In chapters 3 and 4, Camus makes you think twice about your opinion on Meursault. After I read these two chapters, I started thinking... What if Meursault is just being honest and straight forward about what he thinks? Maybe it's not just carelessness. I think of Meursault as sort of a shadow of Camus' beliefs. Camus felt that language was an art meant to tell the truth. Meursault might just be telling the honest truth about the situations he is in. In chapter 3, Camus writes, "He said, 'So you see, I wasn't the one who started it. He was asking for it.' It was true and I agreed"(3.29). Although this quote seems really simple and boring, it tells a lot about Meursault's personality. A lot of people might think that violence isn't the answer to a problem so they wouldn't agree with Raymond's actions. Meursault on the other hand, is more straight forward and thinks that if the guy was asking for it, then he deserved it. Meursault was just telling the honest truth even though it sounds sort of heartless to say that it's okay to beat up a man. Another quote that relates to the first one is also in chapter 3. Camus says, "And once he said to me, talking about Salamano, 'If that isn't pitiful!' He asked me didn't I think it was disgusting and I said no"(3.28). The majority of people would say that beating a dog is definitely pitiful and wrong but Meursault thinks otherwise. Again, this might come off as heartless to the reader but that's just how Meursault is. He isn't going to stand there and tell Raymond that it is pitiful if he doesn't think that it is. Meursault is just speaking his mind and there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion(This doesn't mean I don't think it's pitiful!). What do you guys think? Do you think Meursault is a cold-hearted human being or do you think he is speaking the truth?
An observation that I made while reading chapters three and four was how Raymond is a character foil of Meursault. They differ dramatically, especially in regards to women. For example, whole Meursault struggles to make decisions, Raymond is more immoral in how he beats women. While Meursault is attracted to Marie, and describes his desires in ways such as "I wanted her so bad when I saw her in that pretty red-and-white striped dress and leather sandals," (pg 34) Raymond acts violently towards his lover. Raymond wants to sleep with his mistress, then "spit in her face and throw her out," (pg 32). It was interesting when Meursault was said "afterwards he wanted to go to a whorehouse, but I said no because I don't like that," (pg 38). Clearly, Raymond sees sex as a source of revenge and humiliation, rather than Meursault who uses it as a source of pleasure and delight. Another aspect that I found interesting is how every observation that Meursault makes is based purely on physical characteristics. When he describes Marie, and is watching people on his balcony, his primary focus looks, rather than judgement. Also, rather than mentioning something to Salamano about how he treats his dog, he just observes his actions. This makes Meursault appear as more of a passive character. The ways in which these characters differ from one another reminded me of Sartre's philosophy of how people are all born with "blank slates," and you choose who you become and your purpose. According to this philosophy, Meursault is more of a non-judgmental and amoral character. On the other hand, Raymond is immoral and is more focused on revenge than doing good. Raymond seems to almost manipulate Meursault into having him assist in his scheme for revenge with his mistress, which is most likely because he is aware of their differences in personality.
I agree with you, Brooklyn; Meursault and Raymond are clearly each other's foil. Along with your observations, I noticed that Meursault was more hesitant about making this friendship where Raymond was very straightforward with his intentions. I believe that Camus created this foil to highlight the character differences between these two characters, which consequently demonstrates the characteristics that makes Meursault an outsider. You brought up some great points Brooklyn that contributed to my understanding of their relationship.
I found chapters 3 and 4 to be very intersting and key in characterizing Meursault. The beginning of chapter 3 presents an interesting quote. When he is asked about his mom's age, he replies, "About sixty" and adds "so as to not make a mistake" (pg. 25). This further shows that Meursault is a very passive person. He seems to not care about anyone to the point where he does not bother to remember details about his own mother. It made me wonder how it was possible for someone to show that much passivity and if there was something in his past that had caused him to begin acting this way. I also noticed the recurring event of him smoking. At first I thought it was just an added detail to give him personality but it then occurred to me that people develop habits usually as a way to cope with something. Smoking frequently could be his way of dealing with his masked sorrow after the loss of his mom. Also in chapter 4, he talks about loving Marie and he states, "I told her it didn't mean anything but that I didn't think so" (pg. 35). I thought this was a clear example of the nihilistic mindset. He believes that nothing has meaning and seems not to believe in anything including love.
In some ways I believe Meurasult actually cares about others. By being vague about his mother's age, it seems he cares not to make a mistake because making a mistake would make him feel guilty as if he wronged his mother. I think this shows he actually finds meaning in the little things such as age. He wants to appreciate her life and would feel bad lying about it. Camus also conveys this aspect of Meursault's character when he says, "I said it was fine with me: he seemed pleased," (29). Meursault did not want to necessarily please Raymond but seemed content with the fact that his decision did please him. This, to me, shows that Meursault isn't the heartless character everyone thinks he is.
You make a valid point but I also agree with Olivia. I don't think that Meursault is passive I just think that he cares about the bigger details not the small ones. I also feel like he is a very simple man. I thought of him as boring in the beginning but now I believe that he just lives a simple, truthful, life.
I also agree with Olivia and think that he actually does care but just has a hard time expressing it like others do. I think that him saying, "about sixty" was the best way that he knew how to express his feelings. He did not want to get his mother's age wrong, so he made a vague estimate. I think that if he were to actually give a number or guess a number and was wrong, that would make him appear more heartless and uncaring because then it seems like he is not making any effort to think of her age. I agree with you about him telling Marie he did not love her and how he said it did not matter. I thought that this was Camus' demonstration of how Meursault was not an existentialist yet because he did not think that it had meaning one way or the other.
“They look as if they belong to the same species, and yet they hate each other.” (27)
Meursault is describing the relationship between Salamano and his mangy dog at this point. The relationship between the man and the dog can be interpreted in many ways, but I saw it as Camus’ way of saying that people have no right to judge one another. Just before this quote, Meursault says that, “after living together for so long, the two of them alone in one tiny room, they’ve ended up looking like each other”, and I believe that the tiny room is symbolic of Earth and the universal human experience. Both Salamano and his mangy dog are covered in scabs and scars, so they are both equally afflicted and, honestly, equally ugly, and yet Salamano still thinks that he has the right to refer to his dog as a “filthy, stinking bastard.” The scabs and scars that Salamano and his dog share are representative of the suffering and pain that Camus would argue that all humans share, and so there is no reason to cast judgement upon other people’s suffering when we all have it. Camus is trying to communicate that all humans share the universal human experience, and although there are differences, there are also many similarities (like with Salamano and his dog) and hating something so similar to you is no different than hating yourself.
“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)
Here, we not only get to see Meursault’s nature of only focusing on what interests him and living in the moment, but we also get to see his cutting and unapologetic honesty. In the modern world, men can easily be viewed as “pigs” for indulging in their sexual desires, so they try to at least conceal them until the time is right. In Meursault’s case, he is willing to indulge in all of his urges the second that they happen, whether the urge is to smoke, drink, or, in this case, have sex with Marie. Camus is showing through Meursault’s actions that living in the moment and following one’s primal urges rather than trying to mask them in order to act in a socially acceptable manner is ridiculous. This is also a prime example of Meursault’s rejection of saying words or forcing emotions just because it is socially acceptable. Although Marie obviously wants to hear that he loves her, he is not willing to lie just because it will make her feel good. Initially this makes Meursault seem like a harsh individual, but what Camus is arguing is truly harsh is to lie and tell somebody that you love them when you do not. It further supports his argument that living in the moment with honesty and without masking emotions is the way to live, and it is absurd to indulge in emotions that do not exist.
Although many characters were introduced in these chapters, I felt Salamano and his dog have a major significance to the story. First, Meursault states that the man and the dog have taken on each other's looks (27). He then describes characteristics of each that both of them possess. Comparing a man to his dog is dehumanizing and shows Meursault's disgust for other people as he mocks them for their seemingly meaningless lives. When Salamano loses his dog and Meursault overhears him crying in his room, he states, "...I realized he was crying. For some reason I thought of Maman," (39). Meursault displays that the loss of the dog reminds him of his mom and for the first time he seems to show a small amount of empathy. As Salamano mourns over his dog, Meursault shares the same feeling towards his mother which shows he actually is capable of emotion. However, the old man mourns more over his dog more than Meursault has over his mother. Most people would suggest that this means Meursault does not care much about his mother but I had a different perspective on it. From Meursault's previous actions, he seems like a very straight forward person who views life as what you make it. He does not seem like the person who would fuss over the loss of life. It is possible Meursault appreciates her life and that is why he would not excessively grieve over his mother's death. The guilt and mourn that Salamano feels is Camus' way of mocking the society who care more about death than life, shown through Salamano who never appreciated his dog until he was gone. Meursault is not this way and I believe this is part of his existentialist personality.
I like the idea about the fact that people don't care about something till it's gone... it sort of goes against the idea that of living in the now! Good point! Ms. Ballard
Throughout chapters 3 and 4, I found the character of Salamano to be very interesting. The part about him that interested me the most was his relationship with his dog. For most of these chapters it seems as if he hates his dog because of how he yells at him and beats him but that doesn't seem to be true because he cannot part with the dog that he has had for eight years and when he disappears, Salamano is worried about him and wants him back. The first time that Salamano is mentioned in the book is when Meursault walks past him as he is beating his dog. "When I ran into him on the stairs, Salamano was swearing away at the dog." (27) The dog did nothing wrong when Salamano started yelling at him, he was just there and Salamano did not want that but he never parted with the dog. He beats and yells at the dog several times before it disappears, like he doesn’t want it and it is the most annoying thing he has to deal with. At the very end of chapter 3, Salamano seems to be very worried about what could or might happen to his dog. This is demonstrated by him going to Meursault's door after a while and says, "Excuse me….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 demonstrates that he knows that his dog is very important to him and that he needs him, no matter how annoying the dog can be. He seems very worried over what could possibly happen to his dog, which contradicts with how much he yelled at and beat the dog. Which then makes the reader rethink their original opinion of Salamano and feel some sympathy towards him.
I feel like Raymond is somewhat like Salamano aswell. He seems to have some feelings for his mistress, but those feelings are masked by his desire for revenge. Maybe it is possible that he does truly love her, and isn't aware of how to exemplify his love. I think that you made a good point about Salamano and his dog. I feel as he may act the way that he does because he's an old man. Typically older people seem to act more inpatient and are cranky. Nice observation Abby!
In chapter 3 and 4, Camus's way of structuring Meursault and characterizing him the way he does starts to reveal true believes and one can finally connect with Meursault's action. Through the chapters, Camus's Existentialist views also become evident by having the implementation of them in Meursault. By utilizing visual imagery, and Foreshadowing, Camus can communicate to one that the"careless" Meursault's is not only that but he has another side to him that can only be seen if Existentialist views are taken into consideration. In the opening of chapter 3 , Meursault's boss asks him about his mom's age and he responds with," About sixty, so as not to make a mistake."(25) It's interesting that he would say this because in the beginning of the story he seemed like this person who did not care about others to much especially his mom and it seemed as though every possible thing irritated him. Now though it seems that he wasn't doing this because he's careless but instead because he likes to show what's on his mind and not keep it in. It can be seen as honesty from one perspective and as Sartre's said," One must have free will."(Four Founding Fathers of Existentialism) Which is exactly why Meursault only pays attention to what he wants to pay attention to. More proof that he's not just a cruel person is the fact that he helped Raymond with anything he was asked to help him with even with the writing of a letter to Raymond's old girlfriend who cheated on him. There are many hidden things within the words of a book but Something that most might miss in chapters three and four is the authors reference to the color red. As a reader one can see it as many things but something that would make more sense is the Foreshadowing of something bad that is to happen to him. This is because the color red most of the time is associated with death , pain or even abuse. In many spots the color appears such as when Meursault describes Salamano as," having reddish scabs on his face"(27). The color red appears even more such as when the author writes," the blood pounding ears", "small red pen box"(32), "red and white striped dress"(34), "little red eyes."(38) The fact that red appears so much probably suggests that later on as more of the story is unveiled, Meursault will probably suffer in a way or be faced with a big challenge that will cause him physical or mental pain. This brings one to pose the question, what the color red suggests about Meursault's future?
In my previous blog post I briefly touched upon a point concerning how the soldier on the bus with Meursault could be a foil of him. When I reread the third and fourth chapters however, I came across another person who could be Meursault foil. Actually I came upon many, this idea I will touch upon later in the blog post. For now though, I wanted to compare Raymond and Meursault. Meursault is amoral in the sense that he doesn't delegate what is moral and what isn't. He doesn't judge his own actions, or others. Raymond however is immoral. He commits many immoral actions that he denies. Denial is something people do to hide something they know is wrong. He is very aware of his actions and that they are wrong, but he is also very aware of others. When Raymond is speaking with Meursault about his mistress, he tells him, "she just kept on telling me she couldn't make ends meet-- and that's what made me realize she was cheating on me" (30). Raymond takes the idea of his mistress not being able to get by with what she has already, as meaning sex. When making assumptions, we often draw from our own experiences. Possibly Raymond is comparing this to himself in the way he has all the girls he could ever need as a pimp, but always wants more. No matter how many women he has sex with, no one can fill the void of lovelessness with lust. They are two different things. Raymond immediately assumes the worst of this women-- that she's cheating on him. He automatically judges a person's acts as immoral, whether or not it is actual true. This contrasts Meursault completely who takes no opinion on the matter, even when he has proof he could judge them upon. When Meursault witnesses Raymond assaulting the girl, he does nothing, saying, "Marie said it was terrible and I didn't say anything" (36). Meursault sees nothing right in this situation and nothing wrong. It is like he doesn't even see it. Coming back to the ideal of multiple foils, the more I thought about it, the more I saw everyone as Meursault's foil. Marie is empathetic where Meursault doesn't even seem to care for himself, let alone others. Perez is loving in the way he centers himself around the well being of others, where as Meursault doesn't even seem to care about the well being of himself. Every character can be a foil because Meursault isn't really anything, he is a blank slate. Could the reason he is so contrasting from all of these characters be because he wants to separate himself from them? Or could it be that he doesn't really find fault in any of them, because none of the things they do are really meaningful to him at all?
One aspect of The Stranger that I found interesting in the third and fourth chapter was Camus’ characterization of Meursault through his interactions with the other characters. In these chapters, the reader acquires a better understanding of how Meursault feels about other people in the world. When he is in Raymond, his neighbor’s, room, he thinks, “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.” (Page 29). This situation demonstrates how Meursault does not really feel the need to be close with anyone, which was first demonstrated in the first chapter when he had a minimal reaction to the death of his mother. Additionally, his wishy-washy answer conveys how he does not care that much about developing personal relationships. Camus characterization of Meursault in this situation makes the reader feel that he is a weak character as his actions are never bold and he often is passive in conversations. This creates a weak, plain tone surrounding Meursault, which greatly contrast to the forward Raymond. Furthermore, the reader gains a better understanding of Meursault through his interactions with Marie. After they spent the night together, Camus wrote, “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.” (Page 35). Once again, Camus demonstrates how Meursault does not care about developing relationships with other, which makes the reader feel he is an outsider because the desire to interact intimately with others is considered an innate human trait. Additionally, his slightly apathetic response to her bold question indicates that he does not have much empathy and does not care about her feelings; he only wants her on conditions that benefit him. Subsequently, Camus creates a slightly selfish tone. Personally, I do not think that Camus made Meursault seem to be a terrible character, but rather as a way to depict existential ideas about focusing on your free will. If anyone has anything to add, please comment!
Do you think Meursault's apathetic character is all a ruse to disguise his conflicted emotions and feelings of despair? Although he does not care about developing true relationships, he seeks pleasure in sexual relations with Marie. When I think of sole sexual relations, I think of superficiality like we discussed in Chronicle of a Death Foretold, and I instantly think that there might be subtle hints that all is not as it appears. Camus' philosophy emphasizes free will in choosing one's own path, so do you think Meursault thought he had free will to keep a deceptive persona, unlike what religious and other moral texts suggest that people do?
I want to start off my blog post with a paragraph from the Translator's note,
"The Stranger demanded of Camus the creation of a style at once literary and profoundly popular, an artistic sleight of hand that would make the complexities of a man's life appear simple. Despite appearances, though, neither Camus nor Meursault ever tried to make things simple or themselves. Indeed, in the mind of a moralist, simplification is tantamount to immorality, and Meursault and Camus are each moralists in their own way. What little Meursault says or feels or does resonates with all he does not say, all he does not feel, all he does not do. The "simplicity" of the text is merely apparent and everywhere paradoxical." (Ward pg.v)
From this, we should consistently be aware that all of these short, meaningless sentences actually have more meaning than one would initially assume.
I found the juxtapositions of "Salamano's dog and Raymond's mistress" and "Raymond and Salamano" to be incredibly interesting. The reader discovers that Raymond is a pimp from learning that "The word around the neighbourhood is that he lives off of women." (28). Pimps are commonly known to have "bitches". These "bitches" are the women being referred to in the previous quote. Interestingly enough, a "bitch" is also more literally known as a female dog. However, the dog is a male, creating a distinct contrast to the abused girl similar to the contrasts between Raymond and Salamano. "Bitch" is a derogatory term, of course, but one must observe how each of these characters were treated. They were both beaten and abused, and they were both used to it (the girl wasn't beaten until the end of the relationship, but she was still abused). This is supported by "It's the same thing every day." (27) and "I'd close the shutters and it always ended the same way." (31). Another example of the comparison between the dog and the girl is when "the dog [is] pulling the man along until old Salamano stumbles." (27). The dog is simply excited and trying to enjoy himself, but Salamano isn't pleased with this. He yanks on the chain and beats the dog, and then he is the one "who pulls the dog." This is similar to when Raymond's mistress tries to enjoy herself with coffee and friends. Raymond and Salamano most likely both feel the same way, even though Raymond was the one to say "I've been good to you, and this is how you repay me." (30). Ultimately, both the dog and the girl want freedom, but are dependent on their "pimps" to meet basic needs.
Why did Camus include these characters? As seen, Meursault merely acts as an observer in these scenarios. He never puts in how he feels about the situation and rarely does anything to contribute (other than actions that help pass time). It's interesting to see how Meursault reacts to these situations compared to society, though. Meursault views both situations equally: he finds them interesting. Evidence for this is him observing the dog for years and knowing the daily routines of the dog and his owner. For the girl, after Raymond finished explaining everything, Meursault replied with "I didn't think anything but that it was interesting." (32). Camus helps show the simplicity of two situations that are entirely different, but have a vast amount of interesting similarities.
Something that I began to wonder, when the dog runs away later on in the book, could that be another similarity supporting this character juxtaposition?
There are lots of important interactions that exemplify Camus' existentialist mindsets of free will and making purpose in the world when one is born without purpose. For instance, I perceived Salamano's interaction with his dog as oppressive and dictatorial. However, what surprised me was when Celeste criticized Salamano's treatment of his dog by stating, "It's pitiful" (27), to which Camus responds, "...but really, who's to say?" (27). Camus produces a tone of contention towards the idea that abusing the dog was pitiful, which is highly ironic, considering Camus is a staunch believer in free will and creating a sense of purpose rather than being a dog who follows people everywhere like a coffee cup that conforms to the belief that it was inherently supposed to be a coffee cup when it was made. Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I perceived this situation as a way to cast absurdity against the preconceived notion that all people existed to be free, which implies that they were given a purpose and sense of direction at the start. When Marie and Meursault witnessed Raymond abusing his girl, "Marie said it was terrible and I didn't say anything. She asked me to go find a policeman, but I told her I didn't like the cops" (36). Camus produces an apathetic tone in Camus through his cold interactions with and care for other characters. Raymond also responds apathetically to the police officer by merely asking if he could pick his cigarette up after the officer slapped him. Perhaps both characters believe in the exercise of free will, which makes their actions come across as stubborn because they want to make their own decisions and fulfill their own purposes. Although Raymond and Meursault are foils of each other as Brooklyn stated, they have something in common in that they both choose to exercise their own free will and purpose. They do not conform to what others tell them to do. They are archetypes of the existentialist mindset.
I think one of the major confusions about The Stranger is to what extent Meursault's apathy expands. His lack of emotional investment is no question, however it looks like people either take it as unnecessarily rude pessimism or a symbol of how people must learn to accept suffering. Personally, I don't think Meursault is a rude person even though his thoughts may come off that way. Also, it wouldn't make sense for Camus to create an unlikable protagonist if his purpose in writing The Stranger is to educate the populous on absurdism and themes of existentialism. No one would learn from a character he or she couldn't come to terms with. Meursault's seemingly ignorant thoughts stem from his perception of reality in that he believes suffering is inevitable. In reference to Raymond, Meursault says, "He explained that he'd heard about Maman's death but that it was one of those thing that was bound to happen sooner or later. I thought so too," (33). This statement is important because it illustrates Meursault's acceptance of suffering; his acceptance then allows him to avoid putting emotional meaning behind unfortunate events such as his Maman's death. Therefore, Meursault's apathy is not the product of an ignorant personality, but an acceptance and understanding for the nature of existence. Camus uses the relationship between Salamano and his dog to symbolize the cycle in which people ceaselessly find hatred in, according to existentialism, inexplicable events. He describes the back and forth struggle, writing, "They both stand there on the sidewalk and stare at each other, the dog in terror, the man in hatred. It's the same thing everyday," (27). The relationship represents the negativity that frequently stems from repetitive lifestyles. People who wake up, work the stereotypical 9-5 day job, then go home to sleep often find themselves unhappy, but for what reason? The negative imagery behind Salamano and his dog serves to shock the reader and to remind the reader that hatred is only real if they make it to be. Adopting the mindset of Meursault breaks the cycle of hatred by teaching acceptance of the nature of the universe which one cannot control.
Upon reading chapters three and four I became very interested in the symbol of the dog and Raymond’s mistress to bring the reader’s attention to existentialist ideals through literature. In chapter three the dog is described as weak. At the end of chapter three once Meursault returns to his apartment he hears “the blood pounding in my ears... And in Old Salamano’s room, the dog whimpered softly”(33). The dog represents an average human. The dog is constantly in distress and is treated terribly by his owner, this parallels the existentialist idea that life is suffering. Because the dog does not accept his suffering he is constantly upset and seeks a way out. The dog finds his escape by running away and in a sense committing suicide because he no longer has anyone to care for him. Camus begins expressing his ideas through an animal because the reader is able to accept the idea that life is suffering in a seemingly manageable way. In the fourth chapter Camus takes another step forward in presenting his ideas to the reader through Raymond’s mistress. The word choice used in describing this character makes it more manageable to accept her suffering in life because the word mistress typically has a negative connotation carried with it. If this character had been referred to by her name or as Raymond’s Girlfriend the reader would have had a harder time feeling at ease while her character experiences such suffering. In the beginning of chapter four Meursault and Marie hear, “a woman’s shrill voice and Raymond saying ‘You used me, you used me. I’ll teach you to use me.’ There were some thuds and the woman screamed, but in such a terrifying way that the landing immediately filled with people”(35-36). After this incident there is no justice for the woman which sends an underlying message to the reader that the event, or the woman, does not really matter. Through his word choice and use of character Camus sends subliminal existentialist message in his book, The Stranger.
Earlier, in class, I mentioned a connection between the main character in The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger, and the main character of The Stranger. I stated in class the the similarity between Holden and Meursault is the fact that both demonstrated an absence of emotion. I skimmed through The Catcher in the Rye a few times and realized that my initial claim was a bit off. The similarity between Holden and Meursault lies in their recognition of societies seemingly meaningless rules of interaction. This is evident with Holden in how he describes his interactions with everyday people. “I am always saying "Glad to've met you" to somebody I'm not at all glad I met. If you want to stay alive, you have to say that stuff, though” (87). The two differ, however, in how their appraisal of the world around them affects their behaviour. Holden feels that societal norms are meaningless but he follows them anyways. Meursault, on the other hand, chooses to completely ignore them. We saw this when Marie attempted to DTR (define the relationship). “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). Meursault straight out tells Marie that he doesn’t love her and that this is no big deal. The differences I found between the characters made me think about what the best route is when presented with the trivial rules and rituals of society. I believe that the answer to this question is not definite, and instead changes with circumstance, culture, and people.
Meursault's comes off as a rather apathetic character, but while some may feel him to be heartless, I thought that he was more accepting of whatever happened and accepted the consequences. He lives in the moment, not a man of action, but enjoys what he cans and takes no further steps to create any more suffering for himself,"I was engulfed by the noise and the dust, I couldn't see anything, and all I was conscious of was the sensation of hurtling forward in a mad dash through the cranes and winches, masts bobbing on the horizon and the hulls of ships alongside us as we ran" (26). The mild and pleasant imagery here shows the joy Meursault can experience, engulfed by noise and dust, he is not bound by expectations of how he should feel or act, especially in regards to his recent mother's passing. Instead, he lives somewhat carefree. This passage is also somewhat suggestive of the existential ideas that Camus puts forward, though Meursault has yet to fully encompass those ideals, Meursault does accept life in its fullest, though he doesn't really assign meaning to himself, just going with the flow.This is evident when he writes the letter for Raymond, "I wrote the letter. I did it 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).Again, Meursault's indifference is significant in that here, he does not consider what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. He writes a letter which he knows, or if he thought about it, should know, will cause harm, but he cannot come up with any reason to refuse, which differentiates Meursault's apathy from heartlessness.
I think chapter 3 and 4 is all about apathy of Meursault. That’s why the tittle of the novel is The Stranger, because to human, as a social animals, empathy is one of the essential element and therefore it is almost impossible to understand Meursault’s emotion and attitude. Readers start to distance themselves from him and due the simple and explanatory narration, such as repetition of I (I wrote..., I thought...), makes the readers objectively observe Meursault and his behavior. In other words, Meursault is the stranger to the readers, as the quotes “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 said I wasn’t expecting anything...” (37) And “A minute later she asked me if I love her. I told her it didn’t mean anything...”(35) shows. All these quotes are a example of how he doesn’t care about the value of love, death, and friendship. However, one weird fact is that, even though his reaction to the relationship is out of the norm and he’s too straightforward to tell these, not all of these make people around him uncomfortable. For example, when talks to Raymond that he didn’t expect anything, Raymond feels “pretty happy”. I think this also represents the hypocrisy of the society because, as the reader, we feel the sense of difference from Meursault. The dry tone in the conversation with Marie makes him seems even like a psychopath. However, in the book, there are moments that his apathy makes others feel better.
Upon reading chapter 4, I had noticed different personalities between Marie and Meursault. After coming home from the beach, it is very clear that both Marie and Meursault are attracted to each other. Marie spends the night with him, then asked him a question the next morning as to if he loves her. His response is," She asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn't mean anything but that I didn't think so"(IV. ). We still see the indifferent side of Meursault and how complicated he is as a person. However we see the side of Marie that wants to be loved by Meursault. This represents the human desire for love and when Marie is showing love for someone she expects and wants to be loved back. Marie gets stuck with a difficult absurdist who give no thought into anything and simply does not care.
In chapters 3 and 4, Camus makes you think twice about your opinion on Meursault. After I read these two chapters, I started thinking... What if Meursault is just being honest and straight forward about what he thinks? Maybe it's not just carelessness. I think of Meursault as sort of a shadow of Camus' beliefs. Camus felt that language was an art meant to tell the truth. Meursault might just be telling the honest truth about the situations he is in. In chapter 3, Camus writes, "He said, 'So you see, I wasn't the one who started it. He was asking for it.' It was true and I agreed"(3.29). Although this quote seems really simple and boring, it tells a lot about Meursault's personality. A lot of people might think that violence isn't the answer to a problem so they wouldn't agree with Raymond's actions. Meursault on the other hand, is more straight forward and thinks that if the guy was asking for it, then he deserved it. Meursault was just telling the honest truth even though it sounds sort of heartless to say that it's okay to beat up a man. Another quote that relates to the first one is also in chapter 3. Camus says, "And once he said to me, talking about Salamano, 'If that isn't pitiful!' He asked me didn't I think it was disgusting and I said no"(3.28). The majority of people would say that beating a dog is definitely pitiful and wrong but Meursault thinks otherwise. Again, this might come off as heartless to the reader but that's just how Meursault is. He isn't going to stand there and tell Raymond that it is pitiful if he doesn't think that it is. Meursault is just speaking his mind and there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion(This doesn't mean I don't think it's pitiful!). What do you guys think? Do you think Meursault is a cold-hearted human being or do you think he is speaking the truth?
ReplyDeleteAn observation that I made while reading chapters three and four was how Raymond is a character foil of Meursault. They differ dramatically, especially in regards to women. For example, whole Meursault struggles to make decisions, Raymond is more immoral in how he beats women. While Meursault is attracted to Marie, and describes his desires in ways such as "I wanted her so bad when I saw her in that pretty red-and-white striped dress and leather sandals," (pg 34) Raymond acts violently towards his lover. Raymond wants to sleep with his mistress, then "spit in her face and throw her out," (pg 32). It was interesting when Meursault was said "afterwards he wanted to go to a whorehouse, but I said no because I don't like that," (pg 38). Clearly, Raymond sees sex as a source of revenge and humiliation, rather than Meursault who uses it as a source of pleasure and delight. Another aspect that I found interesting is how every observation that Meursault makes is based purely on physical characteristics. When he describes Marie, and is watching people on his balcony, his primary focus looks, rather than judgement. Also, rather than mentioning something to Salamano about how he treats his dog, he just observes his actions. This makes Meursault appear as more of a passive character. The ways in which these characters differ from one another reminded me of Sartre's philosophy of how people are all born with "blank slates," and you choose who you become and your purpose. According to this philosophy, Meursault is more of a non-judgmental and amoral character. On the other hand, Raymond is immoral and is more focused on revenge than doing good. Raymond seems to almost manipulate Meursault into having him assist in his scheme for revenge with his mistress, which is most likely because he is aware of their differences in personality.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Brooklyn; Meursault and Raymond are clearly each other's foil. Along with your observations, I noticed that Meursault was more hesitant about making this friendship where Raymond was very straightforward with his intentions. I believe that Camus created this foil to highlight the character differences between these two characters, which consequently demonstrates the characteristics that makes Meursault an outsider. You brought up some great points Brooklyn that contributed to my understanding of their relationship.
DeleteI found chapters 3 and 4 to be very intersting and key in characterizing Meursault. The beginning of chapter 3 presents an interesting quote. When he is asked about his mom's age, he replies, "About sixty" and adds "so as to not make a mistake" (pg. 25). This further shows that Meursault is a very passive person. He seems to not care about anyone to the point where he does not bother to remember details about his own mother. It made me wonder how it was possible for someone to show that much passivity and if there was something in his past that had caused him to begin acting this way. I also noticed the recurring event of him smoking. At first I thought it was just an added detail to give him personality but it then occurred to me that people develop habits usually as a way to cope with something. Smoking frequently could be his way of dealing with his masked sorrow after the loss of his mom. Also in chapter 4, he talks about loving Marie and he states, "I told her it didn't mean anything but that I didn't think so" (pg. 35). I thought this was a clear example of the nihilistic mindset. He believes that nothing has meaning and seems not to believe in anything including love.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways I believe Meurasult actually cares about others. By being vague about his mother's age, it seems he cares not to make a mistake because making a mistake would make him feel guilty as if he wronged his mother. I think this shows he actually finds meaning in the little things such as age. He wants to appreciate her life and would feel bad lying about it. Camus also conveys this aspect of Meursault's character when he says, "I said it was fine with me: he seemed pleased," (29). Meursault did not want to necessarily please Raymond but seemed content with the fact that his decision did please him. This, to me, shows that Meursault isn't the heartless character everyone thinks he is.
DeleteYou make a valid point but I also agree with Olivia. I don't think that Meursault is passive I just think that he cares about the bigger details not the small ones. I also feel like he is a very simple man. I thought of him as boring in the beginning but now I believe that he just lives a simple, truthful, life.
DeleteI also agree with Olivia and think that he actually does care but just has a hard time expressing it like others do. I think that him saying, "about sixty" was the best way that he knew how to express his feelings. He did not want to get his mother's age wrong, so he made a vague estimate. I think that if he were to actually give a number or guess a number and was wrong, that would make him appear more heartless and uncaring because then it seems like he is not making any effort to think of her age. I agree with you about him telling Marie he did not love her and how he said it did not matter. I thought that this was Camus' demonstration of how Meursault was not an existentialist yet because he did not think that it had meaning one way or the other.
Delete“They look as if they belong to the same species, and yet they hate each other.” (27)
ReplyDeleteMeursault is describing the relationship between Salamano and his mangy dog at this point. The relationship between the man and the dog can be interpreted in many ways, but I saw it as Camus’ way of saying that people have no right to judge one another. Just before this quote, Meursault says that, “after living together for so long, the two of them alone in one tiny room, they’ve ended up looking like each other”, and I believe that the tiny room is symbolic of Earth and the universal human experience. Both Salamano and his mangy dog are covered in scabs and scars, so they are both equally afflicted and, honestly, equally ugly, and yet Salamano still thinks that he has the right to refer to his dog as a “filthy, stinking bastard.” The scabs and scars that Salamano and his dog share are representative of the suffering and pain that Camus would argue that all humans share, and so there is no reason to cast judgement upon other people’s suffering when we all have it. Camus is trying to communicate that all humans share the universal human experience, and although there are differences, there are also many similarities (like with Salamano and his dog) and hating something so similar to you is no different than hating yourself.
“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)
Here, we not only get to see Meursault’s nature of only focusing on what interests him and living in the moment, but we also get to see his cutting and unapologetic honesty. In the modern world, men can easily be viewed as “pigs” for indulging in their sexual desires, so they try to at least conceal them until the time is right. In Meursault’s case, he is willing to indulge in all of his urges the second that they happen, whether the urge is to smoke, drink, or, in this case, have sex with Marie. Camus is showing through Meursault’s actions that living in the moment and following one’s primal urges rather than trying to mask them in order to act in a socially acceptable manner is ridiculous. This is also a prime example of Meursault’s rejection of saying words or forcing emotions just because it is socially acceptable. Although Marie obviously wants to hear that he loves her, he is not willing to lie just because it will make her feel good. Initially this makes Meursault seem like a harsh individual, but what Camus is arguing is truly harsh is to lie and tell somebody that you love them when you do not. It further supports his argument that living in the moment with honesty and without masking emotions is the way to live, and it is absurd to indulge in emotions that do not exist.
Although many characters were introduced in these chapters, I felt Salamano and his dog have a major significance to the story. First, Meursault states that the man and the dog have taken on each other's looks (27). He then describes characteristics of each that both of them possess. Comparing a man to his dog is dehumanizing and shows Meursault's disgust for other people as he mocks them for their seemingly meaningless lives. When Salamano loses his dog and Meursault overhears him crying in his room, he states, "...I realized he was crying. For some reason I thought of Maman," (39). Meursault displays that the loss of the dog reminds him of his mom and for the first time he seems to show a small amount of empathy. As Salamano mourns over his dog, Meursault shares the same feeling towards his mother which shows he actually is capable of emotion. However, the old man mourns more over his dog more than Meursault has over his mother. Most people would suggest that this means Meursault does not care much about his mother but I had a different perspective on it. From Meursault's previous actions, he seems like a very straight forward person who views life as what you make it. He does not seem like the person who would fuss over the loss of life. It is possible Meursault appreciates her life and that is why he would not excessively grieve over his mother's death. The guilt and mourn that Salamano feels is Camus' way of mocking the society who care more about death than life, shown through Salamano who never appreciated his dog until he was gone. Meursault is not this way and I believe this is part of his existentialist personality.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea about the fact that people don't care about something till it's gone... it sort of goes against the idea that of living in the now! Good point!
DeleteMs. Ballard
Throughout chapters 3 and 4, I found the character of Salamano to be very interesting. The part about him that interested me the most was his relationship with his dog. For most of these chapters it seems as if he hates his dog because of how he yells at him and beats him but that doesn't seem to be true because he cannot part with the dog that he has had for eight years and when he disappears, Salamano is worried about him and wants him back. The first time that Salamano is mentioned in the book is when Meursault walks past him as he is beating his dog. "When I ran into him on the stairs, Salamano was swearing away at the dog." (27) The dog did nothing wrong when Salamano started yelling at him, he was just there and Salamano did not want that but he never parted with the dog. He beats and yells at the dog several times before it disappears, like he doesn’t want it and it is the most annoying thing he has to deal with. At the very end of chapter 3, Salamano seems to be very worried about what could or might happen to his dog. This is demonstrated by him going to Meursault's door after a while and says, "Excuse me….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 demonstrates that he knows that his dog is very important to him and that he needs him, no matter how annoying the dog can be. He seems very worried over what could possibly happen to his dog, which contradicts with how much he yelled at and beat the dog. Which then makes the reader rethink their original opinion of Salamano and feel some sympathy towards him.
ReplyDeleteI feel like Raymond is somewhat like Salamano aswell. He seems to have some feelings for his mistress, but those feelings are masked by his desire for revenge. Maybe it is possible that he does truly love her, and isn't aware of how to exemplify his love. I think that you made a good point about Salamano and his dog. I feel as he may act the way that he does because he's an old man. Typically older people seem to act more inpatient and are cranky. Nice observation Abby!
DeleteIn chapter 3 and 4, Camus's way of structuring Meursault and characterizing him the way he does starts to reveal true believes and one can finally connect with Meursault's action. Through the chapters, Camus's Existentialist views also become evident by having the implementation of them in Meursault. By utilizing visual imagery, and Foreshadowing, Camus can communicate to one that the"careless" Meursault's is not only that but he has another side to him that can only be seen if Existentialist views are taken into consideration. In the opening of chapter 3 , Meursault's boss asks him about his mom's age and he responds with," About sixty, so as not to make a mistake."(25) It's interesting that he would say this because in the beginning of the story he seemed like this person who did not care about others to much especially his mom and it seemed as though every possible thing irritated him. Now though it seems that he wasn't doing this because he's careless but instead because he likes to show what's on his mind and not keep it in. It can be seen as honesty from one perspective and as Sartre's said," One must have free will."(Four Founding Fathers of Existentialism) Which is exactly why Meursault only pays attention to what he wants to pay attention to. More proof that he's not just a cruel person is the fact that he helped Raymond with anything he was asked to help him with even with the writing of a letter to Raymond's old girlfriend who cheated on him. There are many hidden things within the words of a book but Something that most might miss in chapters three and four is the authors reference to the color red. As a reader one can see it as many things but something that would make more sense is the Foreshadowing of something bad that is to happen to him. This is because the color red most of the time is associated with death , pain or even abuse. In many spots the color appears such as when Meursault describes Salamano as," having reddish scabs on his face"(27). The color red appears even more such as when the author writes," the blood pounding ears", "small red pen box"(32), "red and white striped dress"(34), "little red eyes."(38) The fact that red appears so much probably suggests that later on as more of the story is unveiled, Meursault will probably suffer in a way or be faced with a big challenge that will cause him physical or mental pain. This brings one to pose the question, what the color red suggests about Meursault's future?
ReplyDeleteIn my previous blog post I briefly touched upon a point concerning how the soldier on the bus with Meursault could be a foil of him. When I reread the third and fourth chapters however, I came across another person who could be Meursault foil. Actually I came upon many, this idea I will touch upon later in the blog post. For now though, I wanted to compare Raymond and Meursault. Meursault is amoral in the sense that he doesn't delegate what is moral and what isn't. He doesn't judge his own actions, or others. Raymond however is immoral. He commits many immoral actions that he denies. Denial is something people do to hide something they know is wrong. He is very aware of his actions and that they are wrong, but he is also very aware of others. When Raymond is speaking with Meursault about his mistress, he tells him, "she just kept on telling me she couldn't make ends meet-- and that's what made me realize she was cheating on me" (30). Raymond takes the idea of his mistress not being able to get by with what she has already, as meaning sex. When making assumptions, we often draw from our own experiences. Possibly Raymond is comparing this to himself in the way he has all the girls he could ever need as a pimp, but always wants more. No matter how many women he has sex with, no one can fill the void of lovelessness with lust. They are two different things. Raymond immediately assumes the worst of this women-- that she's cheating on him. He automatically judges a person's acts as immoral, whether or not it is actual true. This contrasts Meursault completely who takes no opinion on the matter, even when he has proof he could judge them upon. When Meursault witnesses Raymond assaulting the girl, he does nothing, saying, "Marie said it was terrible and I didn't say anything" (36). Meursault sees nothing right in this situation and nothing wrong. It is like he doesn't even see it. Coming back to the ideal of multiple foils, the more I thought about it, the more I saw everyone as Meursault's foil. Marie is empathetic where Meursault doesn't even seem to care for himself, let alone others. Perez is loving in the way he centers himself around the well being of others, where as Meursault doesn't even seem to care about the well being of himself. Every character can be a foil because Meursault isn't really anything, he is a blank slate. Could the reason he is so contrasting from all of these characters be because he wants to separate himself from them? Or could it be that he doesn't really find fault in any of them, because none of the things they do are really meaningful to him at all?
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of The Stranger that I found interesting in the third and fourth chapter was Camus’ characterization of Meursault through his interactions with the other characters. In these chapters, the reader acquires a better understanding of how Meursault feels about other people in the world. When he is in Raymond, his neighbor’s, room, he thinks, “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.” (Page 29). This situation demonstrates how Meursault does not really feel the need to be close with anyone, which was first demonstrated in the first chapter when he had a minimal reaction to the death of his mother. Additionally, his wishy-washy answer conveys how he does not care that much about developing personal relationships. Camus characterization of Meursault in this situation makes the reader feel that he is a weak character as his actions are never bold and he often is passive in conversations. This creates a weak, plain tone surrounding Meursault, which greatly contrast to the forward Raymond. Furthermore, the reader gains a better understanding of Meursault through his interactions with Marie. After they spent the night together, Camus wrote, “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.” (Page 35). Once again, Camus demonstrates how Meursault does not care about developing relationships with other, which makes the reader feel he is an outsider because the desire to interact intimately with others is considered an innate human trait. Additionally, his slightly apathetic response to her bold question indicates that he does not have much empathy and does not care about her feelings; he only wants her on conditions that benefit him. Subsequently, Camus creates a slightly selfish tone. Personally, I do not think that Camus made Meursault seem to be a terrible character, but rather as a way to depict existential ideas about focusing on your free will. If anyone has anything to add, please comment!
ReplyDeleteDo you think Meursault's apathetic character is all a ruse to disguise his conflicted emotions and feelings of despair? Although he does not care about developing true relationships, he seeks pleasure in sexual relations with Marie. When I think of sole sexual relations, I think of superficiality like we discussed in Chronicle of a Death Foretold, and I instantly think that there might be subtle hints that all is not as it appears. Camus' philosophy emphasizes free will in choosing one's own path, so do you think Meursault thought he had free will to keep a deceptive persona, unlike what religious and other moral texts suggest that people do?
DeleteI want to start off my blog post with a paragraph from the Translator's note,
ReplyDelete"The Stranger demanded of Camus the creation of a style at once literary and profoundly popular, an artistic sleight of hand that would make the complexities of a man's life appear simple. Despite appearances, though, neither Camus nor Meursault ever tried to make things simple or themselves. Indeed, in the mind of a moralist, simplification is tantamount to immorality, and Meursault and Camus are each moralists in their own way. What little Meursault says or feels or does resonates with all he does not say, all he does not feel, all he does not do. The "simplicity" of the text is merely apparent and everywhere paradoxical." (Ward pg.v)
From this, we should consistently be aware that all of these short, meaningless sentences actually have more meaning than one would initially assume.
I found the juxtapositions of "Salamano's dog and Raymond's mistress" and "Raymond and Salamano" to be incredibly interesting. The reader discovers that Raymond is a pimp from learning that "The word around the neighbourhood is that he lives off of women." (28). Pimps are commonly known to have "bitches". These "bitches" are the women being referred to in the previous quote. Interestingly enough, a "bitch" is also more literally known as a female dog. However, the dog is a male, creating a distinct contrast to the abused girl similar to the contrasts between Raymond and Salamano. "Bitch" is a derogatory term, of course, but one must observe how each of these characters were treated. They were both beaten and abused, and they were both used to it (the girl wasn't beaten until the end of the relationship, but she was still abused). This is supported by "It's the same thing every day." (27) and "I'd close the shutters and it always ended the same way." (31). Another example of the comparison between the dog and the girl is when "the dog [is] pulling the man along until old Salamano stumbles." (27). The dog is simply excited and trying to enjoy himself, but Salamano isn't pleased with this. He yanks on the chain and beats the dog, and then he is the one "who pulls the dog." This is similar to when Raymond's mistress tries to enjoy herself with coffee and friends. Raymond and Salamano most likely both feel the same way, even though Raymond was the one to say "I've been good to you, and this is how you repay me." (30). Ultimately, both the dog and the girl want freedom, but are dependent on their "pimps" to meet basic needs.
Why did Camus include these characters? As seen, Meursault merely acts as an observer in these scenarios. He never puts in how he feels about the situation and rarely does anything to contribute (other than actions that help pass time). It's interesting to see how Meursault reacts to these situations compared to society, though. Meursault views both situations equally: he finds them interesting. Evidence for this is him observing the dog for years and knowing the daily routines of the dog and his owner. For the girl, after Raymond finished explaining everything, Meursault replied with "I didn't think anything but that it was interesting." (32). Camus helps show the simplicity of two situations that are entirely different, but have a vast amount of interesting similarities.
Something that I began to wonder, when the dog runs away later on in the book, could that be another similarity supporting this character juxtaposition?
There are lots of important interactions that exemplify Camus' existentialist mindsets of free will and making purpose in the world when one is born without purpose. For instance, I perceived Salamano's interaction with his dog as oppressive and dictatorial. However, what surprised me was when Celeste criticized Salamano's treatment of his dog by stating, "It's pitiful" (27), to which Camus responds, "...but really, who's to say?" (27). Camus produces a tone of contention towards the idea that abusing the dog was pitiful, which is highly ironic, considering Camus is a staunch believer in free will and creating a sense of purpose rather than being a dog who follows people everywhere like a coffee cup that conforms to the belief that it was inherently supposed to be a coffee cup when it was made. Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I perceived this situation as a way to cast absurdity against the preconceived notion that all people existed to be free, which implies that they were given a purpose and sense of direction at the start. When Marie and Meursault witnessed Raymond abusing his girl, "Marie said it was terrible and I didn't say anything. She asked me to go find a policeman, but I told her I didn't like the cops" (36). Camus produces an apathetic tone in Camus through his cold interactions with and care for other characters. Raymond also responds apathetically to the police officer by merely asking if he could pick his cigarette up after the officer slapped him. Perhaps both characters believe in the exercise of free will, which makes their actions come across as stubborn because they want to make their own decisions and fulfill their own purposes. Although Raymond and Meursault are foils of each other as Brooklyn stated, they have something in common in that they both choose to exercise their own free will and purpose. They do not conform to what others tell them to do. They are archetypes of the existentialist mindset.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the major confusions about The Stranger is to what extent Meursault's apathy expands. His lack of emotional investment is no question, however it looks like people either take it as unnecessarily rude pessimism or a symbol of how people must learn to accept suffering. Personally, I don't think Meursault is a rude person even though his thoughts may come off that way. Also, it wouldn't make sense for Camus to create an unlikable protagonist if his purpose in writing The Stranger is to educate the populous on absurdism and themes of existentialism. No one would learn from a character he or she couldn't come to terms with. Meursault's seemingly ignorant thoughts stem from his perception of reality in that he believes suffering is inevitable. In reference to Raymond, Meursault says, "He explained that he'd heard about Maman's death but that it was one of those thing that was bound to happen sooner or later. I thought so too," (33). This statement is important because it illustrates Meursault's acceptance of suffering; his acceptance then allows him to avoid putting emotional meaning behind unfortunate events such as his Maman's death. Therefore, Meursault's apathy is not the product of an ignorant personality, but an acceptance and understanding for the nature of existence. Camus uses the relationship between Salamano and his dog to symbolize the cycle in which people ceaselessly find hatred in, according to existentialism, inexplicable events. He describes the back and forth struggle, writing, "They both stand there on the sidewalk and stare at each other, the dog in terror, the man in hatred. It's the same thing everyday," (27). The relationship represents the negativity that frequently stems from repetitive lifestyles. People who wake up, work the stereotypical 9-5 day job, then go home to sleep often find themselves unhappy, but for what reason? The negative imagery behind Salamano and his dog serves to shock the reader and to remind the reader that hatred is only real if they make it to be. Adopting the mindset of Meursault breaks the cycle of hatred by teaching acceptance of the nature of the universe which one cannot control.
ReplyDeleteUpon reading chapters three and four I became very interested in the symbol of the dog and Raymond’s mistress to bring the reader’s attention to existentialist ideals through literature. In chapter three the dog is described as weak. At the end of chapter three once Meursault returns to his apartment he hears “the blood pounding in my ears... And in Old Salamano’s room, the dog whimpered softly”(33). The dog represents an average human. The dog is constantly in distress and is treated terribly by his owner, this parallels the existentialist idea that life is suffering. Because the dog does not accept his suffering he is constantly upset and seeks a way out. The dog finds his escape by running away and in a sense committing suicide because he no longer has anyone to care for him. Camus begins expressing his ideas through an animal because the reader is able to accept the idea that life is suffering in a seemingly manageable way.
ReplyDeleteIn the fourth chapter Camus takes another step forward in presenting his ideas to the reader through Raymond’s mistress. The word choice used in describing this character makes it more manageable to accept her suffering in life because the word mistress typically has a negative connotation carried with it. If this character had been referred to by her name or as Raymond’s Girlfriend the reader would have had a harder time feeling at ease while her character experiences such suffering. In the beginning of chapter four Meursault and Marie hear, “a woman’s shrill voice and Raymond saying ‘You used me, you used me. I’ll teach you to use me.’ There were some thuds and the woman screamed, but in such a terrifying way that the landing immediately filled with people”(35-36). After this incident there is no justice for the woman which sends an underlying message to the reader that the event, or the woman, does not really matter. Through his word choice and use of character Camus sends subliminal existentialist message in his book, The Stranger.
Earlier, in class, I mentioned a connection between the main character in The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger, and the main character of The Stranger. I stated in class the the similarity between Holden and Meursault is the fact that both demonstrated an absence of emotion. I skimmed through The Catcher in the Rye a few times and realized that my initial claim was a bit off. The similarity between Holden and Meursault lies in their recognition of societies seemingly meaningless rules of interaction. This is evident with Holden in how he describes his interactions with everyday people. “I am always saying "Glad to've met you" to somebody I'm not at all glad I met. If you want to stay alive, you have to say that stuff, though” (87). The two differ, however, in how their appraisal of the world around them affects their behaviour. Holden feels that societal norms are meaningless but he follows them anyways. Meursault, on the other hand, chooses to completely ignore them. We saw this when Marie attempted to DTR (define the relationship). “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). Meursault straight out tells Marie that he doesn’t love her and that this is no big deal. The differences I found between the characters made me think about what the best route is when presented with the trivial rules and rituals of society. I believe that the answer to this question is not definite, and instead changes with circumstance, culture, and people.
ReplyDeleteMeursault's comes off as a rather apathetic character, but while some may feel him to be heartless, I thought that he was more accepting of whatever happened and accepted the consequences. He lives in the moment, not a man of action, but enjoys what he cans and takes no further steps to create any more suffering for himself,"I was engulfed by the noise and the dust, I couldn't see anything, and all I was conscious of was the sensation of hurtling forward in a mad dash through the cranes and winches, masts bobbing on the horizon and the hulls of ships alongside us as we ran" (26). The mild and pleasant imagery here shows the joy Meursault can experience, engulfed by noise and dust, he is not bound by expectations of how he should feel or act, especially in regards to his recent mother's passing. Instead, he lives somewhat carefree. This passage is also somewhat suggestive of the existential ideas that Camus puts forward, though Meursault has yet to fully encompass those ideals, Meursault does accept life in its fullest, though he doesn't really assign meaning to himself, just going with the flow.This is evident when he writes the letter for Raymond, "I wrote the letter. I did it 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).Again, Meursault's indifference is significant in that here, he does not consider what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. He writes a letter which he knows, or if he thought about it, should know, will cause harm, but he cannot come up with any reason to refuse, which differentiates Meursault's apathy from heartlessness.
ReplyDeleteI think chapter 3 and 4 is all about apathy of Meursault. That’s why the tittle of the novel is The Stranger, because to human, as a social animals, empathy is one of the essential element and therefore it is almost impossible to understand Meursault’s emotion and attitude. Readers start to distance themselves from him and due the simple and explanatory narration, such as repetition of I (I wrote..., I thought...), makes the readers objectively observe Meursault and his behavior. In other words, Meursault is the stranger to the readers, as the quotes “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 said I wasn’t expecting anything...” (37) And “A minute later she asked me if I love her. I told her it didn’t mean anything...”(35) shows. All these quotes are a example of how he doesn’t care about the value of love, death, and friendship. However, one weird fact is that, even though his reaction to the relationship is out of the norm and he’s too straightforward to tell these, not all of these make people around him uncomfortable. For example, when talks to Raymond that he didn’t expect anything, Raymond feels “pretty happy”. I think this also represents the hypocrisy of the society because, as the reader, we feel the sense of difference from Meursault. The dry tone in the conversation with Marie makes him seems even like a psychopath. However, in the book, there are moments that his apathy makes others feel better.
ReplyDeleteUpon reading chapter 4, I had noticed different personalities between Marie and Meursault. After coming home from the beach, it is very clear that both Marie and Meursault are attracted to each other. Marie spends the night with him, then asked him a question the next morning as to if he loves her. His response is," She asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn't mean anything but that I didn't think so"(IV. ). We still see the indifferent side of Meursault and how complicated he is as a person. However we see the side of Marie that wants to be loved by Meursault. This represents the human desire for love and when Marie is showing love for someone she expects and wants to be loved back. Marie gets stuck with a difficult absurdist who give no thought into anything and simply does not care.
ReplyDelete