemed very affected by the events that had just occurred, Raymond and his ex-wife’s situation and Salamano’s runaway dog. Even though Meursault reacted indifferently to these two events, he seemed emotionally affected by them, “For some reason I thought of Maman. But I had to get up early the next morning. I wasn’t hungry, and I went to bed without any dinner.” (39). I think these events will in some way shape his beliefs and help him develop into the person he becomes.
In these chapters I really got the connection with what we talked about in class. This chapter really explored the connection to Camus’ philosophy on existentialism. His thoughts on absurdity and human existence having no meaning or purpose I think reflected these chapters in a way. Camus once stated that “life can be lived all the better if it has no meaning” and I think this reflected on Meursault because of the personality he portray about certain things. Meursault does not think his mothers’ death is that big of a deal and order of human existence is shown. He can easily continue his life as it was before his mother died. Someone would not be able to just go on a date, go to a comedy show, and have sex with someone the day after their own mothers’ funeral. It just seems odd. At the end of chapter two leading into chapter three he stated, “Really, nothing in my life had changed” (Page 30). And then it continues onto chapter three explaining he busy morning at the office, the weather, and after work activities. In my opinion I think that the after effect of his mother passing has occurred, or in that matter the actual effect of his mother passing. What does everyone else think? In chapter four Marie is introduced and things seemed different. Things were very detailed about her and it seemed show that the existence of her was important to Meursault. “…I couldn’t take my eyes off her… her sun-tanned face was like a velvety brown flower” (page 43). He admired her. I think that this embraced Albert Camus’ philosophy on the live in the present deal because with her he doesn’t have a care in the world and everything seems to be happy for him when he is with her. It is like she has a purpose.
Do you think that Meursault really doesn't feel anything with his mother's death and thats why he goes on living his routine or is his daily routine a way of forgetting and coping with the death? (especially with Marie). I think that with Camus' ideas that life goes on and the routine must continue and emotion would just get in the way. Also do you think that Camus describes Marie in such a positive connotation because she has accepted the absurdity or do you think that she is naive towards the fact that "there is no meaning in life"?
The first thing that struck me as bizarre was the absurdity present in both chapters 3 and 4. Salamano and his dog are miserable companions. The author writes, "They haven't changed their route in eight years. You can see them in the rue de Lyon, the dog pulling the man along until old Salamano stumbles. Then he beats the dog and swears at it. The dog cowers and trails behind. Then it's the old man who pulls the dog. Once the dog has forgotten, it starts dragging its master along again, and again gets beaten and sworn at" (27) to show just this. They've been caught in routine dependency on one another, despite the violence and abuse of their twisted friendship. The author's purpose in this is to illustrate two things: the part of society too comfortable and too terrified of the risks of change to be happy, as well as the desperate human need for companionship, especially in times of misery. Both these revolve around the subject of emotion, which is a very human-related topic due to the fact that the human race is so heavily driven by these volatile intrinsic sentiments. What is the purpose of emotion? If one rejects emotion, a rather impossible feat in my opinion, life loses its meaning. Emotion automatically colors everything in the world in both positive and negative lights and affects the way in which things are perceived. I'd also like to point out that emotion is essential to living, but not existing. Salamano's treatment of his dog somewhat parallels Raymond's treatment of his previous girlfriend. Raymond says, "But first I smacked her around" (30) and then the narrator adds, "He'd beaten her till she bled" (31). Both men exhibit difficulty in dealing with anger and hatred, and as a result resort to violence. Perhaps this is the author's way of illustrating the darkness of the world and weakness of man. I've noticed how Camus places emphasis on relationships. The narrator says, "That morning Marie stayed and I told her that we would have lunch together. I went downstairs to buy some meat. On my way back upstairs I heard a woman's voice in Raymond's room. A little later old Salamano growled at his dog"(35). Here, the author juxtaposes all three main relationships. There are striking similarities between the behavior of Salamano and Raymond, but I'm not yet clear on the reasoning behind the inclusion of Meursault's relationship. Perhaps it is to contrast his simple, uncomplicated relationship with the others' more complex ones. In that case, it only places more attention on Meursault's indifference towards everything. Any other ideas?
Mersault’s relationship with Marie continued to be a point of interest for me in this story as I read the third and fourth chapters, mostly because of how it affects Mersault. Mersault is incredibly bored with his everyday life, and it best manifests itself in how he reacts to Marie. As Mersault puts it, “When she laughed I wanted her again” (35). At first, I did not think this quote had any meaning beyond the literal implication of arousal. However, I noticed just a few sentences later that Mersault says, “…for no apparent reason, she laughed in such a way that I kissed her” (35). Mersault is not merely attracted to Marie because of her laughter—he’s attracted because she is experiencing something he can’t. The tone of bordeom which permeates this book makes his near-jealousy when it comes to Marie’s genuine emotion make sense. All signs point to Mersault having an existential crisis at some point in this book, given that the entire book is about existentialism, and the way that Mersault is craving actual emotion at this point in the book foreshadows the eventual confrontation he will have to make with the boredom in his life. By showing Mersault’s desire for feeling emotion, these two quotes are both able to hint at his eventual reckoning with the purpose of his plain and unremarkable life.
This is a very interesting point and I glad you brought this up because I was thinking something very similar to this! I like how the two quotes you chose connect in a way that foreshadows the revoking with the purpose and unremarkable life.
So far, there have been three main relationships unfolding from chapter one to chapter four, all which have been regular and consistent, only to be interrupted by something irregular. First is Meursault and his mother - the consistency lies in the estranged attitude Meursault had towards her, changed by him needing to attend her funeral (or, in other words, her death). Next we have Salamano and his dog - their relationship is one of abuse (one-sided or mutual depending on how you look at it) and it has been interrupted by the dog running away. Finally, there's Raymond and his "mistress," where her leeching off of him was regular, until he found out that he had been cheated on. All of these relationships are major and have been altered significantly in one way or another. Meursault reacts with indifference, as demonstrated with chapters one and two. Salamano reacts with grief, especially when Meursault noted, "And from the peculiar little noise coming through the partition, I realized he was crying." (Camus, 39) Raymond's reaction is one of aggressive, uncontrolled anger, where "'he'd go to bed with her and 'right at the last minute' he'd spit in her face and throw her out.'" (Camus, 32)
Even though Meursault has proven to be an isolated, antisocial character, he is tangled in the life events of others. We can also see that it begins to effect a change in his emotions. He agreed to write Raymond's letter when he realized the woman was Moorish, and he was reminded of his mother after he heard Salamano crying about his dog. Additionally, each character that comes into contact with Meursault mentions the death of his mother - I'm sure Salamano will do it in the future as well. The effect here is that we see that while Meursault is portrayed as a "Stranger" in his own mind, there is a deeper connection that he has with other characters - one is most likely in love with him (Marie), one asks him for a huge favor (Raymond), and one comes running to him after shock (Salamano). By laying out a spider web of mingling lives, Camus creates points of interest that allow him to develop the story and ultimately his ideas about absurdism.
The relationship between old Salamano and his dog is one of the more interesting points these two chapters. The relationship is symbolic of a normal person’s relationship to the world; Salamano being the person and the dog being the rest of the world.The pair’s relationship is repetitive and seemingly meaningless. They have walk the same path every day for the past eight years. Camus illustrates to the reader through their lives that life in general has no innate meaning just how Salamano and the dog walk the same path every day. THe relationship is also abusive; “Once the dog has forgotten, it starts dragging its master along again, and again gets beaten and sworn at”(27). The man continuously blames the dog when the dog did nothing wrong. In life, people blame their problem and actions on other people and through Camus’s comparison, the reader sees that it is wrong for the dog, and other people, to be blamed because the dog lacks free will. Despite all of old Salamano’s hatred for his dog, he reacts compassionately toward the dog once he leaves. At first, Salamano is in a state of shock and explains his story to his neighbors. His actions are ironic due to the fact that he treats his dog so poorly. Salamano doesn’t want to accept his dog’s disappearance and gets angry saying, “ He can damn well die”(39), when he learns that he will have to pay to get his dog back. Finally, Salamano feels desperate and hopeless without his dog. This progression symbolizes a person’s realization of absurdism and the fact that there is no innate meaning to life. It is difficult to accept and a person will get angry and plead that their life has meaning. Finally, a person becomes depressed in his realization. This is the point at which a person is likely to commit physical or philosophical suicide but Camus would argue that the best option would be for Salamano to find a way to live without his dog just as a person should find their own meaning to life.
What surprised me in these two chapters is that all these eventful things are happening around him and he is very emotionless about them. For example, he has been all over Marie and shown that he has feelings for her. Yet after they have sex he has no emotion further than just friends or even less. Meursault says, "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." (35). First off in this quote he says he doesn't think that love means anything or this intimate moment between them meant anything, then he goes on to say that he doesn't love her (if he believed in love). This is important because it shows and explains things about Meursault. Previously in the book he showed lot of emotion towards Marie, yet we learn that he never even had real feelings for her or barely felt anything. This could connect with why he doesn't show any emotion with the death of his mother also. This emotional detachment shows some of Albert Camus' ideas of existentialism and life not having any meaning. If we think of his idea before absurdity referenced in his essay The Myth of Sisyphus, we see the idea of this killing nothingness and not accepting that or accepting the absurdity therefore being lifeless. we see this idea within Meursault and his emotional detachment. Another example I found of Meursault's detachment from emotion is when with "his pal", Raymond. As Raymond tells Meursault about the abuse and his very messed up plans about his wife and everything, Meursault shows no real emotion. Camus describes everything of the situation tat Raymond has and has very little of Meursault's thoughts in the elongated paragraphed. Meursault's thoughts of the situation can be summed up from that paragraph by, "I said i didn't think anything but that it was interesting...since I didn't say anything, he asked if I'd mind doing it right then and I said no,"(32). Raymond's situation is very messed up and his idea to get his revenge of spitting on her during sex is very dehumanizing and absurd. Yet Meursault has no documented feelings opposing this idea. really no personable feelings at all on this matter. And he "doesn't mind" writing this letter, therefore he is indifferent about participating in this emotional messed up drama. This again shows emotional detachment. Meursault experiences all these emotional events and gets involved with very emotional things yet never feels anything. This can help prove Camus' ideas before accepting absurdity. Camus uses very long paragraphs about emotional things so the reader feels thing making Meursault's absence of emotion seem abnormal and draw the attention of the reader to that matter.
In chapters 3 and 4, Mersault as a character has not changed much. He is still the same man with a boring life, boring job, and he does not seem to care much about anything or anyone. This lack of emotion will have to be addressed by the end of the book and I'm sure we will see a drastic change in his character. The relationship that Mersault and Marie have has not really changed up until this point either, he seems to simply care about sex and not much more. But to this point, she has not really taken any objection to that, so that might not change for a while. During Mersult and Marie's most recent encounter, he states "I kissed her; after that neither of us spoke for awhile" (pg. 43). The emotional distance between them is evident, he has not tried to have a meaningful connection with her, Raymond, or his mother when she was older. When Marie asks him if he loves her, he says that he does not, and that that is a pointless question. Similarly, Raymond repeatedly asks Mersault to be his friend, and simply does not answer but eventually says yes, because why not. While Mersult seems to be uninterested in people, he does enjoy escaping from reality in another way. During his meeting with Raymond, he says "I'd had a whole bottle of wine to myself and my head was buzzing. As I'd used up my cigarettes I was smoking Raymond's" (pg. 39). Wine and cigarettes are both mentioned quite a lot in this chapter, and cigarettes have been throughout the whole book. I think it is interesting how he does seem to enjoy both of these drugs quite a bit, and they both are things that are used to make the ordinary more fun. This continues the theme of him focusing on material things and the physical world more than something deeper. I think that this theme will continue and eventually he will face it, and possibly change his mindset.
One thing that I noticed was the parallel drawn between his two neighbors. Salamano and his dog's relationship is very similar to the relationship Raymond has with his ex-mistress. The theme of abuse in these two relationships is very striking, especially because Mersault doesn't seem to be emotionally engaged (surprise surprise) for either party. For example when Raymond asks Mersault his opinion on his plan to punish his ex-mistress, Mersault says " I said you can't ever be sure, but I understood his wanting to punish her" (p32). Then, when Raymond asks Mersault to write the letter for him, Mersault does saying "I tried my best to please Raymond because I didn't have any reason not to please him" (p32). Mersault is noncommittal at best, and think this could reflect a past experience with abuse. The other relationship highlighting abuse in chapters 3 and 4 is the relationship between Salamano and his dog. Salamano is very abusive, but when the dog runs away, he is heartbroken and angry. He asks Mersault for help, just like Raymond did, and Mersault does his best to help him. The fact that both men went to Mersault for help, tells the reader that Mersault's impartial views on the world in general make him seem trustworthy to his neighbors, like he won't judge them at all because he does not care. Mersault's willingness to help shows a lack of moral character, especially because he is condoning abuse towards other living things. Because there are two different types of living things being put in danger, I think the author is trying to highlight the depth of Mersault's lack of emotion. This further reinforces the characterization of Mersault, and lowers the reader's expectations for Mersault's future.
I agree with your comparisons between Meursault's relationships with his neighbors. He's willing to help them in a noncommittal way and also shows that he's nice enough to help the people that he isn't even close with, but ruthless at the same time for not standing up for the woman and spaniel. It doesn't seem to bother him with the fact that his neighbors are abusive towards creatures with lesser power. This makes me feel like Meursault has no opinion in anything or he's reluctant to express his opinions.
A detail that caught my attention while reading Chapter Three was the fact that Mersault never refers to his boss by name, but rather calls him “The Boss”. At the beginning of Chapter Three, Mersault states, “The boss was nice.” (Camus, 25). Mersault realises that that his boss does not have any profound impact on his life, and Mersault does not try to assign arbitrary meaning to his boss’s existence in his life. Mersault is able to find peace with the fact that others can exist without existing to give meaning to Mersault’s life. To the outside observer, it might appear that Mersault is simply going through the motions of life, living in a meaningless cycle of activities. However, the truth is that by realising that nothing gives his life meaning, Mersault is able to find a quiet within himself that allows Mersault to assign his own meaning to life, rather than wait around for others to do it for him. A character that clearly contrasts Mersault is Salamano. When Mersault inquires as to why Salamano is abusing with his dog, Salamano angrily replies, “He’s always there.” (26). Salamano is unable to come to terms with the fact that other beings do not exist to give Salamano meaning. Because of this, Salamano is clearly upset with the pure existence of his dog. This fixated mindset leads to Salamano’s apparent heartbreak when his dog runs away. Salamano assigns meaning to his systematic argument with his dog, and is therefore disturbed when his dog runs away. Camus uses the contrasting characters of Mersault and Salamano to demonstrate that the absurd, or assigning meaning to meaningless situations, leads to disturbed emotional mindsets. In order to find inner peace and meaning, people must not attempt to bring meaning into his or her lives by outside forces.
I agree with what Belinda had to say about Salamo's relationship with his dog. But, I feel as if Salamo mentions Meursault's mother in order to displace his own guilty feelings. Salamo says, " 'Your poor mother' he says. He supposed I must be very sad since Maman died" (45). For me, Salamo seems to say this for himself as opposed to for Meursault. He seems to believe that Meursault really loved his mother like how Salamo really loved his dog. It is interesting to see the differences between the two relationships. I wonder if Meursault loved his mother but did not know it? Or, maybe I’m just trying to give meaning to something that doesn’t have any meaning. This in a way shows Camus' philosophy concerning absurdity. Something else that was interesting, to me, in this chapter was the scene with the policemen(36). I had sort of a TOK moment, as Larp would put it. It was interesting how our society frowns upon his boss hitting his mistress. But, when the cop hit him it was alright. They both did the same thing, they had the same actions but one is frowned upon while the other is not. Yes, Raymond needed to face the consequences, but, is the officer justified in hitting him? I feel like throughout this book Camus is not only illustrating his philosophy, he is also criticizing society’s expectation and making us question our moral code.
In Chapters 3 and 4, the character Raymond is introduced. In many aspects, he serves as foil to Meursalt. Raymond is shown to be highly fueled by emotion which is apparent when he beats a woman. “You used me, you used me. I'll teach you to use me.” (Camus 35). Unlike Meursalt, who remains collected throughout the most traumatizing of events, Raymond instantly enacts vengeance when the woman slaps him. He is someone that would be considered more normal than Meursalt. Another character that contrasts Meursalt is Salmano. It is apprentent after the scene where Salamano explains that he's lost his dog but has no intention of paying money to take him back from the pound. “His bed creaked. And from the particular little noise coming through the partison, I realized he was crying” (39) Despite his mask of arrogance and discontent for his dog, it is clear that Salamano is distraught about the prospect of losing him, unlike Meursalt.
An interesting structure occurs when Meursault seems depressed and is narrating himself. What is interesting is that he reaffirms himself. He does this as he responds to Raymond, “ I felt sleepy, but it was hard for me to get up. I must have looked tired” (Camus 33), and, “ Then he explained that he’d heard about Maman’s death but that it was one of those things that was bound to happen sooner or later. I thought so too” (Camus 33). In the first quote, Meursault confirms his tiredness twice through description of his mental and physical appearance. The double description creates a tone of lethargy and depression. Camus intentionally does this to show the meaninglessness of Meursault’s life and how he is living it out in a worthless way. In a similar manner, the second quote creates a tone that is depressing and nostalgic. The reader is reminded of Maman’s death as Meursault is and can connect to Meursault’s reaffirmation of the fact because it was something of the past that was placed in the back of memory. Overall the structure is very interesting and Camus uses it effectively to the extent that it conveys themes about worthlessness in living and nostalgic apathy in loss.
Many people are comparing Old Salamano's relationship with his spaniel between Meursault’s relationship with his mother. Salamano’s relationship is seen as more caring since the old man cries when his dog is taken away. He then asks, “They're not going to take him away from me, are they, Monsieur Meursault?" (pg. 39), to seek reassurance of his lost dog. On the other hand, Meursault didn’t appear to care for his mother as much, for Raymond claimed that the death of Meursault’s mother was “bound to happen sooner or later”(37) and Meursault agreed with him.
However, dependency on another creature doesn't equate to a love for them. In human relationships where person is beating another or controlling them emotionally, that is unhealthy and must end. There are prosecutions against such for exactly that reason. The abuser tends to go back to the victim and claim love and affection for them after the beatings, despite their previous actions showing otherwise. Old Salamano's relationship with his spaniel was an abusive relationship that needed to end, no matter what others may say about how they need each other. I don’t believe Old Salamano actually cared about his dog’s well-being, despite the tears that were shed.
Meursault’s apparent lack of connection and lack of emotion towards his mother’s passing is just another state of coping. The levels of intensity and processing of death are very different for each person and tend to come in different waves as opposed to all at once. Personally and just recently, a friend of mine had his father pass away. He didn’t seem troubled or upset and we played games and laugh as usual. Speaking in confidence, he explained to me that he was feeling fine and nothing seemed unusual. It wasn’t until a week later that he was finally hit with the full impact of what happened and broke down sobbing. Due to this, Meursault’s lack of a reaction is not a characterization of how indifferent he is, nor a commentary on how people see death as just another part of life. This is simply a character behaving how a character in grief behaves.
True that these relationships are foils of each other in the way that the characters care for and value the other, but not in the way most people think. They are foiled in the exact opposite way, actually, where Meursault cares for his mother, but Old Salamano doesn’t care for his dog.
In chapter 3, and 4, women's role stood up to me. At the beginning of chapter 3, Raymond is talking to Meursault, "He'd beaten her till she bled. He'd never beaten her before" (31), and Raymond was telling how he hit her, "I'd smack her around a little, but nice-like, you might say might say. She'd scream a little. I'd close the shutters and it always ended the same way. But this time it's for real. And if you ask me she still hasn't gotten what she has coming" (31). This all just shows how women's role are not important, especially their value, and on other example is when Marie asks Meursault if he would like to marry her and he says that it doesn't matter. And in chapter 4, we can see that their values are not important at all, and this is proven when Raymond starts hitting his girlfriend and "the cop tells him to knock it off" (36). This just shows how not even the cops see womens values, or respect their rights. Do you think that this would be different if it had take place in another country?
The second section of Part 1 of The Stranger draws the reader in a completely different direction from the first two chapters; Meursault's observations on the lives of his neighbors, Raymond and Salamano, show so much awareness and detail that Meursault appears to have a powerful sense of empathy for these abusive men as well as their victims. However, as Raymond's story progresses without a hint of outrage on Meursault's part, the reader gradually discovers Meursault's near-sociopathic lack of respect for human life and love. The scene at the end of Raymond's story exemplifies the way Meursault has adapted to society by executing the formalities of respect and emotion in order to hide his unreactive nature. When Raymond explains that “he'd go to bed with her and 'right at the last minute' he'd spit in her face and throw her out”, Meursault simply thinks that “yes, that would punish her”(32). When Meursault agrees to write Raymond's scathing letter, it must be noted that not a single word of that letter appears in the narrative – it is also significant that Meursault chooses to describe conversations without dialogue, showing that he only notices or cares about the “substance” of conversation, not the emotional meaning behind anyone's words. In addition, Meursault mentions that he wrote the letter “just as it came to me, but I tried my best to please Raymond because I didn't have any reason not to please him” (32). This state further confuses the reader's moral judgment by revealing that Meursault does not intend to harm Raymond's girlfriend – in fact, he doesn't even consider the consequences of the letter at all. Overall, Meursault's bland description of committing a somewhat harmful act in the service of Raymond shows that Meursault has no interest in causing pain or preventing it.
In chapter 4, the motiff of the importance of the physical world for Mersault is reinforced through the use of an indifferent writing tone. Mersault and Marie have sex and the morning after she asks if he loves her. "(He) told her it didn't mean anything, but that (he) didn't think so" (35). This tone of indifference helps create a feeling for the reader that Mersault is not driven to make decisions based on his emotions, but rather his physical needs. This is also shown when Mersault "went out and Raymond bought (him) a brandy" (37). The brandy is another symbol of the motiff of physical importance, and the lack of emotion in the dialogue also contributes to the tone of indifference. This indifference and stress on the physical world helps communicate one of the fundamentals of existentialism: the only thing we know for sure is that everybody dies at some point. By focusing only on the physical and having an indifference towards emotional events, Mersault is living as though he is only sure of the fact that his physical world one day. This was written in hopes to teach and introduce the general public to existentialist ideas durig their time.
In chapter three, Camus introduces Salamano and his dog. Meursault tells the audience that "The two of them have been inseparable for eight years.... They look as if they belong to the same species, and yet they hate each other" (26-27). It as first seems like this is a close relationship between a man and his dog, but we later see that it is an abusive relationship. This relationship, like the other two in this book, seems like a good relationship on the outside, but they all have something off about them. For this one, Salamano is very cruel to his dog and this make the audience uncomfortable, but Meursault seems unfazed by it, which shows how little he cares for others. In chapter four, we find out that Salamano has lost his dog. "He was looking at the tips of his shoes and his scabby hands were trembling. Without looking up at me he asked, 'They're not going to take him away from me, are they, Monsieur Meursault? They'll give him back to me. Otherwise, what's going to happen to me?'" (39). Although Meursault is an unemotional person, Salamano comes to him for reassurance. Like Carla said, Salamano comes to him for comfort because he knows Meursault won't judge him, unlike Raymond.
The relationship between Meursault and his mom seems to contrast with the Old Salamano's relationship with his spaniel. Even though the old man and his dog don't get along well, he still cares for his dog because Old Salamo said " 'They're not going to take him away from me, are they, Monsieur Meursault? They'll give him back to me. Otherwise, what's going to happen to me?'...And from the peculiar little noise coming through the partition, I realized he was crying"(pg. 39). Old Salamano's tone sounds like he is yearning for the spaniel's company despite the abusive way he treated the dog. This creates an emotional effect to show how the dog means to Old Salamano. It's not like the spaniel has much use to Old Salamano's because not only is the dog old and unable to perform physical tasks like watching for burglars and do simple chores, he is sick and pretty much useless. But Old Salamano's doesn't know what's going to happen to him if he don't have his dog because he depends on the dog. This shows that the dog serves as an emotional support to Old Salamano. Although it's not expected that Meursault and his mom doesn't have a bad relation, Meursault seems indifferent to his mom's death. While Meursault and Raymond are eating sausage and drinking wine, Raymond "explained that he'd heard about Maman's death but that it was one of those things that was bound to happen sooner or later. [Meursault] thought so too"(pg. 33). It's ironic how it doesn't seem like Meursault and his mom dislike each other, but Meursault shows little to no sign of grief when his mom dies. On the other hand, Old Salamano's longs for his dog to be back and even cries for his dog. Even though Meursault's mom is a human, which we would agree that mother-to-son bonds should be stronger than master-to-dog bonds, Meursault has never shed a tear to his mom's death. The author makes Old Salamano's relationship with his dog the foil to Meursault's relationship with his mom to emphasizes Meursault's indifference towards the people that he should love.
ReplyDeleteI totally did not see the foil technique you mentioned before--wow, I so agree. But perhaps the difference between Salamano and Meursault is not that Meursault doesn't care for those he should and Salamano does, I think it's more along the lines of existentialist thinking, that Meursault has accepted death as a major component of life and therefore values his mother's life so much so that he does not feel the need to grieve for the loss of her previous existence.
DeleteI believe dependency on another creature doesn't equate to a love for them. Old Salamano's relationship with his spaniel was an abusive relationship that needed to end, no matter what others may say about how they need each other. In human relationships where person is beating another or controlling them emotionally, that is unhealthy and must end. There are prosecutions against such for exactly that reason. The abuser tends to go back to the victim and claim love and affection for them after the beatings, despite their previous actions showing otherwise. I don’t believe Old Salamano actually cared about his dog’s well-being, despite the tears that were shed. Although I enjoyed your observations, I would have to disagree with you there.
DeleteI agree with Audrey that the relationship needed to end. It can be compared to parasitic relationships in nature. Only one organism is nurtured at the cost of the health of the other. There is a reason doctors get rid of parasites when they occur.
DeleteThroughout Chapters 3 and 4, I noticed how Albert Camus used vivid imagery to describe Meursault’s ordinary, everyday life. Meursault goes to have dinner with his neighbor and he thinks to himself, “ I figured it would save me trouble of having too cook for myself, so I accepted,” (pg 28). Camus describes Meursault eating dinner with his neighbor. He describes him to be bored. Also in Chapter 4, Meursault goes on a date with Marie and the author vividly describes his relationship with her. Marie asks him, “She asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so,” (pg 35). This is not something that you would usually say to your significant other. It seems as if Meursault tries to be excited about things in his life, but he becomes distracted and drifts off, thinking about other things.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that by showing that Meursault thinks love is meaningless, Camus is trying to show how in general, things in life are meaningless, unless you give them meaning. Meursault's clear indifference shows how he doesn't care enough to give his life a meaning. And Perhaps that is why he suffers at the end of the book.
DeleteIn Chapter 4 , the reader is exposed to an authority figure: a police officer. This officer takes the role of a justice figure as he shows up in order to hold Raymond accountable for the extreme violence towards a woman. He is brutally beating up his supposed lover because of assumptions that she was using him. As Raymond opens the door and addresses the cop in a disrespectful manner, "the cop slaps him-a thick, heavy smack across the face and the cigarette flies across the landing"(36). The vivid imagery of the smack gives the passage a very harsh tone as Raymond receives such smack across his face. He needs to face consequences because of what he did to a woman, and his brutal aggressiveness needs to be dealt with in order to prevent future accidents. From a moral standpoint, a man is never supposed to touch a woman in such manner, and as Raymond crosses the line, the cop is the figure to make the situation just for both sides. Unlike Mersaul, the officer cares enough to hold Raymond accountable therefore they are complete foils of each other. The officer adds that "Raymond ought to be ashamed to be so drunk that he'd have the shakes" (37). The statement possesses a harsh tone because the officer is noting all of Raymond's sinful actions. He drinks, smokes and disrespects women, qualities that are frowned upon from a moral standpoint. The officer is the only character, so far, to stand up to Raymond's shenanigans and makes the passage more realistic in the sense that punishment exists and that no one is above the law.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that the police officer is an authority figure. When Raymond's with Meursault, he gets away, and is even encouraged, to do certain things. Meursault even enables him by writing the letter for Raymond. I also agree with how you said the officer makes the situation more realistic. Showing Raymond's respect and fear for the officer made the whole encounter more relatable. Having the officer stand up to Raymond while showing Meursault on the side just watching shows how different both of them are too, like you pointed out.
DeleteCamus seems to emphasize the importance of the physical world through his use of imagery. It seems like the only things that are described in depth and inanimate objects or small details. The imagery seems to solely focus on the physical state of being, never the emotional or spiritual. Even when describing people, for example Raymond, " He's short and thickset, he has a nose like a boxer's, and always dresses very sprucely."(34). Never does Meursault describe or say what people are like emotionally, and he seems to only care about the physical state of people and things. Even with Marie, who he's romantically involved with, he seems to have only taking a liking to her because of her appearance "...and I couldn't take my eyes off her. One could see the outline of her firm little breasts, and her sun-tanned face was like a velvety brown flower."(43). The fact that Meursault only cares about physical aspects of people and objects further presents the existentialist idea of living in the now and that life is meaningless. Meursault describes details of the now and only of what is happening in the moment. He never speaks of the past of future. he doesn't know love or want to know it because it seems meaningless to him. His emphasis on the physical world allows the reader to get a feel for Meursault's indifference to emotions and feelings.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your interpretation! I think that Mersault's inability to look past the surface and see a deeper emotional level restricts his understanding of the world he lives in. For example, when Marie asks if he loves her, as you mentioned, Mersault does not understand why that is so important to her because like you said, it is meaningless to him. Mersault's inability to relate to other people emotionally makes it harder for the reader to understand him emotionally and I think that is a big reason why many people don't like Mersault.
DeleteThe relationship between Raymond Sintes and Meursault is a very intriguing one as they are complete foils of each other. Meursault is passive and indifferent to occurrences in life while Raymond, on the other hand, is highly temperamental and aggressive. Their relationship forms an ironic harmony as they completely contrast each other in personalities. After the cop visits Raymond, Raymond tells Meursault that "he knew all about cops and how to handle them. Then he asked me if I'd expected him to hit the cop back. I said I wasn't expecting anythings, and besides I didn't like cops." (37). This short exchange between the two is very telling and serves to distinguish vital contrasts in the opinions and moralities of the two characters. Raymond carries confidence and values his 'manly' ego. He has obviously run into conflict with the law on multiple occasions has he claims that he is adept at handling them. This contrasts greatly with Meursault because unlike Raymond, Meursault does not care for cops. He does not hold himself higher above them or lower. His dislike for cops stems from the existentialist views of equality among living things and the meaninglessness of life. Meursault, albeit unknowingly at the moment, holds these views because in his point of view, each living being is has its own rules to follow, therefore whose to say whats right or wrong. This is why Meursault dislikes cops because he does not believe in society's common justice system. Raymond, however, rebels from this common justice system and tries to elude the law. This leads into Raymond's confession to Meursault about his desire to take revenge on his mistress. He wanted Meursault to write a scathing letter to his mistress as part of her punishment, and Meursault agrees to write him the letter "because I didn't have any reason not to please him" (32). This further illustrates the contrast between the two characters. Raymond is violent and abusive and only intends to use women whereas Meursault finds joy in women and does not harm his own (Marie). While Raymond is enraged at his mistress's actions, Meursault is indifferent and only goes along with Raymond because he does not see it as a serious matter. This further characterizes Meursault's apathy towards morals in life because in his opnion, Raymond's motives for his actions are just as good as any other person's. Because of these reasons, Meursault's amorality and Raymond's immorality serve as a contrast and makes each character a foil of the other.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that stood out to me in these chapters was Marie's visit. Mersault describes her in such beautiful ways, "She had a very pretty dress, with red and white stripes, and leather sandals, and I couldn't take my eyes off her. One could see the online of hr firm little breasts, and her sun tanned face was like a velvety brown flower."(43). Out of every brief enchant mersaukt has with other people and the outside world the way he describes Marie is the most caring and detailed. But when Marie asked if he moves her, Mersault blatantly says no, "A moment later she asked me If I loved her. I said that sort of question had no meaning, really; but I suppose I didn't." (44). Why do you think Mersault said this? Do you think he doesn't believe in love and that is why is "had no meaning"? I think that Mersault has never experienced true affection even with his own mother, and that is why he can't commit to love. Mersault is seeming to become similar to a Nihilist in the way he goes about his life and the feelings he has. What do you guys think?
ReplyDeleteCan you also look at it in terms of the theory of the absurd universe? Perhaps trying to assigning meaning to a relationship is the same as trying to assign meaning to a universe where there is no meaning? Another question is why Marie "content" to stay with someone who isn't in love with her?
DeleteMs. Ballard
As we can see from the previous chapters, Meursalt lacks the ability to connect with others on a deeper level. This is shown in both chapters 3 and 4 with Raymond and Marie. In chapter 3 we can see this lack of emotion, “I didn’t say anything, and he asked me again if I wanted to be pals. I said it was fine with me: he seemed pleased” (29). It seems that Meursalt could care less about being friends with Raymond and was only there because he got out of having to cook himself. While on the other hand we see that Raymond is delighted to create a new friendship with someone just like anybody would. This idea of him not caring about creating this relationship with another human seems bizarre but makes sense when looked at it from an existentialist view. Then in chapter 4 we see a sort of juxtaposition of emotion within Meursalt when Camus writes, “When she laughed I wanted her again. 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” (35). To the reader, this is somewhat of a surprise considering that this is one of the first times that he expresses somewhat of his emotions in the fact that he wants her. Then again, confusion also arises in the reader when he tells her that he does not love her. I think that he isn’t giving himself the chance to connect with Marie on that deeper level and see’s her more as a mistress. However I believe that this again goes back into the existentialist views on not letting an opposing force get in the way of finding your own path.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that Meursault is incapable of loving, or feeling any emotioins? Or do you think that he just does not want to feel emotions?
DeleteIn Chapters 3 and 4, the thing that struck me was Salamano’s relationship with his dog. Salamano treats his dog horribly. “Then he beats the dog and swears at it... When the dog wants to urinate, the old man won’t give him enough time and yanks at him so that the spaniel leaves behind a trail of little drops.” (27). In discussing Salamano, Meursault only states what he notices about the relationship and seems indifferent about Salamano’s treatment towards his dog. This supports Camus’ belief that everyone is guilty, suggesting that the dog did something wrong in order to receive the punishment he deserved. When Meursault talked about Salamano, it seemed as though Salamano was just letting out his anger at his dog, and just overall treating him very inhumanely. He didn’t seem as though he loved his dog. Conversely, at the end of Chapter 4, Salamano shows that he cares about his dog which was not explicitly shown earlier, “They’re not going to take him away from me, are they, Monsieur Meursault? They’ll give him back to me. Otherwise, what’s going to happen to me?” (39). This completely contrasts with how he treats his dog, but it still cannot be said that he truly loves his dog. He worries about his future without his dog, but what he said can be interpreted many different ways: does he really miss his dog or is his dog a means of protection for him? The fact that he said, “what’s going to happen to me?” gives a hint of selfishness, suggesting that the dog benefits his (Salamano’s) life more than the dog himself. Camus’s inclusion of the relationship between Salamano and his dog in “The Stranger” indicates that the world is full of deception and hypocrisy, portrayed by Salamano’s relationship with his dog.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of chapter 4, Meursault seemed very affected by the events that had just occurred, Raymond and his ex-wife’s situation and Salamano’s runaway dog. Even though Meursault reacted indifferently to these two events, he seemed emotionally affected by them, “For some reason I thought of Maman. But I had to get up early the next morning. I wasn’t hungry, and I went to bed without any dinner.” (39). I think these events will in some way shape his beliefs and help him develop into the person he becomes.
In these chapters I really got the connection with what we talked about in class. This chapter really explored the connection to Camus’ philosophy on existentialism. His thoughts on absurdity and human existence having no meaning or purpose I think reflected these chapters in a way. Camus once stated that “life can be lived all the better if it has no meaning” and I think this reflected on Meursault because of the personality he portray about certain things. Meursault does not think his mothers’ death is that big of a deal and order of human existence is shown. He can easily continue his life as it was before his mother died. Someone would not be able to just go on a date, go to a comedy show, and have sex with someone the day after their own mothers’ funeral. It just seems odd. At the end of chapter two leading into chapter three he stated, “Really, nothing in my life had changed” (Page 30). And then it continues onto chapter three explaining he busy morning at the office, the weather, and after work activities. In my opinion I think that the after effect of his mother passing has occurred, or in that matter the actual effect of his mother passing. What does everyone else think? In chapter four Marie is introduced and things seemed different. Things were very detailed about her and it seemed show that the existence of her was important to Meursault. “…I couldn’t take my eyes off her… her sun-tanned face was like a velvety brown flower” (page 43). He admired her. I think that this embraced Albert Camus’ philosophy on the live in the present deal because with her he doesn’t have a care in the world and everything seems to be happy for him when he is with her. It is like she has a purpose.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that Meursault really doesn't feel anything with his mother's death and thats why he goes on living his routine or is his daily routine a way of forgetting and coping with the death? (especially with Marie). I think that with Camus' ideas that life goes on and the routine must continue and emotion would just get in the way. Also do you think that Camus describes Marie in such a positive connotation because she has accepted the absurdity or do you think that she is naive towards the fact that "there is no meaning in life"?
DeleteThe first thing that struck me as bizarre was the absurdity present in both chapters 3 and 4. Salamano and his dog are miserable companions. The author writes, "They haven't changed their route in eight years. You can see them in the rue de Lyon, the dog pulling the man along until old Salamano stumbles. Then he beats the dog and swears at it. The dog cowers and trails behind. Then it's the old man who pulls the dog. Once the dog has forgotten, it starts dragging its master along again, and again gets beaten and sworn at" (27) to show just this. They've been caught in routine dependency on one another, despite the violence and abuse of their twisted friendship. The author's purpose in this is to illustrate two things: the part of society too comfortable and too terrified of the risks of change to be happy, as well as the desperate human need for companionship, especially in times of misery. Both these revolve around the subject of emotion, which is a very human-related topic due to the fact that the human race is so heavily driven by these volatile intrinsic sentiments. What is the purpose of emotion? If one rejects emotion, a rather impossible feat in my opinion, life loses its meaning. Emotion automatically colors everything in the world in both positive and negative lights and affects the way in which things are perceived. I'd also like to point out that emotion is essential to living, but not existing. Salamano's treatment of his dog somewhat parallels Raymond's treatment of his previous girlfriend. Raymond says, "But first I smacked her around" (30) and then the narrator adds, "He'd beaten her till she bled" (31). Both men exhibit difficulty in dealing with anger and hatred, and as a result resort to violence. Perhaps this is the author's way of illustrating the darkness of the world and weakness of man. I've noticed how Camus places emphasis on relationships. The narrator says, "That morning Marie stayed and I told her that we would have lunch together. I went downstairs to buy some meat. On my way back upstairs I heard a woman's voice in Raymond's room. A little later old Salamano growled at his dog"(35). Here, the author juxtaposes all three main relationships. There are striking similarities between the behavior of Salamano and Raymond, but I'm not yet clear on the reasoning behind the inclusion of Meursault's relationship. Perhaps it is to contrast his simple, uncomplicated relationship with the others' more complex ones. In that case, it only places more attention on Meursault's indifference towards everything. Any other ideas?
ReplyDeleteMersault’s relationship with Marie continued to be a point of interest for me in this story as I read the third and fourth chapters, mostly because of how it affects Mersault. Mersault is incredibly bored with his everyday life, and it best manifests itself in how he reacts to Marie. As Mersault puts it, “When she laughed I wanted her again” (35). At first, I did not think this quote had any meaning beyond the literal implication of arousal. However, I noticed just a few sentences later that Mersault says, “…for no apparent reason, she laughed in such a way that I kissed her” (35). Mersault is not merely attracted to Marie because of her laughter—he’s attracted because she is experiencing something he can’t. The tone of bordeom which permeates this book makes his near-jealousy when it comes to Marie’s genuine emotion make sense. All signs point to Mersault having an existential crisis at some point in this book, given that the entire book is about existentialism, and the way that Mersault is craving actual emotion at this point in the book foreshadows the eventual confrontation he will have to make with the boredom in his life. By showing Mersault’s desire for feeling emotion, these two quotes are both able to hint at his eventual reckoning with the purpose of his plain and unremarkable life.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting point and I glad you brought this up because I was thinking something very similar to this! I like how the two quotes you chose connect in a way that foreshadows the revoking with the purpose and unremarkable life.
DeleteSo far, there have been three main relationships unfolding from chapter one to chapter four, all which have been regular and consistent, only to be interrupted by something irregular. First is Meursault and his mother - the consistency lies in the estranged attitude Meursault had towards her, changed by him needing to attend her funeral (or, in other words, her death). Next we have Salamano and his dog - their relationship is one of abuse (one-sided or mutual depending on how you look at it) and it has been interrupted by the dog running away. Finally, there's Raymond and his "mistress," where her leeching off of him was regular, until he found out that he had been cheated on. All of these relationships are major and have been altered significantly in one way or another. Meursault reacts with indifference, as demonstrated with chapters one and two. Salamano reacts with grief, especially when Meursault noted, "And from the peculiar little noise coming through the partition, I realized he was crying." (Camus, 39) Raymond's reaction is one of aggressive, uncontrolled anger, where "'he'd go to bed with her and 'right at the last minute' he'd spit in her face and throw her out.'" (Camus, 32)
ReplyDeleteEven though Meursault has proven to be an isolated, antisocial character, he is tangled in the life events of others. We can also see that it begins to effect a change in his emotions. He agreed to write Raymond's letter when he realized the woman was Moorish, and he was reminded of his mother after he heard Salamano crying about his dog. Additionally, each character that comes into contact with Meursault mentions the death of his mother - I'm sure Salamano will do it in the future as well. The effect here is that we see that while Meursault is portrayed as a "Stranger" in his own mind, there is a deeper connection that he has with other characters - one is most likely in love with him (Marie), one asks him for a huge favor (Raymond), and one comes running to him after shock (Salamano). By laying out a spider web of mingling lives, Camus creates points of interest that allow him to develop the story and ultimately his ideas about absurdism.
The relationship between old Salamano and his dog is one of the more interesting points these two chapters. The relationship is symbolic of a normal person’s relationship to the world; Salamano being the person and the dog being the rest of the world.The pair’s relationship is repetitive and seemingly meaningless. They have walk the same path every day for the past eight years. Camus illustrates to the reader through their lives that life in general has no innate meaning just how Salamano and the dog walk the same path every day. THe relationship is also abusive; “Once the dog has forgotten, it starts dragging its master along again, and again gets beaten and sworn at”(27). The man continuously blames the dog when the dog did nothing wrong. In life, people blame their problem and actions on other people and through Camus’s comparison, the reader sees that it is wrong for the dog, and other people, to be blamed because the dog lacks free will.
ReplyDeleteDespite all of old Salamano’s hatred for his dog, he reacts compassionately toward the dog once he leaves. At first, Salamano is in a state of shock and explains his story to his neighbors. His actions are ironic due to the fact that he treats his dog so poorly. Salamano doesn’t want to accept his dog’s disappearance and gets angry saying, “ He can damn well die”(39), when he learns that he will have to pay to get his dog back. Finally, Salamano feels desperate and hopeless without his dog. This progression symbolizes a person’s realization of absurdism and the fact that there is no innate meaning to life. It is difficult to accept and a person will get angry and plead that their life has meaning. Finally, a person becomes depressed in his realization. This is the point at which a person is likely to commit physical or philosophical suicide but Camus would argue that the best option would be for Salamano to find a way to live without his dog just as a person should find their own meaning to life.
What surprised me in these two chapters is that all these eventful things are happening around him and he is very emotionless about them. For example, he has been all over Marie and shown that he has feelings for her. Yet after they have sex he has no emotion further than just friends or even less. Meursault says, "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." (35). First off in this quote he says he doesn't think that love means anything or this intimate moment between them meant anything, then he goes on to say that he doesn't love her (if he believed in love). This is important because it shows and explains things about Meursault. Previously in the book he showed lot of emotion towards Marie, yet we learn that he never even had real feelings for her or barely felt anything. This could connect with why he doesn't show any emotion with the death of his mother also. This emotional detachment shows some of Albert Camus' ideas of existentialism and life not having any meaning. If we think of his idea before absurdity referenced in his essay The Myth of Sisyphus, we see the idea of this killing nothingness and not accepting that or accepting the absurdity therefore being lifeless. we see this idea within Meursault and his emotional detachment. Another example I found of Meursault's detachment from emotion is when with "his pal", Raymond. As Raymond tells Meursault about the abuse and his very messed up plans about his wife and everything, Meursault shows no real emotion. Camus describes everything of the situation tat Raymond has and has very little of Meursault's thoughts in the elongated paragraphed. Meursault's thoughts of the situation can be summed up from that paragraph by, "I said i didn't think anything but that it was interesting...since I didn't say anything, he asked if I'd mind doing it right then and I said no,"(32). Raymond's situation is very messed up and his idea to get his revenge of spitting on her during sex is very dehumanizing and absurd. Yet Meursault has no documented feelings opposing this idea. really no personable feelings at all on this matter. And he "doesn't mind" writing this letter, therefore he is indifferent about participating in this emotional messed up drama. This again shows emotional detachment. Meursault experiences all these emotional events and gets involved with very emotional things yet never feels anything. This can help prove Camus' ideas before accepting absurdity. Camus uses very long paragraphs about emotional things so the reader feels thing making Meursault's absence of emotion seem abnormal and draw the attention of the reader to that matter.
ReplyDeleteIn chapters 3 and 4, Mersault as a character has not changed much. He is still the same man with a boring life, boring job, and he does not seem to care much about anything or anyone. This lack of emotion will have to be addressed by the end of the book and I'm sure we will see a drastic change in his character. The relationship that Mersault and Marie have has not really changed up until this point either, he seems to simply care about sex and not much more. But to this point, she has not really taken any objection to that, so that might not change for a while. During Mersult and Marie's most recent encounter, he states "I kissed her; after that neither of us spoke for awhile" (pg. 43). The emotional distance between them is evident, he has not tried to have a meaningful connection with her, Raymond, or his mother when she was older. When Marie asks him if he loves her, he says that he does not, and that that is a pointless question. Similarly, Raymond repeatedly asks Mersault to be his friend, and simply does not answer but eventually says yes, because why not. While Mersult seems to be uninterested in people, he does enjoy escaping from reality in another way. During his meeting with Raymond, he says "I'd had a whole bottle of wine to myself and my head was buzzing. As I'd used up my cigarettes I was smoking Raymond's" (pg. 39). Wine and cigarettes are both mentioned quite a lot in this chapter, and cigarettes have been throughout the whole book. I think it is interesting how he does seem to enjoy both of these drugs quite a bit, and they both are things that are used to make the ordinary more fun. This continues the theme of him focusing on material things and the physical world more than something deeper. I think that this theme will continue and eventually he will face it, and possibly change his mindset.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I noticed was the parallel drawn between his two neighbors. Salamano and his dog's relationship is very similar to the relationship Raymond has with his ex-mistress. The theme of abuse in these two relationships is very striking, especially because Mersault doesn't seem to be emotionally engaged (surprise surprise) for either party. For example when Raymond asks Mersault his opinion on his plan to punish his ex-mistress, Mersault says " I said you can't ever be sure, but I understood his wanting to punish her" (p32). Then, when Raymond asks Mersault to write the letter for him, Mersault does saying "I tried my best to please Raymond because I didn't have any reason not to please him" (p32). Mersault is noncommittal at best, and think this could reflect a past experience with abuse. The other relationship highlighting abuse in chapters 3 and 4 is the relationship between Salamano and his dog. Salamano is very abusive, but when the dog runs away, he is heartbroken and angry. He asks Mersault for help, just like Raymond did, and Mersault does his best to help him. The fact that both men went to Mersault for help, tells the reader that Mersault's impartial views on the world in general make him seem trustworthy to his neighbors, like he won't judge them at all because he does not care. Mersault's willingness to help shows a lack of moral character, especially because he is condoning abuse towards other living things. Because there are two different types of living things being put in danger, I think the author is trying to highlight the depth of Mersault's lack of emotion. This further reinforces the characterization of Mersault, and lowers the reader's expectations for Mersault's future.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comparisons between Meursault's relationships with his neighbors. He's willing to help them in a noncommittal way and also shows that he's nice enough to help the people that he isn't even close with, but ruthless at the same time for not standing up for the woman and spaniel. It doesn't seem to bother him with the fact that his neighbors are abusive towards creatures with lesser power. This makes me feel like Meursault has no opinion in anything or he's reluctant to express his opinions.
DeleteA detail that caught my attention while reading Chapter Three was the fact that Mersault never refers to his boss by name, but rather calls him “The Boss”. At the beginning of Chapter Three, Mersault states, “The boss was nice.” (Camus, 25). Mersault realises that that his boss does not have any profound impact on his life, and Mersault does not try to assign arbitrary meaning to his boss’s existence in his life. Mersault is able to find peace with the fact that others can exist without existing to give meaning to Mersault’s life. To the outside observer, it might appear that Mersault is simply going through the motions of life, living in a meaningless cycle of activities. However, the truth is that by realising that nothing gives his life meaning, Mersault is able to find a quiet within himself that allows Mersault to assign his own meaning to life, rather than wait around for others to do it for him. A character that clearly contrasts Mersault is Salamano. When Mersault inquires as to why Salamano is abusing with his dog, Salamano angrily replies, “He’s always there.” (26). Salamano is unable to come to terms with the fact that other beings do not exist to give Salamano meaning. Because of this, Salamano is clearly upset with the pure existence of his dog. This fixated mindset leads to Salamano’s apparent heartbreak when his dog runs away. Salamano assigns meaning to his systematic argument with his dog, and is therefore disturbed when his dog runs away. Camus uses the contrasting characters of Mersault and Salamano to demonstrate that the absurd, or assigning meaning to meaningless situations, leads to disturbed emotional mindsets. In order to find inner peace and meaning, people must not attempt to bring meaning into his or her lives by outside forces.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Belinda had to say about Salamo's relationship with his dog. But, I feel as if Salamo mentions Meursault's mother in order to displace his own guilty feelings. Salamo says, " 'Your poor mother' he says. He supposed I must be very sad since Maman died" (45). For me, Salamo seems to say this for himself as opposed to for Meursault. He seems to believe that Meursault really loved his mother like how Salamo really loved his dog. It is interesting to see the differences between the two relationships. I wonder if Meursault loved his mother but did not know it? Or, maybe I’m just trying to give meaning to something that doesn’t have any meaning. This in a way shows Camus' philosophy concerning absurdity. Something else that was interesting, to me, in this chapter was the scene with the policemen(36). I had sort of a TOK moment, as Larp would put it. It was interesting how our society frowns upon his boss hitting his mistress. But, when the cop hit him it was alright. They both did the same thing, they had the same actions but one is frowned upon while the other is not. Yes, Raymond needed to face the consequences, but, is the officer justified in hitting him? I feel like throughout this book Camus is not only illustrating his philosophy, he is also criticizing society’s expectation and making us question our moral code.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapters 3 and 4, the character Raymond is introduced. In many aspects, he serves as foil to Meursalt. Raymond is shown to be highly fueled by emotion which is apparent when he beats a woman. “You used me, you used me. I'll teach you to use me.” (Camus 35). Unlike Meursalt, who remains collected throughout the most traumatizing of events, Raymond instantly enacts vengeance when the woman slaps him. He is someone that would be considered more normal than Meursalt. Another character that contrasts Meursalt is Salmano. It is apprentent after the scene where Salamano explains that he's lost his dog but has no intention of paying money to take him back from the pound. “His bed creaked. And from the particular little noise coming through the partison, I realized he was crying” (39) Despite his mask of arrogance and discontent for his dog, it is clear that Salamano is distraught about the prospect of losing him, unlike Meursalt.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting structure occurs when Meursault seems depressed and is narrating himself. What is interesting is that he reaffirms himself. He does this as he responds to Raymond, “ I felt sleepy, but it was hard for me to get up. I must have looked tired” (Camus 33), and, “ Then he explained that he’d heard about Maman’s death but that it was one of those things that was bound to happen sooner or later. I thought so too” (Camus 33). In the first quote, Meursault confirms his tiredness twice through description of his mental and physical appearance. The double description creates a tone of lethargy and depression. Camus intentionally does this to show the meaninglessness of Meursault’s life and how he is living it out in a worthless way. In a similar manner, the second quote creates a tone that is depressing and nostalgic. The reader is reminded of Maman’s death as Meursault is and can connect to Meursault’s reaffirmation of the fact because it was something of the past that was placed in the back of memory. Overall the structure is very interesting and Camus uses it effectively to the extent that it conveys themes about worthlessness in living and nostalgic apathy in loss.
ReplyDeleteMany people are comparing Old Salamano's relationship with his spaniel between Meursault’s relationship with his mother. Salamano’s relationship is seen as more caring since the old man cries when his dog is taken away. He then asks, “They're not going to take him away from me, are they, Monsieur Meursault?" (pg. 39), to seek reassurance of his lost dog. On the other hand, Meursault didn’t appear to care for his mother as much, for Raymond claimed that the death of Meursault’s mother was “bound to happen sooner or later”(37) and Meursault agreed with him.
ReplyDeleteHowever, dependency on another creature doesn't equate to a love for them. In human relationships where person is beating another or controlling them emotionally, that is unhealthy and must end. There are prosecutions against such for exactly that reason. The abuser tends to go back to the victim and claim love and affection for them after the beatings, despite their previous actions showing otherwise. Old Salamano's relationship with his spaniel was an abusive relationship that needed to end, no matter what others may say about how they need each other. I don’t believe Old Salamano actually cared about his dog’s well-being, despite the tears that were shed.
Meursault’s apparent lack of connection and lack of emotion towards his mother’s passing is just another state of coping. The levels of intensity and processing of death are very different for each person and tend to come in different waves as opposed to all at once. Personally and just recently, a friend of mine had his father pass away. He didn’t seem troubled or upset and we played games and laugh as usual. Speaking in confidence, he explained to me that he was feeling fine and nothing seemed unusual. It wasn’t until a week later that he was finally hit with the full impact of what happened and broke down sobbing. Due to this, Meursault’s lack of a reaction is not a characterization of how indifferent he is, nor a commentary on how people see death as just another part of life. This is simply a character behaving how a character in grief behaves.
True that these relationships are foils of each other in the way that the characters care for and value the other, but not in the way most people think. They are foiled in the exact opposite way, actually, where Meursault cares for his mother, but Old Salamano doesn’t care for his dog.
In chapter 3, and 4, women's role stood up to me. At the beginning of chapter 3, Raymond is talking to Meursault, "He'd beaten her till she bled. He'd never beaten her before" (31), and Raymond was telling how he hit her, "I'd smack her around a little, but nice-like, you might say might say. She'd scream a little. I'd close the shutters and it always ended the same way. But this time it's for real. And if you ask me she still hasn't gotten what she has coming" (31). This all just shows how women's role are not important, especially their value, and on other example is when Marie asks Meursault if he would like to marry her and he says that it doesn't matter. And in chapter 4, we can see that their values are not important at all, and this is proven when Raymond starts hitting his girlfriend and "the cop tells him to knock it off" (36). This just shows how not even the cops see womens values, or respect their rights. Do you think that this would be different if it had take place in another country?
ReplyDeleteThe second section of Part 1 of The Stranger draws the reader in a completely different direction from the first two chapters; Meursault's observations on the lives of his neighbors, Raymond and Salamano, show so much awareness and detail that Meursault appears to have a powerful sense of empathy for these abusive men as well as their victims. However, as Raymond's story progresses without a hint of outrage on Meursault's part, the reader gradually discovers Meursault's near-sociopathic lack of respect for human life and love. The scene at the end of Raymond's story exemplifies the way Meursault has adapted to society by executing the formalities of respect and emotion in order to hide his unreactive nature. When Raymond explains that “he'd go to bed with her and 'right at the last minute' he'd spit in her face and throw her out”, Meursault simply thinks that “yes, that would punish her”(32). When Meursault agrees to write Raymond's scathing letter, it must be noted that not a single word of that letter appears in the narrative – it is also significant that Meursault chooses to describe conversations without dialogue, showing that he only notices or cares about the “substance” of conversation, not the emotional meaning behind anyone's words. In addition, Meursault mentions that he wrote the letter “just as it came to me, but I tried my best to please Raymond because I didn't have any reason not to please him” (32). This state further confuses the reader's moral judgment by revealing that Meursault does not intend to harm Raymond's girlfriend – in fact, he doesn't even consider the consequences of the letter at all. Overall, Meursault's bland description of committing a somewhat harmful act in the service of Raymond shows that Meursault has no interest in causing pain or preventing it.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 4, the motiff of the importance of the physical world for Mersault is reinforced through the use of an indifferent writing tone. Mersault and Marie have sex and the morning after she asks if he loves her. "(He) told her it didn't mean anything, but that (he) didn't think so" (35). This tone of indifference helps create a feeling for the reader that Mersault is not driven to make decisions based on his emotions, but rather his physical needs. This is also shown when Mersault "went out and Raymond bought (him) a brandy" (37). The brandy is another symbol of the motiff of physical importance, and the lack of emotion in the dialogue also contributes to the tone of indifference. This indifference and stress on the physical world helps communicate one of the fundamentals of existentialism: the only thing we know for sure is that everybody dies at some point. By focusing only on the physical and having an indifference towards emotional events, Mersault is living as though he is only sure of the fact that his physical world one day. This was written in hopes to teach and introduce the general public to existentialist ideas durig their time.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter three, Camus introduces Salamano and his dog. Meursault tells the audience that "The two of them have been inseparable for eight years.... They look as if they belong to the same species, and yet they hate each other" (26-27). It as first seems like this is a close relationship between a man and his dog, but we later see that it is an abusive relationship. This relationship, like the other two in this book, seems like a good relationship on the outside, but they all have something off about them. For this one, Salamano is very cruel to his dog and this make the audience uncomfortable, but Meursault seems unfazed by it, which shows how little he cares for others. In chapter four, we find out that Salamano has lost his dog. "He was looking at the tips of his shoes and his scabby hands were trembling. Without looking up at me he asked, 'They're not going to take him away from me, are they, Monsieur Meursault? They'll give him back to me. Otherwise, what's going to happen to me?'" (39). Although Meursault is an unemotional person, Salamano comes to him for reassurance. Like Carla said, Salamano comes to him for comfort because he knows Meursault won't judge him, unlike Raymond.
ReplyDelete