Concerning chapters four and five of the Stranger, one thing that really stood out to me was the relationship between Salamano and his dog. When Salamano's dog runs away, it comes as a great shock to him. Of course to the reader, this is not nearly as much of a surprise. Salamano is constantly beating, yelling at and doing various other types of mistreatment toward him. With this type of treatment, it is surprising that the dog didn't run away before. However, Salamano is still very concerned about the dog, even if he won't admit it. In an earlier chapter, it is mentioned that the owner and the dog almost morphed into one during their later years. Both even have the same disease, of the skin- mange. Salamano tells Meursault later in the conversation though that, "you didn't know him before he got sick. His coat was the best thing about him" (45). Often times when looking at old or injured people, it is very hard to see what they may have looked like before in their earlier life. This apparently was the case for both the owner and the pet. When Salamano says, "his coat was the best thing about him" it really shows his materialism of how he values appearances. For someone who is so looks focused, it must be very hard to tolerate the effects of aging. Salamano's wife died (causing him to get the dog) so now he doesn't realy have someone to grow old with. Most relationships start out very shallow, based off of attraction, then they transition into the more meaningful parts of really looking at personality. Because of how he looks now though, there are a very limited amount of people who wouldn't want to start a relationship. Just as he often refuses to touch others, others often refuse to touch him. Like the motif of 'it's never just disease' we can see Salamano as very cold on the outside, rough- just like his dog. When Meursault suggests that the dog was possibly run over, he tells Salamano that, "they didn't keep track of things like that because they happen every day" (44). This idea really brings up the concept of value of life. What is so different between a dog and a human? Mersault later in the novel is chastised for not knowing the day his mother died. Could not knowing the dog's cause of death at all be just as immoral? This idea really describes the existentialist idea of choosing what has meaning to ourselves.
Chapters 5 and 6 were very interesting and changed the course of the book quite a lot. One thing that stood out to me a lot was Meursault's indifference toward Marie and marriage. He even says, "That evening Marie came by to see me and ask me if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn't make any difference to me and we could if she wanted to." (Pg. 41). This was very strange to me. It is an instance where the concept of existentialism is shown, since Meursault doesn't care to find meaning in everyday things like mariage or make sense of anything. It also made me wonder why Marie still stays with him. After being told that she is not loved and that marriage means nothing, she still stays with him and continues to act as if there's feelings there. It makes me wonder whether she does not truly have feelings for him or whether she likes him so much that she's willing to endure anything. I also noticed a quote in chapter five that related back to our class discussion regarding the three levels of living. Most people live in the moral/ethical level and there's evidence suggesting Meursault does this as well. Meursault says, "Just for something to say, I asked him about his dog" (pg. 44). Here Meursault does not actually care about Raymond's dog, but asks about it more out of common courtesy. He knows he should ask, so he does only because there is a lack of better topic for conversation. This suggests that he is stuck in the moral/ethical level of living and has not reached a better understandig of the world through the religious level of living.
I also noticed the oddness of the relationship between Marie and Meursault. I could never imagine myself staying in a relationship where the other person feels differently than I do. However, I never thought of this in regards to the three levels of living. You made a great observation about how Meursault is stuck in the moral/ethical level. So far it seems as he believes with reason and nationality, which is why I agree with your thoughts about his current level in the three stages of life.
I definitely agree with what you're saying. I don't think that Meursault is saying that he doesn't love her to hurt her though. I believe that he is just expressing his true thoughts about what he wants in life. If he thinks that marriage doesn't mean anything, it's totally okay. That is his opinion. It does not mean you have to agree with it but everyone is able to express their thoughts.
Camus’ deep existential thoughts are really expressed in the opening paragraphs of chapter 5. It starts off with a phone call from Raymond to Meursault. They discuss their weekend plans and Raymond foreshadows the Arab characters. “I’d really like to,” Meursault says, “but I’d promised to spend the day with a girlfriend” (40). Compared to the following interaction he has with his boss, he seems much more invested with his social life than his work life. When his boss offers him an opportunity to move to PAris and travel a little, he responds with, “I said that people never change their lives, that in any case one life was as good as another and that I wasn’t dissatisfied with mine here at all. He looked upset and told me that I never gave him a straight answer, that I had no ambition…” (41). His lack of interest in his job, his “future”, shows that he is truly living in the moment. He further cements this idea by saying, “When I was a student, I had lots of ambitions like that. But when I had to give up my studies I learned very quickly that none of it really mattered” (41). He shares the same view that many people of today’s generation hold too. Many millennials are coming out of college with student debt and no job to pay it back. Their time and money seems like a waste. When we're younger, we’re told that if we work hard, we can get the job of our dreams. But many people find that is just not the case, like Meursault, and they lose all of their ambition for things that seem much more practical to their daily lives, like their friends and romances. Camus is showing how someone can still lead a happy life without going through the repetitive process: get good grades in school, work hard in college, get a good job, work 9-5, etc. This is an example of how Camus’ writing and messages are still applicable today.
I agree with your point, Paul. I found that these chapters displayed more existential though than any of the previous chapters. Camus really makes an effort to have Meursault display existential ideas. This was very apparent to me with his indifference to moving to Paris. He does not seem to care about hopes or dreams. I also agree that his ambition has faded. Overall, I agree with your idea that Camus conveys existential ideas through Meursault.
We have to understand what Camus means by the word "happy". Is it satisfaction? If so, worldly pleasures like those may only be temporary. Like drugs, which are ephemeral supplements of "happiness", worldly pleasures do not provide happiness versus future goals. How can existentialists advocate finding one's purpose in life independently if he/she is caught up in the world rather than in the future? I know that people could theoretically use experiencing worldly pleasures as a purpose, but a purpose is one in which people should be satisfied with. Experiencing worldly pleasures, like a drug, is not satisfying to human existence.
This is really random, however the conversation about marriage between Marie and Meursault reminds me of a song by Meat Loaf called "You Took the Words Right Of My Mouth (Hot Summer Night)." In the beginning of this song, the boy asks the girl a series of questions such as:
[Spoken:] [Boy:] On a hot summer night, would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses? [Girl:] Will he offer me his mouth? [Boy:] Yes. [Girl:] Will he offer me his teeth? [Boy:] Yes. [Girl:] Will he offer me his jaws? [Boy:] Yes. [Girl:] Will he offer me his hunger? [Boy:] Yes. [Girl:] Again, will he offer me his hunger? [Boy:] Yes! [Girl:]And will he starve without me? [Boy:] Yes! [Girl:] And does he love me? [Boy:] Yes. [Girl:] Yes. [Boy:] On a hot summer night, would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses? [Girl:] Yes. [Boy:] I bet you say that to all the boys!
The song then continues on describing a love story that occurred on a beach. I primarily connected the beginning of the song to the conversation of marriage between Marie and Meursault. In the book, Meursault explains how "she wanted to know if I would have accepted the same proposal from another woman, with whom I was involved with in the same way," (pg 42). This reminded me of the conversation in the song, when the boy tells the girl "I bet you say that to all the boys." It was also interesting how the relationship in the song is very passionate, and it occurs on the beach. In chapter two, Marie met Meursault while they were swimming at the beach, and they spent the rest of the day immersed in each other. At the end of the song, Meat Loaf says "I was just about to say I love you." Although the boy is questioning the girl in the song, and roles are reversed in the book, those last lines could explain Marie's feelings towards Meursault. Before conversing with Meursault in chapter five and saying "then she wondered if she loved me," (pg 42), I believe that Marie was about to express her love towards him. She stopped herself because she knew that he didn't feel the same as she did, and she didn't want to make the situation awkward. The whole awkwardness then explains the constant laughter and jokes that occur in both chapter five and chapter six. The characters continue to laugh because they are nervous, and feel uncomfortable with their current situation.
Here's the link to listen to this song so you don't think I'm crazy! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FRTHW4tgUdI
“Just then his wife was laughing with Marie. For the first time maybe, I really thought I was going to get married.” (50)
While reading this part of the book, I began to realize that Meursault is not supposed to be the epitome of the perfect absurdist, but rather is supposed to emulate certain elements of absurdity while also having negative qualities that are associated with anti-Existentialist or anti-Absurdist ideas, in order to show that those opposing points of view are wrong. I would argue that the majority of the flaws in Meursault’s character are characteristics that are not involved with Absurdism. I believe this because Meursault is constantly indifferent and sees no true or innate meaning in things in life, however an Absurdist would not simply be indifferent. An Absurdist, at least in Camus’ view, would make the most of life and not let life be dealt with through passivity. In this passage, Meursault is so passive and indifferent that he is willing to standby and let life control him. An Absurdist would argue that marriage has no meaning, but they would, in my opinion, not agree to something just because their partner felt like getting married. Although Meursault does emulate many parts of Absurdism that Camus is trying to preach, his character flaws, such as passivity, can be seen as a way to show the flaws of opposing views. The reason that this passage shows this is because Meursault sees himself getting married simply because he hears Masson’s wife “laughing with Marie.” Camus would agree with questioning the significance of marriage, but I do not believe that Camus would condone a passive reaction to life’s decisions.
“‘Do you know what time is it? It’s only eleven-thirty!’ We were all surprised, but Masson said that we had eaten very early and that it was only natural because lunchtime was whenever you were hungry.” (52)
The reason I chose this quote was because of the quote’s insignificance as well as the quote’s diction. I noticed that Meursault tends to include a lot of unnecessary details that do not benefit or describe the overall story, and I believe that the reason he does this is that he believes that nothing has meaning, which means everything has an equal amount of meaning: none. Given that view, Meursault includes everything from his mother’s death to Marie’s useless comment about the time, and he narrates all of these details, no matter how important or meaningless they are, in the same indifferent diction. Since everything shares a meaning of nothing in the mind of Meursault, it is all described using diction that makes it appear as if Meursault does not care. I noticed that his sentences never vary in length, and there is never any punctuation or syntactical elements that suggest that Meursault views one thing as more meaningful than another. It is actually somewhat shocking that he even uses the word “surprised” to describe himself in this instance, because even when he heard Raymond beat his girlfriend or heard about his mother’s passing, he still would not describe himself as surprised. This goes to suggest that . The insignificance of details and the indifferent tone help to suggest that the things that society places meaning upon and what Meursault or Camus place meaning upon are two very different things.
"Then she stood up, put her jacket back on with the same robotlike movements, and left" (43).
It is interesting to note that Mersault treats everyone around him as if they were all robots controlled by a third, outside source; it is as if other characters aren't in control of their situations. Mersault also makes it a point to meticulously note every single action of the girl who he saw at Celeste's. I find his attitude towards others to produce a very cynical and nearly self-righteous tone. When he addresses people as robots, it gives readers the impression that they have no sentience or direction in life if they abide to either physical or philosophical suicide, as Camus denotes. He also describes that she never "swerves or looks around." Mersault implies that the woman does not ever take moments to think about her decisions in life or form reasonable questions of them. Thus, Camus demonstrates his animosities towards parochial mindsets: killing oneself due to a lack of hope or adopting someone else's philosophy. He states that there is a need for following one's own path and developing one's sense of purpose in life.
"I saw a group of Arabs...They were staring at us in silence, but in that way of theirs, as if we were nothing but stones or dead trees" (48).
Mersault notes, with a tone of caution, of the way the Arabs behaved in front of him. When I think of Arabs, I think of the preconceived notion that those in the middle east are religious extremists who adopt a strictly shared doctrine and condemn any who oppose that religion. Camus most likely considers this mindset as a form of absurdity because he staunchly believes that people should develop their own perspectives of the world around them and adopt their own beliefs. Therefore, he treats the Arabs with contempt and caution so as not to adopt their stereotypical mindsets. I interpreted the reference to the Arabs as a sort of historical allusion, but I want to know what others came up to explain how Camus integrates Arabs into his existentialist views.
I also found the girl Meursault observes in chapter five to be significant. I noticed how the way he found her peculiar and observed every detail of her behavior as some mystery, reflects how other characters view him. Meursault himself is sort of a mystery in the sense that his behavior is different from those around him. I felt as though Meursault felt a connection to this girl and her individuality but also judged her for it at the same time. Although Meursault shows existentialist ways, by judging this girl, it shows his lack of care for finding purpose in life, which is not much like an existentialist at all.
I thought that him noting everything that she did was very robotic itself. This is because I imagine robots constantly surveying everyone and everything around them and always knowing what is happening around them. I also think that he is judging her because he does not know this is very similar to the way he acts around everyone. I think that he thinks everyone is a robot and everyone else believes that he is a robot. I think Camus did this because it demonstrates how everyone tends to judge others and the way that others see them is different than how they see themselves. This is demonstrated by Meursault. Everyone seems to view him like a robot because he does not express his emotions but he view everyone else as being odd because of how much they feel.
Brooklyn had previously mentioned how Raymond was a character foil of Meursault, I agreed with her but also found from these chapters that Marie is a character foil of him as well. Their personalities and overall viewpoints on life differ greatly. I first noticed this contrast in character at the beginning of chapter six when Meursault states, "...because we hadn't opened the blinds, the day, already bright with sun, hit me like a slap in the face. Marie was jumping with joy and kept on saying what a beautiful day it was," (47). The two character have completely polar opposite reactions to the sunshine. Meursault says its like a slap in the face to him which makes a very negative connotation towards the light. Marie, like most normal people, enjoys the light and even compliments it. Meursault, even if enjoying the sunshine, would most likely never compliment or comment on it. The contrast between the two emphasizes Meursault's negative personality. Marie's character highlights the indifference Meursault feels toward the world and allows the reader to better understand how he differs from those who conform to society. The character foil continues to be shown after Raymond gets slashed. Meursault, during the incident, was emotionless and Camus did not write about how he felt at all, until he had to tell Marie and Masson's wife. Meursault says, "...Marie was very pale. I didn't like having to explain to them, so I just shut up..." (54). Meursault never shows his emotion about his friend getting stabbed but does seem upset when he notices the affect it has on the women. Marie, on the other hand, shows her emotion directly just by the look on her face. Once again, Camus uses Marie to reflect how Meursault's feelings differ from those in regular society. He does not share the same emotions those people do, which reflects his belief in absurdity. However, he does seem to care about how others feel to a certain extent. The women seem to make him uncomfortable and that might just be his reaction to emotions that he cannot empathize with. Camus purposely conveys this character foil to further emphasize how Meursault differs from the people who conform in society and his existentialist behavior.
One aspect of these chapters that I found really interesting was the way that Camus characterized Marie. Through out the past few chapters, the reader sees Maries as just a part of Meursault’s life, but now her character is developed. After going home, Marie ask Meursault if he wanted to marry her and if he loved her. He said yes, and that he did not love her. Camus wrote after all of Marie’s questions, “After another moment’s silence, she mumbled that I was peculiar, that that was probably why she loved me…” (Page 42). This quote indicates that Marie does not care that her companion is very indifferent towards her; he does not love her and does not give much of a thought to anything regarding their relationship. Subsequently, the reader can assume that Marie has low self-worth, as se wants to spend her life in a lopsided relationship. The reader begins to feel pity for Marie and this creates a pathetic tone surrounding this relationship. Additionally, on the way to Masson’s home, Camus further characterizes Marie. He wrote, “Marie was jumping with joy and kept saying what a beautiful day it was.” (Page 47). This characterizes Marie as carefree and happy. The fact that she keeps repeating what a beautiful day it is makes the reader see her as overly optimistic and creates a warm tone surrounding her. The reader feels like she may be good for Meursault in that she will teach him to be more care free and optimistic. Camus’ characterization of Marie makes her seem like the foil of Meursault; she is outgoing, optimistic, and excited for the future. On the other hand, Meursault is quiet, pessimistic, and lives a day at a time. This contrast really highlights the existential ideas portrayed through Meursault. Overall, mare really grows as a character in thee chapters. Feel free to comment if you have other opinions!
In chapters 5 and 6, Meursault continues to elicit these existentialist thoughts about his life. In the beginning of chapter 5, after Meursault is asked if he would like to move to Paris for a new job opening, he responds, "I said yes but that really it was all the same to me"(5.41). The boss responds saying that Meursault shows a lack of motivation but in reality, Meursault is putting things into a realistic perspective. To him, it really didn't matter. Shortly after the quote stated above, Meursault says, "...and that I wasn't dissatisfied with mine here at all"(5.41). He enjoys his life where he is at this moment, so why lie and say that he would rather move to Paris? This continues to prove that Meursault can be seen as a really logical person and likes to be dead honest. It all comes back to that Camus' belief that language was an art meant to tell the truth. Meursault continues to show this in chapter 6. Near the middle of chapter 6, after Raymond got cut twice by the Arab and the women wanted to know what happened, Meursault says, "I didn't like having to explain to them, so I just shut up, smoked a cigarette, and looked at the sea"(6.54). A lot of the people who read this probably thought that Meursault's actions were unfair and not right. I believe otherwise though, because it does not tell you why he didn't want to explain it to the women. Some people might think that since he didn't want to explain to them, it means he doesn't care about what just happened to Raymond; but they don't know that. Maybe he didn't want to explain it because he cared so much that he didn't want to talk about the event. What do you guys think?
I agree with you in think that Meursault not telling the women what had happened to Raymond was not that he did not care. I think that he did not want to frighten them and make them worry about him. I also think that he did not want to explain it to them because he did not know how to do it without scaring them or making it sound terrible. I think that he is very reasonable because it is his way of interpreting events that will change his life. I think that he is blunt about these events because it makes them easier to understand and to share with other people without explaining to them why he thinks that. He does not want his life to be complicated because then more people would want to ask him about it and I think he does it on purpose because it makes things simpler for him.
Something that I found interesting as I was reading these chapters was how similar Meursault and Salamano were and that Meursault is like a younger version of Salamano. They seem to be very similar in how they treat other people and how they react to different events in their lives. Most of these similarities are seen when Meursault invites Salamano into his room after coming home from dinner at Celeste’s. Meursault asked Salamano about his dog and he responded, “He told me he’d gotten it after his wife died…He hadn’t been happy with his wife, but he’d pretty much gotten used to her.” (44) I thought that this was similar to Meursault because he doesn’t love Marie and is just saying that he will marry her because he thinks that will make her happy but he is not saying he will marry her to make himself happy. I think that Salamano married his wife because it would make her happy but he did not care one way or the other. Another way that I found them to be similar was how they both lost something they loved but their expressions of love towards them were not clear. Salamano loved his dog even though he scolded him a lot. Meursault loved his mother even though he put her in the home and did not want to take the time out of his day to visit her, he thought she would be happier there and she was because she made friends there. They both also apologize for the others loss because they know that they loved them even if they did not express it how others thought they should. “I told him that I was sorry about what happened to his dog. He thanked me. He told me that Maman was very fond of his dog. He called her ‘your poor mother.’ He said he supposed I must be very sad since Maman died.” (45) Salamano is showing how sad he is over losing his dog much more than Meursault is over losing his mother. But because Salamano knows he has a similar personality to Meursault, he knows that Meursault is sad over his mother’s death, so he apologizes and shows sympathy for him.
I found this part of the book to be incredibly impactful because it illustrates the culmination of Meursault's decisions. As Camus has made very evident in the previous chapters, Meursault is inherently less emotionally involved in the walks of life compared to the other characters in the novel. Whether or not Meursault is genuinely pessimistic or if he's just accepting of suffering, he is invariably different from everyone around him. Although he is different, Meursault still retains non-absurdist elements and resembles his comrades in certain aspects. As Michael mentioned in his post, Meursault is not the epitome of the perfect absurdist; in a sense, he is still exploring what it is that his thoughts mean. As a reader, I expect Meursault, at some point in the novel, to choose which side of the fence he belongs to since it seems that Meursault's internal conflict is the predominate on in the Stranger. Camus foreshadows the climax of Meursault's internal conflict when Meursault talks Raymond out of shooting the Arab. Meursault notes, "It was then that I realized that you could either shoot or not shoot," (56). Meursault's statement foreshadows his impending decision to either shoot, and accept the absurdity that exists in the world, or not shoot, and ignore that absurdity. The effect of foreshadowing is to ignite the same decision making in the world. Similar to the myth of Sisyphus, one can either decide to accept suffering as fate or accept suffering as a simple, meaningless fact of life. Meursault reveals the deciding factor in his decision with the statement, "To stay or to go, it amounted to the same thing," (57). In other words, Meursault has come to the decision that whether you accept it or not, suffering will still be suffering. Not accepting suffering disables you from acting upon it. Although he applied it in a gruesome context, Meursault decided to shoot the Arab because he believes that even if he hadn't shot him, the outcome would have been the same in terms of suffering.
A very astute analysis, Jenny. Meursault's decision to shoot also caught my attention. As Meursault is coming to a conclusion about absurdity (via his actions) so is the reader. Meursault's internal thoughts ("..you could either shoot or not shoot" (56).) pushes the reader to ask why. Why shoot at all? Thus, Camus has successfully made the reader try and make sense to an absurd situation - reinforcing his belief that absurd situations cannot be made sense of.
The urge to keep reading the book truly can be seen in chapters five and six, do to the fact that Albert Camus strategically uses various methods of causing the reader to wonder what is to come causing them to read on and on. Through these two chapters one can see Camus's abundance of foreshadowing, characterization and imagery which all give the impression to the reader that something big is to follow in the plot of the story. The first few pages seem to induce a mood of sadness because of the fact that Salamano's dog ran away and he now doesn't have a bud to hangout with and what makes it even more heart touching is the fact that Salamano says,"When she died, he had asked a buddy for a dog"(44),which was to become his most important thing with his wife now dead. Later on though, the mood changes dramatically as it goes from being a tranquil feeling to a more heart throbbing and suspenseful one. When at the beach house the three men, Raymond, Masson and Mersault take a walk on the beach and on there walk they encounter the two Arabs they Raymond and Mersault had seen earlier. While walking Mersault describes the ground as,"blazing sand looked red"(53). By saying this, Camus is utilizing foreshadowing to let the reader know that something is about to happen. By doing this the reader wants to further read and see what the big situation is to be about. One can peace together the fact that the two parties are walking towards each other and it can be concluded that there will be a clash between the two. The "red" that Mersault refers to so greatly to can be seen to signify and symbolize blood which can also be seen as an injury which is exactly what happens to Raymond when his hand gets slashed open by one of the Arabs. Just as things calm down they quickly escalate ones again when Raymond and Mersault decide to take another walk but this time with Raymond carrying a gun. The two men ones again spot the two Arabs on some rocks next to the beach and just as Raymond is to try and shoot the Arabs, Mersault steps in and convinces him not to yet and then the Arabs end up slipping into the rocks. Since this was the second time they encountered the Arabs one might have thought that maybe one of the men were to die if not both but neither happens but the reader is still left questioning himself if he is to see them ones again. This question is answered later on when Mersault goes out on a walk on the sand by himself and just as he reaches the springs next to the water he notices the guy who slashed Raymond is laying on the ground. Since foreshadowing seems to play such a role, one can already see what is to happen if the sentence on page 57 is thought about for a sec when Mersault says,"the same dazzling red glare."(57) This same red glare was seen earlier that day when walking towards the Arabs and Raymond getting slashed and bleeding just like the context in the quote. Now that Mersault sees the red glare again the reader can only suspect that more blood is to be spilled. This indeed does happen when because Mersault ends up shooting the Arab after seeing him come towards him with a knife. This moment in the story is a very big plot twist because of its seriousness and the fact that a human just died. It was very interesting how the auther gave all these clues that the reader could piece together to come to a conclusion that a possible and most likely true as seen with this. This though can pose the question, what is to happen with Mersault and how is he to cope with this situation because he was the one who seemed least likely to shoot anyone?
Camus uses word choice to make the reader feel distanced from his main character, Meursault. In the beginning of the fifth chapter Marie asks Meursault about Paris and he relies with, “It’s dirty. Lots of pigeons and dark courtyards. Everybody is pale.”(42). Meursault’s description of Paris is likely the opposite of the average reader’s idea of the city. Paris is usually known as the city of light, or love, while Meursault’s of darkness, birds and pale people makes it sound more like a city of the dead. Here Camus slips in his existentialist idea that one cannot truly live without accepting their suffering. Because most of the people in Paris have not accepted their suffering he sees them as pale, sickly and dying. His description of the scenery, dirty and dark with lots of birds, makes Paris seem more like a hell than a romantic escape. Because Meursault’s description of Paris is so different from the average it makes him seem like even more of a stranger than was already shown through his apathy in the earlier chapters of the novel.
In chapter six I noticed that Meursault focuses more on physical feelings rather than emotional ones this gives the passages a animalistic tone which causes the reader to feel uncomfortable with the character. This physical focus is shown especially when Meursault is around Marie. When Meursault and Marie are at the beach with his friends Meursault describes Marie laying next to him and says, “the combined warmth from her body and the sun made me doze off.”(51). This animalistic quality shows that even though Meursault may not experience and feel the same emotions the average person does he still feels something and has the ability to connect with others. The reader then acknowledges that he is not as apathetic as was thought at the beginning of the novel. Due to the fact that Meursault can connect with others he must be held accountable for his violent actions against the Arab man because he knew that his actions were going to hurt the man and he went through with them anyway.
In the beginning of chapter five, Meursault's boss offers Meursault an business opportunity to move to Paris, saying "'You're young, and it seems to me it's the kind of life that would appeal to you.'" and Meursault in turn replies "I said yes but that really it was all the same to me" (41). Here, Meursault is representative of two opposites in Camus' existentialist ideas. Meursault approaches the situation from a non conforming perspective, in that his boss makes a generalization of his expectations for young people. Meursault however, declines, saying it does not suit him. It makes no difference to him, which goes along with the meaningless of the world, but what Meursault does not do is assign meaning or purpose. At this point, he is still just going with the motions, and his character has changed very little, if it all in part one. I think the lack of character development in Meursault's case, up to chapter six in part one, helps to amplify the affect of the suddenness of the killing of the Arab, which ultimately portrays Camus' idea that the world has no order, and of the absurd. In chapter six I took notice of subtle religious reference. The number of shots and the knocking of the door are both four, which in Christianity, is the number of creation. While existentialists tend to deny religion, the two share many commonalities and I thought the religious motif here was representative of Meursault finally breaking his character and creating an irreversible situation in which the absurd is explored(court). Another example of religious motif I found was during Raymond and Meursault's encounter with the Arabs after Raymond had been attacked with a knife. The other one[Arab] was blowing through a little reed over and over again, watching us out of the corner of his eye. He kept repeating the only three notes he could get out of his instrument" (55). The three notes could both foreshadow the Arab's death, or Meursault's coming persecution and the role he plays as a Christ figure.
One thing I found interesting is the motif of the mother’s death. At the end of chapter 2 and 4, Meursault thinks back about his mother. During the chapter 5 when he talks with old guy, he refers to Meursault’s mother and how she loved the dog. Finally, right before the murder, the highlight of the part 1, he thinks, “the sun was the same as it had been the day I’d buried Maman, and like then, my forehead especially was hurting me, all the veins in it throbbing under the skin” (48). It is very strange considering that Meursault is repeatedly described as a very passive individual who thinks of something and then just forgets and moves to next one. He doesn’t show any interest to anything and he admitted that he didn’t feel anything when he buried his mother. However, he keeps referring his mother and under the similar circumstance to the day he participated in the funeral, he murdered an Arab who he doesn’t need to murder. Then I thought this indicates that Meursault’s wasn’t really apathetic to the death of his mother. Maybe he was affected by that event but he wasn’t realized that. If the death of the mother symbolizes absurdity of life, then Meursault behavior suddenly makes sense. Before the court and sentence of death, Meursault wasn’t realized the absurdity fully understand his life. Therefore, he couldn’t clearly explain why he killed the Arab. However, he was actually affected by the death in his unconsciousness, and under the burning sun, the absurdity exploded and he fires the gun.
After reading chapter 6 I had come to realize that the indifference that Maureault feels is in his body and mind. He has finally come to realize how the universe is very similar to his personality. He realizes that he does not care, and the world does not care what happens either. When Raymond gives him the gun he says, " It was then that I realized you cloud either shoot or not shoot"(VI). This comment reveals to the audience that there is no difference to him between these two very different scenarios. This point in the book is a climax go the reader because Maursault has been very indifferent and shown no emotion toward any situation. This murder came as a surprise and the reader was not prepared. However, Camus did that for the purpose of the abrupt shift plot and strike the reader as bizarre. Camus writes, "The trigger gave; I felt the smooth underside of the butt; and there, in that noise, sharp and deafening at the same time, is where it all started"(VI.59). The reader first asks "why?" However there are no apparent answers as to why he shot him. The "absurd" views are the feelings that a man experiences trying to find order in a chaotic universe.
Concerning chapters four and five of the Stranger, one thing that really stood out to me was the relationship between Salamano and his dog. When Salamano's dog runs away, it comes as a great shock to him. Of course to the reader, this is not nearly as much of a surprise. Salamano is constantly beating, yelling at and doing various other types of mistreatment toward him. With this type of treatment, it is surprising that the dog didn't run away before. However, Salamano is still very concerned about the dog, even if he won't admit it. In an earlier chapter, it is mentioned that the owner and the dog almost morphed into one during their later years. Both even have the same disease, of the skin- mange. Salamano tells Meursault later in the conversation though that, "you didn't know him before he got sick. His coat was the best thing about him" (45). Often times when looking at old or injured people, it is very hard to see what they may have looked like before in their earlier life. This apparently was the case for both the owner and the pet. When Salamano says, "his coat was the best thing about him" it really shows his materialism of how he values appearances. For someone who is so looks focused, it must be very hard to tolerate the effects of aging. Salamano's wife died (causing him to get the dog) so now he doesn't realy have someone to grow old with. Most relationships start out very shallow, based off of attraction, then they transition into the more meaningful parts of really looking at personality. Because of how he looks now though, there are a very limited amount of people who wouldn't want to start a relationship. Just as he often refuses to touch others, others often refuse to touch him. Like the motif of 'it's never just disease' we can see Salamano as very cold on the outside, rough- just like his dog. When Meursault suggests that the dog was possibly run over, he tells Salamano that, "they didn't keep track of things like that because they happen every day" (44). This idea really brings up the concept of value of life. What is so different between a dog and a human? Mersault later in the novel is chastised for not knowing the day his mother died. Could not knowing the dog's cause of death at all be just as immoral? This idea really describes the existentialist idea of choosing what has meaning to ourselves.
ReplyDeleteChapters 5 and 6 were very interesting and changed the course of the book quite a lot. One thing that stood out to me a lot was Meursault's indifference toward Marie and marriage. He even says, "That evening Marie came by to see me and ask me if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn't make any difference to me and we could if she wanted to." (Pg. 41). This was very strange to me. It is an instance where the concept of existentialism is shown, since Meursault doesn't care to find meaning in everyday things like mariage or make sense of anything. It also made me wonder why Marie still stays with him. After being told that she is not loved and that marriage means nothing, she still stays with him and continues to act as if there's feelings there. It makes me wonder whether she does not truly have feelings for him or whether she likes him so much that she's willing to endure anything. I also noticed a quote in chapter five that related back to our class discussion regarding the three levels of living. Most people live in the moral/ethical level and there's evidence suggesting Meursault does this as well. Meursault says, "Just for something to say, I asked him about his dog" (pg. 44). Here Meursault does not actually care about Raymond's dog, but asks about it more out of common courtesy. He knows he should ask, so he does only because there is a lack of better topic for conversation. This suggests that he is stuck in the moral/ethical level of living and has not reached a better understandig of the world through the religious level of living.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed the oddness of the relationship between Marie and Meursault. I could never imagine myself staying in a relationship where the other person feels differently than I do. However, I never thought of this in regards to the three levels of living. You made a great observation about how Meursault is stuck in the moral/ethical level. So far it seems as he believes with reason and nationality, which is why I agree with your thoughts about his current level in the three stages of life.
DeleteI definitely agree with what you're saying. I don't think that Meursault is saying that he doesn't love her to hurt her though. I believe that he is just expressing his true thoughts about what he wants in life. If he thinks that marriage doesn't mean anything, it's totally okay. That is his opinion. It does not mean you have to agree with it but everyone is able to express their thoughts.
DeleteCamus’ deep existential thoughts are really expressed in the opening paragraphs of chapter 5. It starts off with a phone call from Raymond to Meursault. They discuss their weekend plans and Raymond foreshadows the Arab characters. “I’d really like to,” Meursault says, “but I’d promised to spend the day with a girlfriend” (40). Compared to the following interaction he has with his boss, he seems much more invested with his social life than his work life. When his boss offers him an opportunity to move to PAris and travel a little, he responds with, “I said that people never change their lives, that in any case one life was as good as another and that I wasn’t dissatisfied with mine here at all. He looked upset and told me that I never gave him a straight answer, that I had no ambition…” (41). His lack of interest in his job, his “future”, shows that he is truly living in the moment. He further cements this idea by saying, “When I was a student, I had lots of ambitions like that. But when I had to give up my studies I learned very quickly that none of it really mattered” (41). He shares the same view that many people of today’s generation hold too. Many millennials are coming out of college with student debt and no job to pay it back. Their time and money seems like a waste. When we're younger, we’re told that if we work hard, we can get the job of our dreams. But many people find that is just not the case, like Meursault, and they lose all of their ambition for things that seem much more practical to their daily lives, like their friends and romances. Camus is showing how someone can still lead a happy life without going through the repetitive process: get good grades in school, work hard in college, get a good job, work 9-5, etc. This is an example of how Camus’ writing and messages are still applicable today.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point, Paul. I found that these chapters displayed more existential though than any of the previous chapters. Camus really makes an effort to have Meursault display existential ideas. This was very apparent to me with his indifference to moving to Paris. He does not seem to care about hopes or dreams. I also agree that his ambition has faded. Overall, I agree with your idea that Camus conveys existential ideas through Meursault.
DeleteWe have to understand what Camus means by the word "happy". Is it satisfaction? If so, worldly pleasures like those may only be temporary. Like drugs, which are ephemeral supplements of "happiness", worldly pleasures do not provide happiness versus future goals. How can existentialists advocate finding one's purpose in life independently if he/she is caught up in the world rather than in the future? I know that people could theoretically use experiencing worldly pleasures as a purpose, but a purpose is one in which people should be satisfied with. Experiencing worldly pleasures, like a drug, is not satisfying to human existence.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is really random, however the conversation about marriage between Marie and Meursault reminds me of a song by Meat Loaf called "You Took the Words Right Of My Mouth (Hot Summer Night)." In the beginning of this song, the boy asks the girl a series of questions such as:
ReplyDelete[Spoken:]
[Boy:] On a hot summer night,
would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses?
[Girl:] Will he offer me his mouth?
[Boy:] Yes.
[Girl:] Will he offer me his teeth?
[Boy:] Yes.
[Girl:] Will he offer me his jaws?
[Boy:] Yes.
[Girl:] Will he offer me his hunger?
[Boy:] Yes.
[Girl:] Again, will he offer me his hunger?
[Boy:] Yes!
[Girl:]And will he starve without me?
[Boy:] Yes!
[Girl:] And does he love me?
[Boy:] Yes.
[Girl:] Yes.
[Boy:] On a hot summer night,
would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses?
[Girl:] Yes.
[Boy:] I bet you say that to all the boys!
The song then continues on describing a love story that occurred on a beach. I primarily connected the beginning of the song to the conversation of marriage between Marie and Meursault. In the book, Meursault explains how "she wanted to know if I would have accepted the same proposal from another woman, with whom I was involved with in the same way," (pg 42). This reminded me of the conversation in the song, when the boy tells the girl "I bet you say that to all the boys." It was also interesting how the relationship in the song is very passionate, and it occurs on the beach. In chapter two, Marie met Meursault while they were swimming at the beach, and they spent the rest of the day immersed in each other. At the end of the song, Meat Loaf says "I was just about to say I love you." Although the boy is questioning the girl in the song, and roles are reversed in the book, those last lines could explain Marie's feelings towards Meursault. Before conversing with Meursault in chapter five and saying "then she wondered if she loved me," (pg 42), I believe that Marie was about to express her love towards him. She stopped herself because she knew that he didn't feel the same as she did, and she didn't want to make the situation awkward. The whole awkwardness then explains the constant laughter and jokes that occur in both chapter five and chapter six. The characters continue to laugh because they are nervous, and feel uncomfortable with their current situation.
Here's the link to listen to this song so you don't think I'm crazy!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FRTHW4tgUdI
“Just then his wife was laughing with Marie. For the first time maybe, I really thought I was going to get married.” (50)
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this part of the book, I began to realize that Meursault is not supposed to be the epitome of the perfect absurdist, but rather is supposed to emulate certain elements of absurdity while also having negative qualities that are associated with anti-Existentialist or anti-Absurdist ideas, in order to show that those opposing points of view are wrong. I would argue that the majority of the flaws in Meursault’s character are characteristics that are not involved with Absurdism. I believe this because Meursault is constantly indifferent and sees no true or innate meaning in things in life, however an Absurdist would not simply be indifferent. An Absurdist, at least in Camus’ view, would make the most of life and not let life be dealt with through passivity. In this passage, Meursault is so passive and indifferent that he is willing to standby and let life control him. An Absurdist would argue that marriage has no meaning, but they would, in my opinion, not agree to something just because their partner felt like getting married. Although Meursault does emulate many parts of Absurdism that Camus is trying to preach, his character flaws, such as passivity, can be seen as a way to show the flaws of opposing views. The reason that this passage shows this is because Meursault sees himself getting married simply because he hears Masson’s wife “laughing with Marie.” Camus would agree with questioning the significance of marriage, but I do not believe that Camus would condone a passive reaction to life’s decisions.
“‘Do you know what time is it? It’s only eleven-thirty!’ We were all surprised, but Masson said that we had eaten very early and that it was only natural because lunchtime was whenever you were hungry.” (52)
The reason I chose this quote was because of the quote’s insignificance as well as the quote’s diction. I noticed that Meursault tends to include a lot of unnecessary details that do not benefit or describe the overall story, and I believe that the reason he does this is that he believes that nothing has meaning, which means everything has an equal amount of meaning: none. Given that view, Meursault includes everything from his mother’s death to Marie’s useless comment about the time, and he narrates all of these details, no matter how important or meaningless they are, in the same indifferent diction. Since everything shares a meaning of nothing in the mind of Meursault, it is all described using diction that makes it appear as if Meursault does not care. I noticed that his sentences never vary in length, and there is never any punctuation or syntactical elements that suggest that Meursault views one thing as more meaningful than another. It is actually somewhat shocking that he even uses the word “surprised” to describe himself in this instance, because even when he heard Raymond beat his girlfriend or heard about his mother’s passing, he still would not describe himself as surprised. This goes to suggest that . The insignificance of details and the indifferent tone help to suggest that the things that society places meaning upon and what Meursault or Camus place meaning upon are two very different things.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Then she stood up, put her jacket back on with the same robotlike movements, and left" (43).
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to note that Mersault treats everyone around him as if they were all robots controlled by a third, outside source; it is as if other characters aren't in control of their situations. Mersault also makes it a point to meticulously note every single action of the girl who he saw at Celeste's. I find his attitude towards others to produce a very cynical and nearly self-righteous tone. When he addresses people as robots, it gives readers the impression that they have no sentience or direction in life if they abide to either physical or philosophical suicide, as Camus denotes. He also describes that she never "swerves or looks around." Mersault implies that the woman does not ever take moments to think about her decisions in life or form reasonable questions of them. Thus, Camus demonstrates his animosities towards parochial mindsets: killing oneself due to a lack of hope or adopting someone else's philosophy. He states that there is a need for following one's own path and developing one's sense of purpose in life.
"I saw a group of Arabs...They were staring at us in silence, but in that way of theirs, as if we were nothing but stones or dead trees" (48).
Mersault notes, with a tone of caution, of the way the Arabs behaved in front of him. When I think of Arabs, I think of the preconceived notion that those in the middle east are religious extremists who adopt a strictly shared doctrine and condemn any who oppose that religion. Camus most likely considers this mindset as a form of absurdity because he staunchly believes that people should develop their own perspectives of the world around them and adopt their own beliefs. Therefore, he treats the Arabs with contempt and caution so as not to adopt their stereotypical mindsets. I interpreted the reference to the Arabs as a sort of historical allusion, but I want to know what others came up to explain how Camus integrates Arabs into his existentialist views.
I also found the girl Meursault observes in chapter five to be significant. I noticed how the way he found her peculiar and observed every detail of her behavior as some mystery, reflects how other characters view him. Meursault himself is sort of a mystery in the sense that his behavior is different from those around him. I felt as though Meursault felt a connection to this girl and her individuality but also judged her for it at the same time. Although Meursault shows existentialist ways, by judging this girl, it shows his lack of care for finding purpose in life, which is not much like an existentialist at all.
DeleteI thought that him noting everything that she did was very robotic itself. This is because I imagine robots constantly surveying everyone and everything around them and always knowing what is happening around them. I also think that he is judging her because he does not know this is very similar to the way he acts around everyone. I think that he thinks everyone is a robot and everyone else believes that he is a robot. I think Camus did this because it demonstrates how everyone tends to judge others and the way that others see them is different than how they see themselves. This is demonstrated by Meursault. Everyone seems to view him like a robot because he does not express his emotions but he view everyone else as being odd because of how much they feel.
DeleteBrooklyn had previously mentioned how Raymond was a character foil of Meursault, I agreed with her but also found from these chapters that Marie is a character foil of him as well. Their personalities and overall viewpoints on life differ greatly. I first noticed this contrast in character at the beginning of chapter six when Meursault states, "...because we hadn't opened the blinds, the day, already bright with sun, hit me like a slap in the face. Marie was jumping with joy and kept on saying what a beautiful day it was," (47). The two character have completely polar opposite reactions to the sunshine. Meursault says its like a slap in the face to him which makes a very negative connotation towards the light. Marie, like most normal people, enjoys the light and even compliments it. Meursault, even if enjoying the sunshine, would most likely never compliment or comment on it. The contrast between the two emphasizes Meursault's negative personality. Marie's character highlights the indifference Meursault feels toward the world and allows the reader to better understand how he differs from those who conform to society. The character foil continues to be shown after Raymond gets slashed. Meursault, during the incident, was emotionless and Camus did not write about how he felt at all, until he had to tell Marie and Masson's wife. Meursault says, "...Marie was very pale. I didn't like having to explain to them, so I just shut up..." (54). Meursault never shows his emotion about his friend getting stabbed but does seem upset when he notices the affect it has on the women. Marie, on the other hand, shows her emotion directly just by the look on her face. Once again, Camus uses Marie to reflect how Meursault's feelings differ from those in regular society. He does not share the same emotions those people do, which reflects his belief in absurdity. However, he does seem to care about how others feel to a certain extent. The women seem to make him uncomfortable and that might just be his reaction to emotions that he cannot empathize with. Camus purposely conveys this character foil to further emphasize how Meursault differs from the people who conform in society and his existentialist behavior.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of these chapters that I found really interesting was the way that Camus characterized Marie. Through out the past few chapters, the reader sees Maries as just a part of Meursault’s life, but now her character is developed. After going home, Marie ask Meursault if he wanted to marry her and if he loved her. He said yes, and that he did not love her. Camus wrote after all of Marie’s questions, “After another moment’s silence, she mumbled that I was peculiar, that that was probably why she loved me…” (Page 42). This quote indicates that Marie does not care that her companion is very indifferent towards her; he does not love her and does not give much of a thought to anything regarding their relationship. Subsequently, the reader can assume that Marie has low self-worth, as se wants to spend her life in a lopsided relationship. The reader begins to feel pity for Marie and this creates a pathetic tone surrounding this relationship. Additionally, on the way to Masson’s home, Camus further characterizes Marie. He wrote, “Marie was jumping with joy and kept saying what a beautiful day it was.” (Page 47). This characterizes Marie as carefree and happy. The fact that she keeps repeating what a beautiful day it is makes the reader see her as overly optimistic and creates a warm tone surrounding her. The reader feels like she may be good for Meursault in that she will teach him to be more care free and optimistic. Camus’ characterization of Marie makes her seem like the foil of Meursault; she is outgoing, optimistic, and excited for the future. On the other hand, Meursault is quiet, pessimistic, and lives a day at a time. This contrast really highlights the existential ideas portrayed through Meursault. Overall, mare really grows as a character in thee chapters. Feel free to comment if you have other opinions!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn chapters 5 and 6, Meursault continues to elicit these existentialist thoughts about his life. In the beginning of chapter 5, after Meursault is asked if he would like to move to Paris for a new job opening, he responds, "I said yes but that really it was all the same to me"(5.41). The boss responds saying that Meursault shows a lack of motivation but in reality, Meursault is putting things into a realistic perspective. To him, it really didn't matter. Shortly after the quote stated above, Meursault says, "...and that I wasn't dissatisfied with mine here at all"(5.41). He enjoys his life where he is at this moment, so why lie and say that he would rather move to Paris? This continues to prove that Meursault can be seen as a really logical person and likes to be dead honest. It all comes back to that Camus' belief that language was an art meant to tell the truth. Meursault continues to show this in chapter 6. Near the middle of chapter 6, after Raymond got cut twice by the Arab and the women wanted to know what happened, Meursault says, "I didn't like having to explain to them, so I just shut up, smoked a cigarette, and looked at the sea"(6.54). A lot of the people who read this probably thought that Meursault's actions were unfair and not right. I believe otherwise though, because it does not tell you why he didn't want to explain it to the women. Some people might think that since he didn't want to explain to them, it means he doesn't care about what just happened to Raymond; but they don't know that. Maybe he didn't want to explain it because he cared so much that he didn't want to talk about the event. What do you guys think?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in think that Meursault not telling the women what had happened to Raymond was not that he did not care. I think that he did not want to frighten them and make them worry about him. I also think that he did not want to explain it to them because he did not know how to do it without scaring them or making it sound terrible. I think that he is very reasonable because it is his way of interpreting events that will change his life. I think that he is blunt about these events because it makes them easier to understand and to share with other people without explaining to them why he thinks that. He does not want his life to be complicated because then more people would want to ask him about it and I think he does it on purpose because it makes things simpler for him.
DeleteSomething that I found interesting as I was reading these chapters was how similar Meursault and Salamano were and that Meursault is like a younger version of Salamano. They seem to be very similar in how they treat other people and how they react to different events in their lives. Most of these similarities are seen when Meursault invites Salamano into his room after coming home from dinner at Celeste’s. Meursault asked Salamano about his dog and he responded, “He told me he’d gotten it after his wife died…He hadn’t been happy with his wife, but he’d pretty much gotten used to her.” (44) I thought that this was similar to Meursault because he doesn’t love Marie and is just saying that he will marry her because he thinks that will make her happy but he is not saying he will marry her to make himself happy. I think that Salamano married his wife because it would make her happy but he did not care one way or the other. Another way that I found them to be similar was how they both lost something they loved but their expressions of love towards them were not clear. Salamano loved his dog even though he scolded him a lot. Meursault loved his mother even though he put her in the home and did not want to take the time out of his day to visit her, he thought she would be happier there and she was because she made friends there. They both also apologize for the others loss because they know that they loved them even if they did not express it how others thought they should. “I told him that I was sorry about what happened to his dog. He thanked me. He told me that Maman was very fond of his dog. He called her ‘your poor mother.’ He said he supposed I must be very sad since Maman died.” (45) Salamano is showing how sad he is over losing his dog much more than Meursault is over losing his mother. But because Salamano knows he has a similar personality to Meursault, he knows that Meursault is sad over his mother’s death, so he apologizes and shows sympathy for him.
ReplyDeleteI found this part of the book to be incredibly impactful because it illustrates the culmination of Meursault's decisions. As Camus has made very evident in the previous chapters, Meursault is inherently less emotionally involved in the walks of life compared to the other characters in the novel. Whether or not Meursault is genuinely pessimistic or if he's just accepting of suffering, he is invariably different from everyone around him. Although he is different, Meursault still retains non-absurdist elements and resembles his comrades in certain aspects. As Michael mentioned in his post, Meursault is not the epitome of the perfect absurdist; in a sense, he is still exploring what it is that his thoughts mean. As a reader, I expect Meursault, at some point in the novel, to choose which side of the fence he belongs to since it seems that Meursault's internal conflict is the predominate on in the Stranger. Camus foreshadows the climax of Meursault's internal conflict when Meursault talks Raymond out of shooting the Arab. Meursault notes, "It was then that I realized that you could either shoot or not shoot," (56). Meursault's statement foreshadows his impending decision to either shoot, and accept the absurdity that exists in the world, or not shoot, and ignore that absurdity. The effect of foreshadowing is to ignite the same decision making in the world. Similar to the myth of Sisyphus, one can either decide to accept suffering as fate or accept suffering as a simple, meaningless fact of life. Meursault reveals the deciding factor in his decision with the statement, "To stay or to go, it amounted to the same thing," (57). In other words, Meursault has come to the decision that whether you accept it or not, suffering will still be suffering. Not accepting suffering disables you from acting upon it. Although he applied it in a gruesome context, Meursault decided to shoot the Arab because he believes that even if he hadn't shot him, the outcome would have been the same in terms of suffering.
ReplyDeleteA very astute analysis, Jenny. Meursault's decision to shoot also caught my attention. As Meursault is coming to a conclusion about absurdity (via his actions) so is the reader. Meursault's internal thoughts ("..you could either shoot or not shoot" (56).) pushes the reader to ask why. Why shoot at all? Thus, Camus has successfully made the reader try and make sense to an absurd situation - reinforcing his belief that absurd situations cannot be made sense of.
DeleteThe urge to keep reading the book truly can be seen in chapters five and six, do to the fact that Albert Camus strategically uses various methods of causing the reader to wonder what is to come causing them to read on and on. Through these two chapters one can see Camus's abundance of foreshadowing, characterization and imagery which all give the impression to the reader that something big is to follow in the plot of the story. The first few pages seem to induce a mood of sadness because of the fact that Salamano's dog ran away and he now doesn't have a bud to hangout with and what makes it even more heart touching is the fact that Salamano says,"When she died, he had asked a buddy for a dog"(44),which was to become his most important thing with his wife now dead. Later on though, the mood changes dramatically as it goes from being a tranquil feeling to a more heart throbbing and suspenseful one. When at the beach house the three men, Raymond, Masson and Mersault take a walk on the beach and on there walk they encounter the two Arabs they Raymond and Mersault had seen earlier. While walking Mersault describes the ground as,"blazing sand looked red"(53). By saying this, Camus is utilizing foreshadowing to let the reader know that something is about to happen. By doing this the reader wants to further read and see what the big situation is to be about. One can peace together the fact that the two parties are walking towards each other and it can be concluded that there will be a clash between the two. The "red" that Mersault refers to so greatly to can be seen to signify and symbolize blood which can also be seen as an injury which is exactly what happens to Raymond when his hand gets slashed open by one of the Arabs. Just as things calm down they quickly escalate ones again when Raymond and Mersault decide to take another walk but this time with Raymond carrying a gun. The two men ones again spot the two Arabs on some rocks next to the beach and just as Raymond is to try and shoot the Arabs, Mersault steps in and convinces him not to yet and then the Arabs end up slipping into the rocks. Since this was the second time they encountered the Arabs one might have thought that maybe one of the men were to die if not both but neither happens but the reader is still left questioning himself if he is to see them ones again. This question is answered later on when Mersault goes out on a walk on the sand by himself and just as he reaches the springs next to the water he notices the guy who slashed Raymond is laying on the ground. Since foreshadowing seems to play such a role, one can already see what is to happen if the sentence on page 57 is thought about for a sec when Mersault says,"the same dazzling red glare."(57) This same red glare was seen earlier that day when walking towards the Arabs and Raymond getting slashed and bleeding just like the context in the quote. Now that Mersault sees the red glare again the reader can only suspect that more blood is to be spilled. This indeed does happen when because Mersault ends up shooting the Arab after seeing him come towards him with a knife. This moment in the story is a very big plot twist because of its seriousness and the fact that a human just died. It was very interesting how the auther gave all these clues that the reader could piece together to come to a conclusion that a possible and most likely true as seen with this. This though can pose the question, what is to happen with Mersault and how is he to cope with this situation because he was the one who seemed least likely to shoot anyone?
ReplyDeleteCamus uses word choice to make the reader feel distanced from his main character, Meursault. In the beginning of the fifth chapter Marie asks Meursault about Paris and he relies with, “It’s dirty. Lots of pigeons and dark courtyards. Everybody is pale.”(42). Meursault’s description of Paris is likely the opposite of the average reader’s idea of the city. Paris is usually known as the city of light, or love, while Meursault’s of darkness, birds and pale people makes it sound more like a city of the dead. Here Camus slips in his existentialist idea that one cannot truly live without accepting their suffering. Because most of the people in Paris have not accepted their suffering he sees them as pale, sickly and dying. His description of the scenery, dirty and dark with lots of birds, makes Paris seem more like a hell than a romantic escape. Because Meursault’s description of Paris is so different from the average it makes him seem like even more of a stranger than was already shown through his apathy in the earlier chapters of the novel.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter six I noticed that Meursault focuses more on physical feelings rather than emotional ones this gives the passages a animalistic tone which causes the reader to feel uncomfortable with the character. This physical focus is shown especially when Meursault is around Marie. When Meursault and Marie are at the beach with his friends Meursault describes Marie laying next to him and says, “the combined warmth from her body and the sun made me doze off.”(51). This animalistic quality shows that even though Meursault may not experience and feel the same emotions the average person does he still feels something and has the ability to connect with others. The reader then acknowledges that he is not as apathetic as was thought at the beginning of the novel. Due to the fact that Meursault can connect with others he must be held accountable for his violent actions against the Arab man because he knew that his actions were going to hurt the man and he went through with them anyway.
In the beginning of chapter five, Meursault's boss offers Meursault an business opportunity to move to Paris, saying "'You're young, and it seems to me it's the kind of life that would appeal to you.'" and Meursault in turn replies "I said yes but that really it was all the same to me" (41). Here, Meursault is representative of two opposites in Camus' existentialist ideas. Meursault approaches the situation from a non conforming perspective, in that his boss makes a generalization of his expectations for young people. Meursault however, declines, saying it does not suit him. It makes no difference to him, which goes along with the meaningless of the world, but what Meursault does not do is assign meaning or purpose. At this point, he is still just going with the motions, and his character has changed very little, if it all in part one. I think the lack of character development in Meursault's case, up to chapter six in part one, helps to amplify the affect of the suddenness of the killing of the Arab, which ultimately portrays Camus' idea that the world has no order, and of the absurd.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter six I took notice of subtle religious reference. The number of shots and the knocking of the door are both four, which in Christianity, is the number of creation. While existentialists tend to deny religion, the two share many commonalities and I thought the religious motif here was representative of Meursault finally breaking his character and creating an irreversible situation in which the absurd is explored(court). Another example of religious motif I found was during Raymond and Meursault's encounter with the Arabs after Raymond had been attacked with a knife. The other one[Arab] was blowing through a little reed over and over again, watching us out of the corner of his eye. He kept repeating the only three notes he could get out of his instrument" (55). The three notes could both foreshadow the Arab's death, or Meursault's coming persecution and the role he plays as a Christ figure.
One thing I found interesting is the motif of the mother’s death. At the end of chapter 2 and 4, Meursault thinks back about his mother. During the chapter 5 when he talks with old guy, he refers to Meursault’s mother and how she loved the dog. Finally, right before the murder, the highlight of the part 1, he thinks, “the sun was the same as it had been the day I’d buried Maman, and like then, my forehead especially was hurting me, all the veins in it throbbing under the skin” (48). It is very strange considering that Meursault is repeatedly described as a very passive individual who thinks of something and then just forgets and moves to next one. He doesn’t show any interest to anything and he admitted that he didn’t feel anything when he buried his mother. However, he keeps referring his mother and under the similar circumstance to the day he participated in the funeral, he murdered an Arab who he doesn’t need to murder. Then I thought this indicates that Meursault’s wasn’t really apathetic to the death of his mother. Maybe he was affected by that event but he wasn’t realized that. If the death of the mother symbolizes absurdity of life, then Meursault behavior suddenly makes sense. Before the court and sentence of death, Meursault wasn’t realized the absurdity fully understand his life. Therefore, he couldn’t clearly explain why he killed the Arab. However, he was actually affected by the death in his unconsciousness, and under the burning sun, the absurdity exploded and he fires the gun.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading chapter 6 I had come to realize that the indifference that Maureault feels is in his body and mind. He has finally come to realize how the universe is very similar to his personality. He realizes that he does not care, and the world does not care what happens either. When Raymond gives him the gun he says, " It was then that I realized you cloud either shoot or not shoot"(VI). This comment reveals to the audience that there is no difference to him between these two very different scenarios. This point in the book is a climax go the reader because Maursault has been very indifferent and shown no emotion toward any situation. This murder came as a surprise and the reader was not prepared. However, Camus did that for the purpose of the abrupt shift plot and strike the reader as bizarre. Camus writes, "The trigger gave; I felt the smooth underside of the butt; and there, in that noise, sharp and deafening at the same time, is where it all started"(VI.59). The reader first asks "why?" However there are no apparent answers as to why he shot him. The "absurd" views are the feelings that a man experiences trying to find order in a chaotic universe.
ReplyDelete