Chapters 1 and 2 of the second section of this book were written in a very different manner than those in the first section of the book. The concepts of existentialism are brought forth a lot more in these two chapters and Meursault shifts from an image of a passive man to more that of a heartless killer. On page 65 he states, "...I answered that I had pretty much lost the habit of analyzing myself and that it was hard for me to tell him what he wanted to know". This can be related back to the notion of absurdity and Camus' belief that one should not try to make sense of the world and events that occur. Meursault seems to be the perfect example of this sort of thinking. He does not try to reason his actions or explain them, but rather just accepts that it happened and the reasoning behind it is worthless. It is also restated throughout these chapters that Meursault is stuck living in the ethical level (and below) rather than a religious one of "enlightenment". On page 65, Meursault says, "...my physical needs often got in the way of my feelings". This shows that he solely lives for pleasure. He doesn't seek a greater meaning or life purpose and instead lives only to find pleasure in the moment. He also states how when the topic of religion was brought up that the man sacred him by talking about it. Also, when asked if he believed in a God he coldly and firmly responded saying he did not. This shows that Meursault seems to only be scratching the surface of life, not finding any deeper meaning or enjoyment to it other than the simple pleasures of fulfilling basic human needs. This changed perspective on Meursault a lot. Instead of viewing him as a man of little action and emotion, I started to get almost angry a his lack of compassion and thought about anything or anyone other than himself.
Your response matches my feelings of animosity towards Mersault. I have to ask one thing. One develops depression when he/she has a sense of learned helplessness, which matches the existentialist mindset of opposing absurdity. Mersault greatly demonstrates behaviors that are of a depressed mindset. Therefore, it's contradictory that he is able to form his own purposes in life, because the concept of battling absurdity is like adopting a mindset in which nothing should be questioned or appraised in any other mindset than helplessness, and forming one's purpose requires that there must be explanations to events that drive that person to develop his/her own goals. Therefore, developing one's own purpose requires that one must question how the world works right now and how he/she can find a place in it, which is against the concept of battling absurdity. I hope that explanation of why antagonizing absurdity and developing one's own purpose in life is contradictory, but what do you make of this, and how does this pertain to Mersault?
I agree with what you're saying. Meursault never cares to find a reasoning behind certain events in his life. An example is when his mother died. He didn't care why, when,or where she died. He just accepted it and moved on.I feel like in the second part of the book though, he is expressing more emotions and giving reasonings for some events.
If Mersault is truely becoming a "heartless" killer, as you put it, as well as seeks no purpose in life and lives only for pleasure, how could he be showing the concepts of existentialism? He seeks no purpose for his life which is one of the biggest concepts brought by existentialist thought. If he is truely a heartless killer, how is he accepting the consequences and responsibilities of his action in killing the Arab man?
If Mersault is truely becoming a "heartless" killer, as you put it, as well as seeks no purpose in life and lives only for pleasure, how could he be showing the concepts of existentialism? He seeks no purpose for his life which is one of the biggest concepts brought by existentialist thought. If he is truely a heartless killer, how is he accepting the consequences and responsibilities of his action in killing the Arab man?
One component of chapter one that stood out to me was the symbol of the crucifix. As the reader, I was surprised when the magistrate "suddenly stood up, strode over to a far corner of his office, and pulled out a drawer in a file cabinet. He took out a silver crucifix which he brandished as he came toward me," (pg 68.) Being Christian myself, I can understand how the magistrate is asking himself the typical question of "Can this person be saved?" In his opinion, the only way for Meursault to be free from murder is to "repent an in so doing become like a child whose heart is open and ready to embrace it all," (pg 68.) I found the magistrate to be very contradicting when he became very angry and told Meursault that "if he were to ever doubt it (God), then his life would become meaningless," (pg 69). This is because of how forceful and insistent he tried to be, by saying "You see, you see! You do believe don't you, and you're going to place your trust in him aren't you?," (pg 69). In this situation, I believe it is up to Meursault to make his decisions about God, and if he chooses not to believe in God, the the magistrate has no right to become angry and fall back in his chair, or to even repeatedly question Meursault about his beliefs. The magistrate is a perfect example of why people perceive Christians as being pushy and crazy. As for what the symbol of the crucifix represents, it is clearly Christianity. When the magistrate said that life was meaningless without the presence of God in your life, this showed the contrasting views of Camus and absurdity. Absurdism is more based on the fact that life is irrational and has no purpose, yet Christianity is full of discovering and embracing your purpose in the world. I also found the crucifix to represent the general idea of morals. When the magistrate becomes insistent, it may be because he wanted Meursault to accept that there is a general meaning to life, even if it doesn't include a God. The actions of the magistrate make it clear that he believes Meursault is a threat to society, because of his lack of morals.
I agree that the magistrate was out of line towards the end, but as you said could this be intended to be used for the purpose of a stereotype? If so what would the affect on the book be from this? Does this possibly have something to do with how Meursault sees people all conforming with one basic idea?
One thing that really struck me when reading these chapters was the parallels in subject between the opening chapters of part one and of part two. Both start off with a death, in the first it centers around the death of Meursault's mother, and in the second the Arab man that Meursault murdered. However, the subsections centering around the theme of death are very opposing in these two chapters. Where as before Meursault was an innocent man people pitied, he is now in the second half of the book a person to be shamed. His coping strategies however have so far seemed the same. In the earlier part of the book, Meursault opens up by saying, "For now it's as if Maman weren't dead" (3). For many people a common response towards death is often to deny the fact until they convince themselves it isn't true. Nonacceptance can provide temporary relief. Meursault however throughout the chapter genuinely forgets that his mother died; he doesn't even have to convince himself against the fact. Subsequently, in it's sister chapter in part two where Meursault has just killed a man, he explains, "On my way out I was even going to go shake his hand, but just in time, I remember that I had killed a man" (64). Just as he had done before, Meursault completely forgets the fact that a death has just occurred. He even forgets that he himself commited the crime. This really caused me to question whether he is aware of his actions? For a man who follows through with ideas of existentialism, death seems to allude him more than anything. He of course treats it as if it doesn't matter, because as we all know Meursault can choose if something matters based on whether or not he feels like he should assign meaning to it. The world according to Meursault could be compared to a canvas with all the paints nearby it, just waiting to be painted. This idea of death having no meaning however really struck my attention. For a man such as Meursault who really does whatever he can to stay alive and keep leaving, a man who holds the routine existance of life so close, Meursault seems suprisingly unaffected by the idea of death. Why would he not be scared? It's great and all that he embraces everything instead of committing various types of suicide to cover the problem up (such as I said before about people ignoring death), but shouldn't death hold some meaning to him? Meursault's general acceptance of death in these chapters really makes me question whether it really is death that alludes Meursault, or whether it is the fact that there may actually be something beyond death.
"there was a single lamp on his desk which was shining on a chair where he had me sit while he remained standing int he shadows...dark suit, a wing collar, and an odd-looking tie with broad black and white stripes" (64).
I noticed that Mersault tended to look at a lot of things as clear-cut; he described his surroundings as being either black or white, with no shades of grey. This imagery was also evident in Mersault's descriptions of the sky, which contained certain distinct colors without extraneous things like clouds, stars, etc. Mersault produces a very lucid tone to the effect of demonstrating the enlightening theories of existentialism, in which there is no true explanation to occurrences and people are stuck in a dilemma to either accept what happens to them or commit suicide in someway. He shows a very accepting and non contentious attitude throughout the book by seeing things without nuances and accepting them. While he keeps this attitude, Mersault develops a satisfying and content tone in order to exemplify the effectiveness of this philosophy.
"I felt the urge to reassure him that I was like everybody else...I gave up the idea out of laziness" (66).
I noticed that Mersault's predisposition to laziness is very contradictory and ironic to the concept of existentialism. Throughout the book, it is very obvious that Mersault is a very nonchalant, static character who does not even show the slightest bit of care towards his mother's death. Existentialism upholds the concept of making a purpose for yourself in a world where you are born without purpose. However, existentialism also upholds the concept of accepting one's situation and refraining from trying to figure out the purpose to yourself and other occurrences in life. Developing a mindset of acceptance is a very torpid motion; one does not question anything in life and essentially creates a lazy mindset. However, forming one's own purpose in life is a process which is not lazy in itself; the process requires years of working to develop one's own purpose. Why is there this inconsistency in the existentialist philosophy?
Do you think maybe it's not inconsistency in existentialism itself, but rather that Meursault is currently CHANGING to have a more existential philosophy? Or he doesn't have one yet? Or he's just the prime example of the absurdity of human existence without purpose? Ms. Ballard
“I waited for the daily walk, which I took in the courtyard, or for a visit from my lawyer. The rest of the time I managed pretty well.” (77)
Throughout this entire part of the story, and especially in this passage, I saw parallels to “The Myth of Sisyphus”. Prison is very much like the punishment that Sisyphus receives after his many mistakes, because both are there to serve a penal purpose and both of them make the recipient of the punishment feel as if their daily routine is not only repetitive but also extremely worthless and absurd. As Camus said, however, one “must imagine Sisyphus happy”. Meursault, in his daily routine of meaningless walks in the courtyard, as well as other pointless time-passing activities such as rereading the story about the Czech man or thinking about women, is able to be the “happy Sisyphus”, in a sense. He achieves this by accepting the absurdity of the situation and making the most out of it. Meursault learns to make his punishment less penal and more meaningless, such as when he “had gotten used to not smoking and it wasn’t a punishment anymore” (78). Camus would argue that our life is like this meaningless prison routine, and in order to find any joy or peace, we must face the absurdity, accept it, and make the most of it like Meursault.
“The next day a lawyer came to see me at the prison.” (64)
This is the first time that the reader is informed by Meursault at the prison, and I found this quote interesting because the indifferent diction about such a big and shocking detail in the story actually makes the passage funny. Rather than giving a backstory about how he was arrested or what preceded his incarceration, Meursault calmy introduces the fact that he is an inmate without making it seem like a very big deal. The indifferent diction is the same that is seen throughout the entire book, and although one might expect his diction to change and become more intense or perhaps more fearful, seeing how Meursault is not only in prison but could be facing extreme consequences, his diction remains the same as any other parts. Camus chooses not to put a lot of drama into the introduction of the idea that Meursault has been arrested in order to ask the reader the question that he has been asking all along: do the details really matter? As long as the reader knows that Meursault is in prison, the reader does not necessarily need to know about the preceding details for any reason beyond their curiosity and amusement. By making Meursault seem like he is still remaining calm, he is showing the ultimate indifference that he possesses. Even though Meursault is now a murderer facing very harsh punishment, he still talks as if he is nothing more than slightly annoyed or bored.
As I was reading chapters one and two in the second part, I noticed that people tended to get frustrated with Meursault very easily. I thought that this was because they could not understand him and accept his view of behavior. Them not being able to accept his attitude towards different subjects demonstrates how they are not existentialists, which I think Camus used as a way to contrast how existentialists view things and how other people view things. Meursault is constantly accepting the different events that happen in his life and when a big event happens, it appears as if he has no feelings but I think that is his way of dealing with the events, he just accepts them and moves on. The first person that I noticed that got frustrated with Meursault was his lawyer when he is trying to make Meursault sound less heartless by asking "if he could say that I had held back my natural feelings. I said, 'No, because it's not true.' He gave me a strange look, as if he found me slightly disgusting." (65) He does not understand how Meursault could not want to say this because he believes it is what any other person would say . He does not understand Meursault's existentialist perspective of life. The other person that I noticed became frustrated with Meursault was the magistrate because he was a Christian and Meursault was not and he was trying to help him by involving God but this had no effect on Meursault. This is demonstrated the first time they meet because the magistrate starts shouting at him about God and says, "He said it was impossible; all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs on him. That was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt I, his life would become meaningless. 'Do you want my life to be meaningless?" (69) This demonstrates how the magistrate was religious and he was not so they did not understand each other, which makes their relationship difficult because they do not view things in the same way. This allows the reader to relate to a part of the story because they may have relationships where they have a different view than the person they are in the relationship with.
In chapters 1 and 2 of the second part of the book, the reader is able to see further into Meursault's character. In chapter 1, Meursault says, "I probably did love Maman, but that didn't mean anything"(1.65). Again, Meursault elicits a tone of coldheartedness but he does not want it to come off that way. If one thinks about it, does it really matter if you love someone? If you care for someone and show them support, trust, attention, and affection, does it really matter to say that you love them? Personally I think it does matter but I could see why I wouldn't. This quote might have made some readers despise Meursault but shortly after, he says, "What I can say for certain is that I would rather Maman hadn't died"(1.65). This line is really important because it shows the reader that Meursault does care. It's not like Meursault wanted his mom dead. He also talks about how his physical needs often got in the way of his feelings. Meursault mentioned that he was so tired and sleepy the day of his moms funeral that he wasn't aware of what was truly happening. This can somewhat justify his actions on the day of his mother's death. In chapter 2, while Marie is visiting Meursault in jail, he says, "I noticed that he was across from the little old lady and that they were staring intently at each other"(2.75). Meursault knows that the old lady is the mother and the son is the man by him. The part that caught my attention is that Meursault randomly keeps bringing up this man and his mother. Shortly after the quote above, he says, "The young man and his mother were still staring at each other"(2.75). He also brings this up another time after that too. The fact that he keeps bringing the son and his mother symbolizes how Meursault misses his mother and the relationship they had even though it was hard for him to express his feelings towards her.
As a reader, I'm beginning to see Meursault's soft side more and more. He is slowly showing more and more emotions towards everything. Do you guys think that this will continue? Or that maybe he will just break down emotionally at some point?
In chapter two of part two, the Czechoslovakian story stood out to me as a reflection of Meursault's situation and his beliefs. The story involves the man who is murdered by his own mother and sister after displaying his wealth in front of them, since they did not recognize him, even though eventually he was going to share his riches. The mother and the sister both commit suicide after realizing who they murdered. Meursault states that he "read that story a thousand times," (80). Although he is in jail and lacks entertainment, so therefore he is bound to attach himself to any little form of amusement, the story he reads indefinitely is very relevant to his life. The story of the man and his ironic death being set in a random country by which most people do not relate to, makes the story meaningless both to the reader and to Meursault. The irony in the man's death and the tragedy a simple deception created, also makes the story less meaningful. The meaningless tragedy reflects Meaursault's life and how it has become meaningless. The story also reflects his belief that life all together has no meaning and human behavior cannot be justified. After narrating the story, Meursault states, "I thought the traveler pretty much deserved what he got and that you should never play games," (80). Meursault once again mocks human behavior and the pointless games people in society play. He basically is showing that there really is no justification or explanation for the tragedy besides human fault and existence. The tragic story sets a morbid tone and creates a hopeless effect in the reader. Someone had previously mentioned the idea of "Can this person be saved?" which I connected to Meursault's character. It seems there is no hope left for him and that he will always believe his life has no meaning and everything he does is meaningless until his inevitable death, which makes the book seem pointless in itself and frustrates me as a reader. It almost seems as though Camus purposely wants to elicit absurdity in the reader so they can acknowledge that they are attempting to justify the book but also realize that you cannot, which is the exact point he is trying to make through the story.
One thing I noticed was that in part 2, Meursault begins exploring his own personal beliefs and philosophies more so than he did in part 1. In part 1, Meursault spends more of his thoughts on illustrating the world around him. He describes the people he meets and the actions they commit. However when it comes to his own emotions, Meursault only briefly skims over them, usually commenting that "it doesn't really matter." In part 2, Meursault more frequently comments on his cognitions and how he interprets the surrounding environment. As a reader, I take Meursault's increase in internal evaluation as a sign that he is starting to delve deeper into absurdist thought. Before, Meursault didn't exactly acknowledge how different he was from other characters in terms of how he reacted to certain events. Now, Meursault admits, referring to the magistrate: "I made him feel uncomfortable. He didn't understand me, and he was sort of holding it against me," (66). In this statement, I think Camus is commenting on the judgment that people in society face by placing Meursault in an unfavorable position. Camus illustrates the magistrate as the enemy in this situation, despite the fact that it was Meursault who committed the crime, in order to emphasize the existentialist belief that humans should not judge one another. Humans can never fully understand each other's circumstances, therefore we ought to not hold certain things against other people. Other's actions only make one uncomfortable because he or she creates the feeling of uncomfortableness out of the meaningless. Later in the chapter, when the magistrate demands of Meursault, "Do you want my life to be meaningless?," Meursault takes the magistrate's earlier judgment and throws it back in his face (69). Meursault responds, "As far as I could see, it didn't have anything to do with me, and I told him so," (69). Although he does it in a blunt and slightly insensitive manner, Meursault ultimately exemplifies the existential belief because he does not hold others' actions against themselves. His opinions about other people remain relatively neutral even though most people have formulated strong judgments towards Meursault himself.
Mersault is not an existentialist, he is a Nihilist. I had this suspision while reading the book at first but I was unsure. It didnt make sense to me that an existentialist writer would put a Nihilist at the front of their work of literature. Yet this becomes evidently clear that Camus has done this in the first few chapters of part two of the novel. The first quote I felt confirmed this was on pages 69 and 70, almost at the end of the chapter, when he said to himself " I was about to say that that was precisely because they were criminals. But then I realized that I was one too. It was an idea I couldnt get used to". What this internal dialogue showed me was that he has a very hard time taking ownership for his actions and accepting what he has done. Many times when we do something that is very impactful or something that seems almost extreme, looking back o it the first few times it seems as though we did not actually do such a thing ( as if we were someone else). However, after a few times of this acceptance takes place and it is under stood what we did and that, yes, it really was our doing. Meursault does not go through this process. He even stated he was tired of repeating the same story at one point. However, he doesnt seem to fully own up to what he has done. rather he accepts that he did kill the man and he did fire four shots into the body post mortem, however, he fails to see that he deserves to be punished and he will be treated differently for his actions. In the second chapter of the second part this is further emphasized on its fery first page, 72, when he states "In fact I wasn´t really in prison those first few days: I was sort of waiting for something to happen...The day of my arrest I was first put in a room where there were already several other prisoners, most of them Arabs. They laughed when they saw me. Then they asked me what I was in for. I said I´d killed an arab and they were all silent". What this first page of the chapter shows is that although he can acknowledge that he did commit such an atrocity, he does not feel the need for such a punishment for, as he states in the first chapter of the second part, it did not matter. By removing himself symbolically and mentaly from the prison he is in essence removing his guilt and the punishment he deserves. He shows this through how neutral he is about teling the other Arabs that he had killed an Arab. Now that his Nihilism is established, why does Camus do this? Unless Camus is to point out gaping holes and flaws in Nihilist beliefs, the only realistic course of action is for Meursault to see the wrong doings that he has commited, own up to them, and find a pourpose in his life he lives so pourposelessly. Aside from these two possibilities, no realistic reasoning can be seen as to why Camus woulkd make Nihilism such a key feature in his novel.
When first starting to read the second part, one comes to realize that it closely resembles the beginning of the first part. In both cases there is some who has passed away but the interesting part is that in the first part it was Meursault who people were feeling bad for because his mother had passed away but in the second chapter the flips around and now people are mad at him for killing someone. The most peculiar thing in the second part of the story is the fact that Meursault although having killed someone and being placed in prison, he seemed to handle it no problem without even stressing a little. Here he just killed a man and much like with his mom he doesn't care at all and treats it as something that just happen to have happened. Later Meursault goes on to say that,"at one time or another all normal people have wished their loved ones were dead."(65) When Meursault says this I find it a little distressing because when someone says something like that, most of the time it is said as a joke and isn't meant in a serious manner, but for Meursault to interpret this the way he did shows that he thinks in a different way that's not the same as most people. By characterizing him the way he did, Camus establishes a dominant affect of unease causing the reader to want to wonder why Meursault doesn't take anything seriously but instead sees only good things in the worst possible scenario. By not putting to much action into the two scenes Camus can show that Meursault was a true existentialist with existentialist values and beliefs. Existentialist are made to believe that life is not fair and that if you want to find meaning you need to do what you believe to be fit best by having the freedom of choice. These main ideas are first presented with Meursault when he is asked about his mom and if he truly did love her and instead of answering with an answer that the lawyer might want to hear, Meursault says," I probably did love Maman, but that didn't mean anything.''(65) By saying some might say that he is selfish individual who care about nothing but the way it should be looked at is that he was only telling the truth. One should ask himself, does it really matter if you loved or didn't love your mom with the fact that she is gone? Is there reasoning in answering 'yes' as apposed to 'no'? This existentialist philosophy can be seen even more when Meursault is alone and has nothing to do and he says to himself," little by little I would have gotten used to it."(77) By telling himself this he is assuring that he will be fine and that he wont have any problem in jail and no matter what they do or where they take him, he will get used to any setting. In a way this reduces the possibility of him freaking out and going crazy knowing that he will be behind bars for a while. Above all, when Camus writes," He will have enough memories to keep him from being bored,"(79) he can show that freedom that all people have of there mind and how powerful it could be in such situation where everything else is hopeless. Camus's writing truly reflects his beliefs of existentialism and by inducing them in Meursault's character, one can see there true value.
What really stood out to me in the first two chapters of the second part of the novel is how Meursault is beginning to realize how much he appreciate what he had before his incarceration. This became evident to me when Marie asked if he needed anything. He responded, “Yes, everything.” (Page 74). Although this seems like a typical response for someone who is in this situation, it really demonstrates how Meursault has changed and his stance on existential ideals. Prior to being arrested. Meursault seemed very unattached to anything. He wouldn’t say he loved Marie, he was not overcome with emotion during his mother’s funeral, and he did not care about taking of advantages of opportunities that were presented to him. I found it ironic that he now cares about these things and made me think of the saying “you don’t know what you have until it is gone.” Subsequently, this demonstrates that Meursault cares more than he lets on. Camus characterizes him as weak. Additionally, his behavior indicates that he does not feel significant remorse for his actions because he does not feel a need to punish himself. This violates existential ideas that one must accept responsibility for his or her actions. Furthermore, Camus continues to display Meursault’s feeling on existential ideas throughout this portion of the novel. Meursault thinks, “When I was first imprisoned, the hardest thing was that my thoughts were still those of a free man. For example, I would suddenly have the urge to be on the beach and walk down to the water.” (Page 76). This conveys how Meursault is not staying strong mentally and is dwelling on his path and is learning to appreciate all of the freedoms that he possessed. Additionally, this shows how he is ignoring the existential ideal that he needs to control his destiny with free will. Currently, he just exists and is dwelling on the past instead of controlling his future. Because Camus characterized him as weak, this indicates that Camus wants to show that not controlling your destiny makes you weak. Overall, the beginning of part two is an essential part to developing Meursault and existential ideas in this novel. Please comment if you have anything to add.
The the beginning chapters of the second part of the novel I noticed the symbol of light. During the start of Meursault’s investigation he was, “led into a curtained room;there was a single lamp on his desk which was shining on a chair where he had me sit while he remained sitting in the shadows”(63). Here Camus uses the symbol of light to show that Meursault has not yet accepted the fact that he had committed a crime. Meursault is seated in the light part of the room, which shows that he is good or clean, while the questioner who would have seemed like a bad person to Meursault is seated in the dark and therefore seems like a dark or negative force. Because Meursault is seated in the light it shows that in this point in the book Meursault does not believe he has done anything wrong and makes the reader feel as if the roles of criminal and prosecutor have been switched. Later on in the chapter Meursault returns to the room with the magistrate, “...this time his office was filled with sunlight barely softened by the flimsy curtain,”(66). This quote is appears just before Meursault and the Magistrate argue over God. The large amount of light that is in the room now shows that Meursault and the justice figure are in a more equal position which leads to the power struggle of the argument in the following pages. This increase in light dispersion in the questioning room shows that the surety of Meursault’s guilt free persona begins to falter. Camus uses the light to symbolize the change in Meursault’s opinion of himself which creates doubt in the reader on their opinion of Meursault to show that one can never be sure of their own innocence.
One point in chapter one of part that stood out to me was when Meursault is discussing his case with his lawyer. Meursault’s lawyer begins to inquire about Meursault’s personal life, and inquires about Meursault’s feelings, to which Meursault eventually responds, “I pointed out to him that none of this had anything to do with my case, but all he said was that it was obvious I had never had any dealings with the law” (65). Even before the actual trial begins, the reader gets a glimpse as to what the focus of the trial will be, on the character of Meursault is, rather than the crime he committed. I thought that this was significant in setting up the stage for part two and creating a completely different atmosphere from the first chapter, shifting from Meursault’s perspective on himself, to others focusing on Meursault. Additionally, the other perspectives portrays Camus’ belief that outside perspective is important for self-development. Meursault’s self-development can be seen at the end of chapter two, where Meursault looks into his reflection while waiting in his cell, “But at the same time, and for the first time in months, I distinctly heard the sound of my own voice. I recognized it as the same one that had been ringing in my ears for many long days, and I realized that all that time I had been talking to myself” (81). Meursault is finally realizing all his words fall on deaf ears, that nothing he says can be fully understood by others because he accepts what others do not, the absurd. Meursault is able to come to terms with himself, and hear his own voice, distinctly, not just as background noise. The distinction is similar to how Meursault acts as a background figure in never taking action in part one of the book and just going through the motions of the world, marking Meursault’s change and realizations.
After reading chapter one of the part 2, I was thinking about why Meursault and the magistrate opposes each other so much. Then I tried this scene to connect with Camus’s existential idea that religion is spiritual suicide. In existential perspective, telling the reason of killing could symbolize believing the god, because the shooting the Arab symbolizes absurdity of the life and religion is one of the three options people choose when they face the absurdity. However, at this point, Meursault haven’t gone through the awakening about absurdity of life yet. That’s the reason he can’t answer the question. As he says, “I thought about it for a minute and said that more than sorry I felt kind of annoyed... but it was as far as things went that way” (70). Meursault considers the incident “annoying,” which shows that he doesn’t really care about it at all. Saying this “strange” thought to the magistrate also indicates that Meursault doesn’t care about the magistrate either. To Meursault, it doesn’t matter and he has no understanding of the meaning of what he has done. Another example of his apathy is the difference in the number of lines said by Meursault and the magistrate. When the examination is started, Camus uses dialogue to address the conversation between them. However, once the topic shifts to the god, Meursault’s dialogue suddenly disappears. The conversation is still going, but Meursault starts narrating what he’s saying, instead of Camus uses dialogue. This creates the feeling that the conversation is cut off and unilateral. Back to the existential idea, Meursault could just agree with the magistrate and get benefit from it. Instead, even though he doesn’t know why he killed the Arab, he refused to agree with him. This demonstrates Camus’s philosophy that do not conform to society and do not believe in religion.
What struck me as interesting in the first couple chapters of part II was that fact that the magistrate waves a crucifix at Meursault. His atheistic views and not feeling mourning for his mothers death challenge the magistrate and his belief in rational world controlled by God. At that point, the magistrate deems him evil and calls him, " Monsieur Antichrist,"(II.1) attempting to categorize Meursault by the magistrates beliefs. Meursault reacts with indifference to his confinement in prison. He shows no regret or remorse over these actions that he has done. Again, we see Meursault focusing on the physical elements of being in prison rather than his emotions. He does think about women, but not Marie in particular. This shows the physical aspect of the relationship and not the emotional part. At the end of chapter 2, part II, he realizes he has been talking to himself. Camus writes," I recognized it as the same one that had been ringing in my ears for many long days, and I realized that all that time I had been talking to myself"(II.2.81). He is growing to understand more about himself and his beliefs. He says he could get used to living in any situation and begins to gain insight about the irrational world around him.
Chapters 1 and 2 of the second section of this book were written in a very different manner than those in the first section of the book. The concepts of existentialism are brought forth a lot more in these two chapters and Meursault shifts from an image of a passive man to more that of a heartless killer. On page 65 he states, "...I answered that I had pretty much lost the habit of analyzing myself and that it was hard for me to tell him what he wanted to know". This can be related back to the notion of absurdity and Camus' belief that one should not try to make sense of the world and events that occur. Meursault seems to be the perfect example of this sort of thinking. He does not try to reason his actions or explain them, but rather just accepts that it happened and the reasoning behind it is worthless. It is also restated throughout these chapters that Meursault is stuck living in the ethical level (and below) rather than a religious one of "enlightenment". On page 65, Meursault says, "...my physical needs often got in the way of my feelings". This shows that he solely lives for pleasure. He doesn't seek a greater meaning or life purpose and instead lives only to find pleasure in the moment. He also states how when the topic of religion was brought up that the man sacred him by talking about it. Also, when asked if he believed in a God he coldly and firmly responded saying he did not. This shows that Meursault seems to only be scratching the surface of life, not finding any deeper meaning or enjoyment to it other than the simple pleasures of fulfilling basic human needs. This changed perspective on Meursault a lot. Instead of viewing him as a man of little action and emotion, I started to get almost angry a his lack of compassion and thought about anything or anyone other than himself.
ReplyDeleteYour response matches my feelings of animosity towards Mersault. I have to ask one thing. One develops depression when he/she has a sense of learned helplessness, which matches the existentialist mindset of opposing absurdity. Mersault greatly demonstrates behaviors that are of a depressed mindset. Therefore, it's contradictory that he is able to form his own purposes in life, because the concept of battling absurdity is like adopting a mindset in which nothing should be questioned or appraised in any other mindset than helplessness, and forming one's purpose requires that there must be explanations to events that drive that person to develop his/her own goals. Therefore, developing one's own purpose requires that one must question how the world works right now and how he/she can find a place in it, which is against the concept of battling absurdity. I hope that explanation of why antagonizing absurdity and developing one's own purpose in life is contradictory, but what do you make of this, and how does this pertain to Mersault?
DeleteI agree with what you're saying. Meursault never cares to find a reasoning behind certain events in his life. An example is when his mother died. He didn't care why, when,or where she died. He just accepted it and moved on.I feel like in the second part of the book though, he is expressing more emotions and giving reasonings for some events.
DeleteIf Mersault is truely becoming a "heartless" killer, as you put it, as well as seeks no purpose in life and lives only for pleasure, how could he be showing the concepts of existentialism? He seeks no purpose for his life which is one of the biggest concepts brought by existentialist thought. If he is truely a heartless killer, how is he accepting the consequences and responsibilities of his action in killing the Arab man?
DeleteIf Mersault is truely becoming a "heartless" killer, as you put it, as well as seeks no purpose in life and lives only for pleasure, how could he be showing the concepts of existentialism? He seeks no purpose for his life which is one of the biggest concepts brought by existentialist thought. If he is truely a heartless killer, how is he accepting the consequences and responsibilities of his action in killing the Arab man?
DeleteOne component of chapter one that stood out to me was the symbol of the crucifix. As the reader, I was surprised when the magistrate "suddenly stood up, strode over to a far corner of his office, and pulled out a drawer in a file cabinet. He took out a silver crucifix which he brandished as he came toward me," (pg 68.) Being Christian myself, I can understand how the magistrate is asking himself the typical question of "Can this person be saved?" In his opinion, the only way for Meursault to be free from murder is to "repent an in so doing become like a child whose heart is open and ready to embrace it all," (pg 68.) I found the magistrate to be very contradicting when he became very angry and told Meursault that "if he were to ever doubt it (God), then his life would become meaningless," (pg 69). This is because of how forceful and insistent he tried to be, by saying "You see, you see! You do believe don't you, and you're going to place your trust in him aren't you?," (pg 69). In this situation, I believe it is up to Meursault to make his decisions about God, and if he chooses not to believe in God, the the magistrate has no right to become angry and fall back in his chair, or to even repeatedly question Meursault about his beliefs. The magistrate is a perfect example of why people perceive Christians as being pushy and crazy. As for what the symbol of the crucifix represents, it is clearly Christianity. When the magistrate said that life was meaningless without the presence of God in your life, this showed the contrasting views of Camus and absurdity. Absurdism is more based on the fact that life is irrational and has no purpose, yet Christianity is full of discovering and embracing your purpose in the world. I also found the crucifix to represent the general idea of morals. When the magistrate becomes insistent, it may be because he wanted Meursault to accept that there is a general meaning to life, even if it doesn't include a God. The actions of the magistrate make it clear that he believes Meursault is a threat to society, because of his lack of morals.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the magistrate was out of line towards the end, but as you said could this be intended to be used for the purpose of a stereotype? If so what would the affect on the book be from this? Does this possibly have something to do with how Meursault sees people all conforming with one basic idea?
DeleteOne thing that really struck me when reading these chapters was the parallels in subject between the opening chapters of part one and of part two. Both start off with a death, in the first it centers around the death of Meursault's mother, and in the second the Arab man that Meursault murdered. However, the subsections centering around the theme of death are very opposing in these two chapters. Where as before Meursault was an innocent man people pitied, he is now in the second half of the book a person to be shamed. His coping strategies however have so far seemed the same. In the earlier part of the book, Meursault opens up by saying, "For now it's as if Maman weren't dead" (3). For many people a common response towards death is often to deny the fact until they convince themselves it isn't true. Nonacceptance can provide temporary relief. Meursault however throughout the chapter genuinely forgets that his mother died; he doesn't even have to convince himself against the fact. Subsequently, in it's sister chapter in part two where Meursault has just killed a man, he explains, "On my way out I was even going to go shake his hand, but just in time, I remember that I had killed a man" (64). Just as he had done before, Meursault completely forgets the fact that a death has just occurred. He even forgets that he himself commited the crime. This really caused me to question whether he is aware of his actions? For a man who follows through with ideas of existentialism, death seems to allude him more than anything. He of course treats it as if it doesn't matter, because as we all know Meursault can choose if something matters based on whether or not he feels like he should assign meaning to it. The world according to Meursault could be compared to a canvas with all the paints nearby it, just waiting to be painted. This idea of death having no meaning however really struck my attention. For a man such as Meursault who really does whatever he can to stay alive and keep leaving, a man who holds the routine existance of life so close, Meursault seems suprisingly unaffected by the idea of death. Why would he not be scared? It's great and all that he embraces everything instead of committing various types of suicide to cover the problem up (such as I said before about people ignoring death), but shouldn't death hold some meaning to him? Meursault's general acceptance of death in these chapters really makes me question whether it really is death that alludes Meursault, or whether it is the fact that there may actually be something beyond death.
ReplyDelete"there was a single lamp on his desk which was shining on a chair where he had me sit while he remained standing int he shadows...dark suit, a wing collar, and an odd-looking tie with broad black and white stripes" (64).
ReplyDeleteI noticed that Mersault tended to look at a lot of things as clear-cut; he described his surroundings as being either black or white, with no shades of grey. This imagery was also evident in Mersault's descriptions of the sky, which contained certain distinct colors without extraneous things like clouds, stars, etc. Mersault produces a very lucid tone to the effect of demonstrating the enlightening theories of existentialism, in which there is no true explanation to occurrences and people are stuck in a dilemma to either accept what happens to them or commit suicide in someway. He shows a very accepting and non contentious attitude throughout the book by seeing things without nuances and accepting them. While he keeps this attitude, Mersault develops a satisfying and content tone in order to exemplify the effectiveness of this philosophy.
"I felt the urge to reassure him that I was like everybody else...I gave up the idea out of laziness" (66).
I noticed that Mersault's predisposition to laziness is very contradictory and ironic to the concept of existentialism. Throughout the book, it is very obvious that Mersault is a very nonchalant, static character who does not even show the slightest bit of care towards his mother's death. Existentialism upholds the concept of making a purpose for yourself in a world where you are born without purpose. However, existentialism also upholds the concept of accepting one's situation and refraining from trying to figure out the purpose to yourself and other occurrences in life. Developing a mindset of acceptance is a very torpid motion; one does not question anything in life and essentially creates a lazy mindset. However, forming one's own purpose in life is a process which is not lazy in itself; the process requires years of working to develop one's own purpose. Why is there this inconsistency in the existentialist philosophy?
Do you think maybe it's not inconsistency in existentialism itself, but rather that Meursault is currently CHANGING to have a more existential philosophy? Or he doesn't have one yet? Or he's just the prime example of the absurdity of human existence without purpose? Ms. Ballard
Delete“I waited for the daily walk, which I took in the courtyard, or for a visit from my lawyer. The rest of the time I managed pretty well.” (77)
ReplyDeleteThroughout this entire part of the story, and especially in this passage, I saw parallels to “The Myth of Sisyphus”. Prison is very much like the punishment that Sisyphus receives after his many mistakes, because both are there to serve a penal purpose and both of them make the recipient of the punishment feel as if their daily routine is not only repetitive but also extremely worthless and absurd. As Camus said, however, one “must imagine Sisyphus happy”. Meursault, in his daily routine of meaningless walks in the courtyard, as well as other pointless time-passing activities such as rereading the story about the Czech man or thinking about women, is able to be the “happy Sisyphus”, in a sense. He achieves this by accepting the absurdity of the situation and making the most out of it. Meursault learns to make his punishment less penal and more meaningless, such as when he “had gotten used to not smoking and it wasn’t a punishment anymore” (78). Camus would argue that our life is like this meaningless prison routine, and in order to find any joy or peace, we must face the absurdity, accept it, and make the most of it like Meursault.
“The next day a lawyer came to see me at the prison.” (64)
This is the first time that the reader is informed by Meursault at the prison, and I found this quote interesting because the indifferent diction about such a big and shocking detail in the story actually makes the passage funny. Rather than giving a backstory about how he was arrested or what preceded his incarceration, Meursault calmy introduces the fact that he is an inmate without making it seem like a very big deal. The indifferent diction is the same that is seen throughout the entire book, and although one might expect his diction to change and become more intense or perhaps more fearful, seeing how Meursault is not only in prison but could be facing extreme consequences, his diction remains the same as any other parts. Camus chooses not to put a lot of drama into the introduction of the idea that Meursault has been arrested in order to ask the reader the question that he has been asking all along: do the details really matter? As long as the reader knows that Meursault is in prison, the reader does not necessarily need to know about the preceding details for any reason beyond their curiosity and amusement. By making Meursault seem like he is still remaining calm, he is showing the ultimate indifference that he possesses. Even though Meursault is now a murderer facing very harsh punishment, he still talks as if he is nothing more than slightly annoyed or bored.
As I was reading chapters one and two in the second part, I noticed that people tended to get frustrated with Meursault very easily. I thought that this was because they could not understand him and accept his view of behavior. Them not being able to accept his attitude towards different subjects demonstrates how they are not existentialists, which I think Camus used as a way to contrast how existentialists view things and how other people view things. Meursault is constantly accepting the different events that happen in his life and when a big event happens, it appears as if he has no feelings but I think that is his way of dealing with the events, he just accepts them and moves on. The first person that I noticed that got frustrated with Meursault was his lawyer when he is trying to make Meursault sound less heartless by asking "if he could say that I had held back my natural feelings. I said, 'No, because it's not true.' He gave me a strange look, as if he found me slightly disgusting." (65) He does not understand how Meursault could not want to say this because he believes it is what any other person would say . He does not understand Meursault's existentialist perspective of life. The other person that I noticed became frustrated with Meursault was the magistrate because he was a Christian and Meursault was not and he was trying to help him by involving God but this had no effect on Meursault. This is demonstrated the first time they meet because the magistrate starts shouting at him about God and says, "He said it was impossible; all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs on him. That was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt I, his life would become meaningless. 'Do you want my life to be meaningless?" (69) This demonstrates how the magistrate was religious and he was not so they did not understand each other, which makes their relationship difficult because they do not view things in the same way. This allows the reader to relate to a part of the story because they may have relationships where they have a different view than the person they are in the relationship with.
ReplyDeleteIn chapters 1 and 2 of the second part of the book, the reader is able to see further into Meursault's character. In chapter 1, Meursault says, "I probably did love Maman, but that didn't mean anything"(1.65). Again, Meursault elicits a tone of coldheartedness but he does not want it to come off that way. If one thinks about it, does it really matter if you love someone? If you care for someone and show them support, trust, attention, and affection, does it really matter to say that you love them? Personally I think it does matter but I could see why I wouldn't. This quote might have made some readers despise Meursault but shortly after, he says, "What I can say for certain is that I would rather Maman hadn't died"(1.65). This line is really important because it shows the reader that Meursault does care. It's not like Meursault wanted his mom dead. He also talks about how his physical needs often got in the way of his feelings. Meursault mentioned that he was so tired and sleepy the day of his moms funeral that he wasn't aware of what was truly happening. This can somewhat justify his actions on the day of his mother's death. In chapter 2, while Marie is visiting Meursault in jail, he says, "I noticed that he was across from the little old lady and that they were staring intently at each other"(2.75). Meursault knows that the old lady is the mother and the son is the man by him. The part that caught my attention is that Meursault randomly keeps bringing up this man and his mother. Shortly after the quote above, he says, "The young man and his mother were still staring at each other"(2.75). He also brings this up another time after that too. The fact that he keeps bringing the son and his mother symbolizes how Meursault misses his mother and the relationship they had even though it was hard for him to express his feelings towards her.
ReplyDeleteAs a reader, I'm beginning to see Meursault's soft side more and more. He is slowly showing more and more emotions towards everything. Do you guys think that this will continue? Or that maybe he will just break down emotionally at some point?
In chapter two of part two, the Czechoslovakian story stood out to me as a reflection of Meursault's situation and his beliefs. The story involves the man who is murdered by his own mother and sister after displaying his wealth in front of them, since they did not recognize him, even though eventually he was going to share his riches. The mother and the sister both commit suicide after realizing who they murdered. Meursault states that he "read that story a thousand times," (80). Although he is in jail and lacks entertainment, so therefore he is bound to attach himself to any little form of amusement, the story he reads indefinitely is very relevant to his life. The story of the man and his ironic death being set in a random country by which most people do not relate to, makes the story meaningless both to the reader and to Meursault. The irony in the man's death and the tragedy a simple deception created, also makes the story less meaningful. The meaningless tragedy reflects Meaursault's life and how it has become meaningless. The story also reflects his belief that life all together has no meaning and human behavior cannot be justified. After narrating the story, Meursault states, "I thought the traveler pretty much deserved what he got and that you should never play games," (80). Meursault once again mocks human behavior and the pointless games people in society play. He basically is showing that there really is no justification or explanation for the tragedy besides human fault and existence. The tragic story sets a morbid tone and creates a hopeless effect in the reader. Someone had previously mentioned the idea of "Can this person be saved?" which I connected to Meursault's character. It seems there is no hope left for him and that he will always believe his life has no meaning and everything he does is meaningless until his inevitable death, which makes the book seem pointless in itself and frustrates me as a reader. It almost seems as though Camus purposely wants to elicit absurdity in the reader so they can acknowledge that they are attempting to justify the book but also realize that you cannot, which is the exact point he is trying to make through the story.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I noticed was that in part 2, Meursault begins exploring his own personal beliefs and philosophies more so than he did in part 1. In part 1, Meursault spends more of his thoughts on illustrating the world around him. He describes the people he meets and the actions they commit. However when it comes to his own emotions, Meursault only briefly skims over them, usually commenting that "it doesn't really matter." In part 2, Meursault more frequently comments on his cognitions and how he interprets the surrounding environment. As a reader, I take Meursault's increase in internal evaluation as a sign that he is starting to delve deeper into absurdist thought. Before, Meursault didn't exactly acknowledge how different he was from other characters in terms of how he reacted to certain events. Now, Meursault admits, referring to the magistrate: "I made him feel uncomfortable. He didn't understand me, and he was sort of holding it against me," (66). In this statement, I think Camus is commenting on the judgment that people in society face by placing Meursault in an unfavorable position. Camus illustrates the magistrate as the enemy in this situation, despite the fact that it was Meursault who committed the crime, in order to emphasize the existentialist belief that humans should not judge one another. Humans can never fully understand each other's circumstances, therefore we ought to not hold certain things against other people. Other's actions only make one uncomfortable because he or she creates the feeling of uncomfortableness out of the meaningless. Later in the chapter, when the magistrate demands of Meursault, "Do you want my life to be meaningless?," Meursault takes the magistrate's earlier judgment and throws it back in his face (69). Meursault responds, "As far as I could see, it didn't have anything to do with me, and I told him so," (69). Although he does it in a blunt and slightly insensitive manner, Meursault ultimately exemplifies the existential belief because he does not hold others' actions against themselves. His opinions about other people remain relatively neutral even though most people have formulated strong judgments towards Meursault himself.
ReplyDeleteMersault is not an existentialist, he is a Nihilist. I had this suspision while reading the book at first but I was unsure. It didnt make sense to me that an existentialist writer would put a Nihilist at the front of their work of literature. Yet this becomes evidently clear that Camus has done this in the first few chapters of part two of the novel. The first quote I felt confirmed this was on pages 69 and 70, almost at the end of the chapter, when he said to himself " I was about to say that that was precisely because they were criminals. But then I realized that I was one too. It was an idea I couldnt get used to". What this internal dialogue showed me was that he has a very hard time taking ownership for his actions and accepting what he has done. Many times when we do something that is very impactful or something that seems almost extreme, looking back o it the first few times it seems as though we did not actually do such a thing ( as if we were someone else). However, after a few times of this acceptance takes place and it is under stood what we did and that, yes, it really was our doing. Meursault does not go through this process. He even stated he was tired of repeating the same story at one point. However, he doesnt seem to fully own up to what he has done. rather he accepts that he did kill the man and he did fire four shots into the body post mortem, however, he fails to see that he deserves to be punished and he will be treated differently for his actions. In the second chapter of the second part this is further emphasized on its fery first page, 72, when he states "In fact I wasn´t really in prison those first few days: I was sort of waiting for something to happen...The day of my arrest I was first put in a room where there were already several other prisoners, most of them Arabs. They laughed when they saw me. Then they asked me what I was in for. I said I´d killed an arab and they were all silent". What this first page of the chapter shows is that although he can acknowledge that he did commit such an atrocity, he does not feel the need for such a punishment for, as he states in the first chapter of the second part, it did not matter. By removing himself symbolically and mentaly from the prison he is in essence removing his guilt and the punishment he deserves. He shows this through how neutral he is about teling the other Arabs that he had killed an Arab. Now that his Nihilism is established, why does Camus do this? Unless Camus is to point out gaping holes and flaws in Nihilist beliefs, the only realistic course of action is for Meursault to see the wrong doings that he has commited, own up to them, and find a pourpose in his life he lives so pourposelessly. Aside from these two possibilities, no realistic reasoning can be seen as to why Camus woulkd make Nihilism such a key feature in his novel.
ReplyDeleteWhen first starting to read the second part, one comes to realize that it closely resembles the beginning of the first part. In both cases there is some who has passed away but the interesting part is that in the first part it was Meursault who people were feeling bad for because his mother had passed away but in the second chapter the flips around and now people are mad at him for killing someone. The most peculiar thing in the second part of the story is the fact that Meursault although having killed someone and being placed in prison, he seemed to handle it no problem without even stressing a little. Here he just killed a man and much like with his mom he doesn't care at all and treats it as something that just happen to have happened. Later Meursault goes on to say that,"at one time or another all normal people have wished their loved ones were dead."(65) When Meursault says this I find it a little distressing because when someone says something like that, most of the time it is said as a joke and isn't meant in a serious manner, but for Meursault to interpret this the way he did shows that he thinks in a different way that's not the same as most people. By characterizing him the way he did, Camus establishes a dominant affect of unease causing the reader to want to wonder why Meursault doesn't take anything seriously but instead sees only good things in the worst possible scenario. By not putting to much action into the two scenes Camus can show that Meursault was a true existentialist with existentialist values and beliefs. Existentialist are made to believe that life is not fair and that if you want to find meaning you need to do what you believe to be fit best by having the freedom of choice. These main ideas are first presented with Meursault when he is asked about his mom and if he truly did love her and instead of answering with an answer that the lawyer might want to hear, Meursault says," I probably did love Maman, but that didn't mean anything.''(65) By saying some might say that he is selfish individual who care about nothing but the way it should be looked at is that he was only telling the truth. One should ask himself, does it really matter if you loved or didn't love your mom with the fact that she is gone? Is there reasoning in answering 'yes' as apposed to 'no'? This existentialist philosophy can be seen even more when Meursault is alone and has nothing to do and he says to himself," little by little I would have gotten used to it."(77) By telling himself this he is assuring that he will be fine and that he wont have any problem in jail and no matter what they do or where they take him, he will get used to any setting. In a way this reduces the possibility of him freaking out and going crazy knowing that he will be behind bars for a while. Above all, when Camus writes," He will have enough memories to keep him from being bored,"(79) he can show that freedom that all people have of there mind and how powerful it could be in such situation where everything else is hopeless. Camus's writing truly reflects his beliefs of existentialism and by inducing them in Meursault's character, one can see there true value.
ReplyDeleteWhat really stood out to me in the first two chapters of the second part of the novel is how Meursault is beginning to realize how much he appreciate what he had before his incarceration. This became evident to me when Marie asked if he needed anything. He responded, “Yes, everything.” (Page 74). Although this seems like a typical response for someone who is in this situation, it really demonstrates how Meursault has changed and his stance on existential ideals. Prior to being arrested. Meursault seemed very unattached to anything. He wouldn’t say he loved Marie, he was not overcome with emotion during his mother’s funeral, and he did not care about taking of advantages of opportunities that were presented to him. I found it ironic that he now cares about these things and made me think of the saying “you don’t know what you have until it is gone.” Subsequently, this demonstrates that Meursault cares more than he lets on. Camus characterizes him as weak. Additionally, his behavior indicates that he does not feel significant remorse for his actions because he does not feel a need to punish himself. This violates existential ideas that one must accept responsibility for his or her actions. Furthermore, Camus continues to display Meursault’s feeling on existential ideas throughout this portion of the novel. Meursault thinks, “When I was first imprisoned, the hardest thing was that my thoughts were still those of a free man. For example, I would suddenly have the urge to be on the beach and walk down to the water.” (Page 76). This conveys how Meursault is not staying strong mentally and is dwelling on his path and is learning to appreciate all of the freedoms that he possessed. Additionally, this shows how he is ignoring the existential ideal that he needs to control his destiny with free will. Currently, he just exists and is dwelling on the past instead of controlling his future. Because Camus characterized him as weak, this indicates that Camus wants to show that not controlling your destiny makes you weak. Overall, the beginning of part two is an essential part to developing Meursault and existential ideas in this novel. Please comment if you have anything to add.
ReplyDeleteThe the beginning chapters of the second part of the novel I noticed the symbol of light. During the start of Meursault’s investigation he was, “led into a curtained room;there was a single lamp on his desk which was shining on a chair where he had me sit while he remained sitting in the shadows”(63). Here Camus uses the symbol of light to show that Meursault has not yet accepted the fact that he had committed a crime. Meursault is seated in the light part of the room, which shows that he is good or clean, while the questioner who would have seemed like a bad person to Meursault is seated in the dark and therefore seems like a dark or negative force. Because Meursault is seated in the light it shows that in this point in the book Meursault does not believe he has done anything wrong and makes the reader feel as if the roles of criminal and prosecutor have been switched. Later on in the chapter Meursault returns to the room with the magistrate, “...this time his office was filled with sunlight barely softened by the flimsy curtain,”(66). This quote is appears just before Meursault and the Magistrate argue over God. The large amount of light that is in the room now shows that Meursault and the justice figure are in a more equal position which leads to the power struggle of the argument in the following pages. This increase in light dispersion in the questioning room shows that the surety of Meursault’s guilt free persona begins to falter. Camus uses the light to symbolize the change in Meursault’s opinion of himself which creates doubt in the reader on their opinion of Meursault to show that one can never be sure of their own innocence.
ReplyDeleteOne point in chapter one of part that stood out to me was when Meursault is discussing his case with his lawyer. Meursault’s lawyer begins to inquire about Meursault’s personal life, and inquires about Meursault’s feelings, to which Meursault eventually responds, “I pointed out to him that none of this had anything to do with my case, but all he said was that it was obvious I had never had any dealings with the law” (65). Even before the actual trial begins, the reader gets a glimpse as to what the focus of the trial will be, on the character of Meursault is, rather than the crime he committed. I thought that this was significant in setting up the stage for part two and creating a completely different atmosphere from the first chapter, shifting from Meursault’s perspective on himself, to others focusing on Meursault. Additionally, the other perspectives portrays Camus’ belief that outside perspective is important for self-development. Meursault’s self-development can be seen at the end of chapter two, where Meursault looks into his reflection while waiting in his cell, “But at the same time, and for the first time in months, I distinctly heard the sound of my own voice. I recognized it as the same one that had been ringing in my ears for many long days, and I realized that all that time I had been talking to myself” (81). Meursault is finally realizing all his words fall on deaf ears, that nothing he says can be fully understood by others because he accepts what others do not, the absurd. Meursault is able to come to terms with himself, and hear his own voice, distinctly, not just as background noise. The distinction is similar to how Meursault acts as a background figure in never taking action in part one of the book and just going through the motions of the world, marking Meursault’s change and realizations.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading chapter one of the part 2, I was thinking about why Meursault and the magistrate opposes each other so much. Then I tried this scene to connect with Camus’s existential idea that religion is spiritual suicide. In existential perspective, telling the reason of killing could symbolize believing the god, because the shooting the Arab symbolizes absurdity of the life and religion is one of the three options people choose when they face the absurdity. However, at this point, Meursault haven’t gone through the awakening about absurdity of life yet. That’s the reason he can’t answer the question. As he says, “I thought about it for a minute and said that more than sorry I felt kind of annoyed... but it was as far as things went that way” (70). Meursault considers the incident “annoying,” which shows that he doesn’t really care about it at all. Saying this “strange” thought to the magistrate also indicates that Meursault doesn’t care about the magistrate either. To Meursault, it doesn’t matter and he has no understanding of the meaning of what he has done. Another example of his apathy is the difference in the number of lines said by Meursault and the magistrate. When the examination is started, Camus uses dialogue to address the conversation between them. However, once the topic shifts to the god, Meursault’s dialogue suddenly disappears. The conversation is still going, but Meursault starts narrating what he’s saying, instead of Camus uses dialogue. This creates the feeling that the conversation is cut off and unilateral. Back to the existential idea, Meursault could just agree with the magistrate and get benefit from it. Instead, even though he doesn’t know why he killed the Arab, he refused to agree with him. This demonstrates Camus’s philosophy that do not conform to society and do not believe in religion.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me as interesting in the first couple chapters of part II was that fact that the magistrate waves a crucifix at Meursault. His atheistic views and not feeling mourning for his mothers death challenge the magistrate and his belief in rational world controlled by God. At that point, the magistrate deems him evil and calls him, " Monsieur Antichrist,"(II.1) attempting to categorize Meursault by the magistrates beliefs. Meursault reacts with indifference to his confinement in prison. He shows no regret or remorse over these actions that he has done. Again, we see Meursault focusing on the physical elements of being in prison rather than his emotions. He does think about women, but not Marie in particular. This shows the physical aspect of the relationship and not the emotional part. At the end of chapter 2, part II, he realizes he has been talking to himself. Camus writes," I recognized it as the same one that had been ringing in my ears for many long days, and I realized that all that time I had been talking to myself"(II.2.81). He is growing to understand more about himself and his beliefs. He says he could get used to living in any situation and begins to gain insight about the irrational world around him.
ReplyDelete