"I see the sky and that's all I see. I spend my days waching how the dwindling of color turns day into night" (108)
I've noticed that Mersault's imagery of the sky clearly exemplifies Camus' existentialist thoughts. Mersault only sees the sky as a defined color: dark, or light. There is no grey area that he sees in the sky. He also does not mention anything like clouds, stars, the sun, or anything that would connotate anomalies in the sky other than the backdrop. Therefore, Camus demonstrates the idea of absurdity through the sky by noting how people try to explain processes in the universe with possibly erroneous information (having clouds, the sun, etc.), and defining all processes in the universe as having no underlying causes and being set with a defined theme that humans must accept (the colored sky with no objects). Camus produces a tone of lucidity through the sky in order to address his animosities towards the idea of absurdity and that there is a hidden explanation to everything.
"Of course, hope meant being cut down on some street corner, as you ran like mad, by a random bullet...I would just be caught up in the machinery again" (109)
Mersault's analogy of absurdity and the need for explanation with machinery is very relevant to the idea of existentialism. Humans are like bullets, constantly blowing out and desperately searching for "truths" that they can abide to. When Camus mentions that hope is like being cut at a street corner, he means philosophical or physical suicide in which the hope forever deprives the human of any sense of discovery, longing, and open-mindedness. Overall, his analogy produces a didactic tone in order to have readers accept the reality that all truths in this world are perfectly clear and set in stone, and we can choose either to accept them or commit suicide in some way, shape, or form.
"Fumbling a little with my words and realizing how ridiculous I sounded, I blurted out that it was because of the sun. People laughed. My lawyer threw up his hands, and immediately after that he was given the floor," (pg 103).
Ever since Meursault murdered the Arab, there have been reoccurring references of the sun and heat. After thinking about the meaning behind the symbol of the sun, I realized that it represents evil and/or the devil. If you think about passages such as the one above, it's clear that the devil or evil was tempting Meursault, by being in his face. This is similar to when Satan tempted Adam and Eve with the tree of good and evil. Now that Meursault has committed this crime, he has to deal with a lifetime of suffering and injustice, as did Adam and Eve. Also, evil is normally associated with hell. I found that to be ironic, because of how the magistrate in Meursault's case yelled at him when he discovered that he didn't believe in God, and warned him that his life could become meaningless. I believe that this "meaningless" place that the magistrate refers to is hell. As this was occurring, Meursault described the feeling in the room as "getting hotter and hotter," (pg 69). As the reader, this reminded me of the fight between good and evil. In my head, I could almost picture the two having a showdown. What do you think about the symbolism of the sun/heat, and Meursault blaming the murder on it?
I thought this was a really interesting interpretation of the symbol of heat. I agree that the heat can represent evil and temptation. It also reminded me of the saying "all I could see was red". This is like a veil of perhaps anger or evil which prevented Meursault from thinking straight. He seemed exhausted both mentally and physically and the Arab pulling out his knife could have been the thing to push Meursault over the edge. Overall, I believe that Meursault is definitely at fault for the murder but perhaps there were other factors that clouded his judgment and caused him not to act like himself.
"Well then, why was I armed and why did I return to precisely that spot? I said it just happened that way" (88).
This quote demonstrates the existentialist elements of the story as well as the idea of absurdity. Everyone tries to make sense of Meursault's actions and find some sort of motivation or reasoning only to fail time and time again. The more they try to make sense of things and find underlying causes, the harder it becomes and random facts get thrown into the mix. Meursault, on the other hand, makes no attempt to justify or explain his actions. He chooses not to make sense of all the events that have happened and instead accepts things as they are. This is a key point of existentialism, that one should not try to make sense of the absurd but rather accept it how it is.
"'I accuse this man of burying his mother with crime in his heart!'" (96).
I think this quote exemplifies the ridiculousness of the entire trial. Throughout the whole trial, Meursault is judged based on events unrelated to his case, such as the death of his mom, rather than the evidence gathered about the murder of the Arab. I find this all to be very interesting because the verdict was essentially given based on judgments of his character rather than evidence supporting him being guilty of a crime. It makes Meursault a guilty man before the trial even begins and gives him no chance at freedom. Everyone in the courtroom is appalled by his character traits that they use any small evidence suggesting his guilt even if it is unrelated or weak evidence.
I think Camus purposely exaggerates the judgement people have of each other through the trial scene. The courtroom appalled by his character traits, as you have stated, mocks the fear people have over something that is different than themselves. People like to feel comfortable and be able to understand the world in which they live, and when something or someone threatens that understanding or peace, it causes fear. This is a trait in humans that is prominent in everyday life and I believe Camus wanted to display the absurdity of it to the reader.
I completely agree with what you're saying. During the trial, they would keep bringing up past events and through those events, they woud judge Meursault. It made me really frustrated because the past should not have been the focus during his trial.
Absolutely, Bianca! Talk about trying to assign meaning to an event where there is no meaning... "burying his mother with crime in his heart?!" Do you guys see people doing this on a regular basis, though? I'd like to say I don't, but really, I think this happens a lot... Ms. Ballard
I believe the last few chapters of the book are a distinct turning point for Meursault's character. The first moment that I noticed his character change was during Meursault's trial when he states, "...the prosecutor exclaimed, 'Oh no, that is quite sufficient!' with such glee and with such a triumphant look in my direction that for the first time in years I had this stupid urge to cry, because I could feel how much all these people hated me," (90). Meursault is finally feeling the repercussions of his behavior. He saliently states his emotions in this moment, which is out of character for him. He obviously dislikes expressing emotion, especially crying over things in life he usually claims are meaningless, which shows how much the trial and the prosecutor has affected him. Meursault, however, does not care about the actual crime that he has committed but only about how the other people feel about him. For as much as he ridicules others for being a robot in society, he is being a hypocrite since he now cares about what others think about him enough to have the urge to cry, emotions he would most definitely mock others for possessing. Later in chapter five, after Meursault found out he was going to be executed, he says, "Then I blame myself every time for not having paid enough attention to accounts of executions," (108). Meursault still does not take responsibility for his actions. Instead of blaming himself for wrongly murdering an Arab, he blames himself for not knowing more about executions. He is clearly not an existentialist at this moment since he refuses to take responsibility, a strong belief Camus withheld. The reader previously uses existentialism to justify and explain Meursault's behavior, but now as it is clear he is not an existentialist, the reader no longer has a means of justification for him and might think he is simply an immoral person who lacks enough thought to care about anything. Also, he continues to express his new desire for freedom which is a complete turn around from his previous behavior of taking everything as it is,which shows more of his hypocrisy. This creates a negative connotation around Meursault's character and detaches the reader from him, causing them to feel no pity for his situation and agree with his punishment. At least that is how I felt towards the end of the book.
I agree that the closing few chapters really exemplified the changes in Meursault's character. As you stated, he begins to care about what other people think of him, which he did not in the previous chapters, as demonstrated by his often apathetic behavior. this pathetic behavior continues in the form of having no demonstrated remorse for his fatal actions, but he now begins to contemplate how other think of him.I also agreed, that his behavior toward the end of the novel shows how little he takes responsibility for his actions. I really like your point on how the reader uses existentialism to justify his actions, but now, with the realization that he is not existentialist.
In the last chapters of the book, one can see another side of Meursault. It seems like Meursault has become a foil of himself. This can first be seen when Meursault is in trial. He says, "... For the time in years I had this stupid urge to cry, because I could feel how much all these people hated me"(3.90). Meursault was never one to express emotions. Not even when his mother died nor when he killed the Arab. He was always calm and neutral about everything no matter how traumatic it was. I find it confusing and a little irritating that Meursault has the urge to cry now but didn't when his mother died. That isn't the main point though. The thing that caught my eye was the fact that he was now starting to express emotion which was something that he never did in the past. Meursault's personality change can also be seen in the last line of the book when he says, "...I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate"(5.123). Throughout the book, the diction is basic, short, and sort of boring. That kind of defined Meursault. Meursault was a really simple person who was had a neutral feeling about everything in life. The last few chapters have more emotional sentences and the last sentence of the book is a great example. It is filled with emotion which demonstrates how Meursault has now opened up and expressed his thoughts with more meaning. He knows he screwed up and he knows he was inconsiderate and selfish. He still holds some existentialist beliefs though. One of them is acceptance/ acceptance of suffering. He is accepting the fact that he messed up and he is willing to suffer because of it. He actually says he wants to suffer because he wishes that people greet him with "cries of hate".
One can see Meursault's drastic personality change by comparing the first two sentences of the book with the last sentence of the book. The first few show little to no emotion at all and the last sentence is the complete opposite. What do you guys think? Does Meursault still hold some existentialist beliefs towards the end of the book?
Yes! In fact, I would argue that he is much MORE of an existentialist at the end! I don't think an existentialist has no emotion--he/she just realizes that, while technically nothing matters, you can MAKE things matter on your own. Ms. Ballard
I thought a major theme in this book was Camus' attempt to show the reader the thin line between existentialism and borderline clinical depression, which he does perfectly with Meursault's character. For me, "The Stranger" not only made me question the legitimacy of existentialism but the difference between existentialist thought and mood disorders.
One thing that really struck when I was reading the transition between the last two chapters, was the pointlessness for holding Meursault a trial. I understood the fact that in the judicial system everyone is to be tried in order to avoid the convection of a person who did not in actuality commit the crime, but what confused me was to why Meursault didn't call the trial off. Of course near the end Meursault goes into his large rant all about how death is inevitable. This obviously proves his indifference towards the results of the trial, and therefore disregarding its importance. What we must consider though is that he comes to this realization after he is forced to accept it (forced being his fate has been decided already). The reader comes to think that he wasn't excepting the worst until he received it. However, in chapter four he generally seemed displeased by the inconvenience of it all. Did Meursault think of himself as innocent? Or was he possibly just waiting for them to convict him as guilt? When in the court case, he describes, "The utter pointlessness of whatever I was doing there seized me by the throat" (105). Meursault mentions wanting to go back to his cell and sleep, something he has been doing for quite awhile before this court case. This is yet again another thing that follows Camus' idea of life being a string of repetition. Before Meursault comes to the realization of the inevitable death, he considers things such as, "mak[ing] up new laws and reform[ing] the penal code" (111). All of these things are of course obscurities that could never occur, but the hope of there being a way out, can often cloud judgement. By holding a court case there is always this false hope that they may let you off easy, or make a mistake and not convict you at all. This hope of a slip up is what Meursault says causes people to not be able to accept the inevitable. Hope is a false illusion. Hope, just like too much light, can blind us from the truth. This all comes down to a basic theme of the book- to accept what is inevitable.
After hearing his verdict, Meursault calculates the likelihood that he may escape his fate. During this time, he makes a very interesting observation. Meursault comments that to get to the guillotine, he thought that you had to climb steps. But on the contrary, "everything was very simple: the guillotine is on the same level as the man approaching it. He walks up to it the way you walk up to another person." Meursault goes on to state: "Mounting the scaffold, going right up into the sky, was something the imagination could hold on to. Whereas, once again, the machine destroyed everything: you were killed discreetly, with a little shame and with great precision," (112). In this passage, Meursault reveals a different kind of thinking. Instead of coming to his usual conclusion that "nothing really matters," Meursault actually shows some sort of consideration for the fate of his existence. Meursault prefers his preconception of the guillotine as something so step up to, as if he is stepping up towards the sky because it gives his death meaning or purpose. His preference for this manifestation of the guillotine supports the overarching pattern in the second part of The Stranger where Meursault gives greater thought to his personal philosophy and purpose. In reality, the guillotine is just a tool for precision killing which makes Meursault an object of the machine. Meursault expresses dislike towards being an object of the machine because he finds the idea absurd; he who finds his life actually has meaning finds himself dying a meaningless death. Meursault also makes an interesting metaphor in this passage. He says that the reason he thought the guillotine followed a series of steps was "because of everything [he'd] been taught or shown." In addition, he says "You always get exaggerated notions of things you don't know anything about," (112). I found this to be an allusion to the jury trial since Meursault describes the jury members as a row of anonymous faces. The best Meursault can assume is that the jury will make decisions based on everything they had been taught about morals. They will receive an exaggerated notion about his crime based on what the prosecutor proclaims in his speech. As a result, Meursault's trial has little meaning since the jury will act based on their preconceptions of Meursault's crime, rather than evidence or external logic.
That's a really interesting observation that you made about the stepping up towards the sky. I have to agree that his fate is based on the juries preconceptions of Meursault's crime. I wonder if/how Meursault's trial would be different if he had said that he believed in God. Even if he was lying, I feel like the jury would treat Meursault differently, because they believed that it was up to God to make judgments based on his doings. I also think it is intriguing how his entire thought path changed around the time when he learned his verdict.
Throughout the trial I thought that the prosecutor was the opposite of an existentialist because he judged Meursault and was continually pointing out how terrible he thought Meursault was. The prosecutor did not try to understand Meursault or his situation, he just thought he was not a good person because his lack of expressing his emotions. In the prosecutor's closing statement, it is clear that he has made up his mind about what kind of person Meursault was and how he should be punished. "Has he so much as expressed any remorse? Never, gentlemen. Not once during the preliminary hearings did this man show emotion over his heinous offense. At that point, he turned in my direction, pointed his finger at me, and went on attacking me without my ever really understanding why." (100) This demonstrates how much he does not like Meursault and thinks that he is a terrible person for not "feeling" remorse, when really he just might not express it in a way that makes it clear he is feeling remorse. I also think that the diction of calling Meursault's crime heinous demonstrates his opinions further. I think that the prosecutor is saying it was heinous because he does not like Meursault's lack of expressions. I think that if Meursault was feeling guilty and remorse, the prosecutor would not have used such a harsh term regarding the murder. Further in his closing statement, he uses much harsher diction because he is trying to convince the jury to give Meursault the death penalty. "For if in the course of what has been a long career I have had occasion to call the death penalty, never as strongly as today have I felt this painful duty mad easier, lighter, clearer by the certain knowledge of a sacred imperative and by the horror I feel when I look into a man's face and all I see is a monster." (102) Calling Meursault a monster is clearly judging him based only on what he has seen. He does not know Meursault and does not understand him, so he thinks that because he does not express his emotions that he is a terrible person. One of the existentialist ideas is to not judge others because everyone has or will behave in the same way, which the prosecutor does not follow.
These last few chapters were very different in terms of how Meursault behaved. What really interested me, though, was the prosecutor and his feelings toward Meursault. After interviewing Marie, the prosecutor declared, “ ‘Gentlemen of the jury, the day after his mother’s death, this man was out swimming, starting up a dubious liaison, and going to the movies, a comedy, for laughs. That is all I have to say.’ “ (94). This quote demonstrates how the prosecutor is going out of his way to make Meursault appear bad. This is not the behavior of a normal prosecutor because he is intentionally picking on Meursault’s grieving. Because, Camus writes this story from Meursault’s perspective, the reader immediately feels negatively about the prosecutor. This creates a negative tone surrounding the trial and the prosecutor. His hatred of Meursault demonstrates the opposite of existential thinking that you should forgive others mistakes. Additionally, at he end of the trial, the character of the prosecutor is further depicted. Camus writes, “He states that I had no place in a society whose fundamental rules I ignored and that I could not appeal to the same human heart whose elementary response I knew nothing of.” (Page 102). This quote conveys that the prosecutor does not make an attempt to understand Meursault and just views him as a nuisance to society. The fact that he alludes to the fact that Meursault does not have a heart indicates how he views dissenters as evil; he wants everyone to conform to these “fundamental rules” he referenced. This makes the reader feel that Meursault never had a chance because he had a hatred for him based on Meursault’s behavior in comparison to the rest of society. This creates a negative tone toward the justice system and also elicits a feeling of pity for Meursault. I am curious if Camus was trying to comment on the justice system. Please comment if you have anything to add.
When reading whatever book it is my favorite authors craft work to look for is the use of foreshadowing. Its always interesting when the authors gives the reader a clue as to what is to happen, but the way he writes is interesting in itself because it makes the reader have to find it and actually think about it to make full sense of its being there. Although there isn't to much foreshadowing in "The Stranger" by Albert Camus, there is still a sufficient amount that made me as a reader interpret it in many ways and kept me thinking actively. In the first couple of chapters Camus referred to the color red a lot and no other color and i interpreted that as something bad to come where blood might be spilled and sure enough Meursault ends up killing an Arab by shooting him multiple times. After murdering the Arab I thought that there wouldn't be as much reference to the color red but as a matter of fact tit continued. It was present in the first couple chapters of the second part but towards the end of Meursault trial it appeared again. As Meursault's hearing was about to start, Meursault describes the scene by saying at first," I saw a tall, thin man dressed in red."(85) Then he say's,"Three judges , two in black, the third in red, entered with files."(85) By using the color red and black in so many descriptions, Camus just like in the beginning of the book is trying to give us a hint as to what is to come. Since Meursault was in jail I knew that if something were to happen it would most likely be to him as the focus of the story has narrowed down strictly to him. Due to this I anticipated that the trial would most likely deem Meursault guilty and he would be executed in some way and that is exactly what ends up happening to him when he is sentenced to the guillotine. Something else other than authors craft that made me think a lot was the Meursault's trial itself. Throughout the whole trial it seemed that the prosecutor was only focusing on things other than the murder itself especially things that had to do with Meursault's mom. This strongly frustrated me because I felt it wasn't morally right to ask him all these questions about his mom that made him seem as though he didn't care about her when indeed he did, and whenever Meursault tried to stand up for himself the Prosecutor would interrupt him and say,"that was enough." If one were in Meursault he/she could see the pressure that was built on to him throughput the whole trial. It establishes a dominant effect of sadness in the reader as he/she realizes that the prosecutor made the court hate Meursualt which was why in the end they sentenced him to be killed. It is things like this that make this world an unfair place but one can do little to nothing which is what probably limited Meursault in the end.
In the end of the book I noticed that Meursault gave up his life to a higher power. Camus uses heat diction with reference to a higher power to create a hopeless tone in Meursault’s inner dialogue and to cause the reader to begin to doubt Meursault which shows that when control of one’s life is relinquished that one cannot exist in peace. When Meursault describes his time spent in jail he says, “I knew as soon as the weather turned hot that something new was in store for me”(82). Here Meursault uses the phrase “new in store for me” which shows that it is out of Meursault’s control. This instills doubt in the reader because for the entirety of the novel so far Meursault has been sure that he is in control and that there was not a higher power besides himself and his own actions. Because his ideas have become so wishy-washy the reader feels less likely to pay attention to what he is actually saying because it is something he doesn't truly believe in. This could lead the reader to be easily swayed by the prosecutor later on during Meursault’s trial. During the trial Meursault again comments on the heat, “It was getting hotter, and I could see the people in the courtroom fanning themselves with newspapers, which made a continuous low rustling sound”(86-87). When Meursault complains about the heat it shows that he no longer has a desire to control his life. This release of control instills doubt in the reader because Meursault has been so sure of himself up until this point. Once Meursault gives up his control of his life the reader begins to doubt them even more than they did before. After this event Meursault begins to feel more and more displeased with his situation which shows that when one does not have control over their lives they can no longer experience peace.
“I thought it was a way to exclude me even further from the case, reduce me to nothing, and, in a sense, substitute himself for me. But I think I was already very far removed from that courtroom.” (103)
This passage illustrates the fact that Meursault no longer seems to even be a part of the court case anymore, but it goes much deeper than that. What intrigues me is that Meursault’s actual crime and wrongdoing is being examined far less than him as a person, and yet he still feels as though he is no longer a part of the case. At the same time, the courtroom can be seen as representing religion in many ways. Since he does not believe in a God, he is seen as an outsider or stranger and is “very far removed from that courtroom”, so to speak. While people, such as the prosecuting attorney, examine his character when they should really be looking at what is truly important, it is a parallel to Camus’ view that people of religion are examining all of the wrong things in life, and that they are committing theological suicide rather than examining the real questions. The case falling apart and becoming about Meursault as a character rather than Meursault’s single action is representative of the absurdist belief that a person kills themselves, in a sense, when they follow a religion, and that their life, or trial, no longer becomes about them or their important issues.
“You always get exaggerated notions of things you don’t know about.” (112)
At this point, Meursault is thinking constantly about his impending doom from his cell and is talking about his stereotypical view of the guillotine. He believed that the guillotine was a larger, more magnificent structure when, in fact, it was not as grandiose as he had imagined. The notion of the guillotine is representative of people who try to make sense out of the absurd. Camus would argue that people invent meaning for things that should not be seen as spectacular or amazing. While the guillotine has the power to take lives, Meursault finds out that you do not have “to climb stairs onto a scaffold” (112) and that really, he is on the same level as the guillotine. It is no more spectacular or grand than Meursault himself is. Throughout history, the guillotine has been built up as if it is something magnificent, but those perceptions were only simple perceptions made by other humans, trying to put meaning to something inanimate. Camus would argue that the fabricated meaning to the guillotine is no different than the meanings that people give to plenty of other absurd elements of life.
“For everything to be consummated, for large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that that greet me with cries of hate” (123). While re-reading the last few pages, I was focusing on understanding the last line because I thought this line essentially sums up the existential idea in the novel. In the first time, I couldn’t understanding the meaning behind it. However, after while I figured out that what is the truth Meursault realized at the end from the lines during his conversation with chaplain. Right after Meursault expresses radical emotion in first tine, he narrates, “He [Chaplain] wasn’t even sure he was alive, because he was living like a dead man” (120). This is very closely related to the idea that religion is spiritual suicide. In the scene, no matter how Meursault explains his thoughts, the chaplain repeats the same argument over and doesn’t show any intension to understand Meursault. It seems like he’s a parrot that talks without actually knowing the meaning. This demonstrates the Camus philosophy that people who believes religion don’t try to think and blindly follow their god. In Meursault’s perspective, that’s not truly living, just like him before gone through all these events and realized the meaning of life. Then he clearly exposes the main idea, or the theme of the novel in is narration, saying, “But I was sure about me, about everything, surer than he could ever be, sure of my life and sure of the death I had waiting for me. Yes, that was all I had... I have done this and I hadn’t done that” (121). In this line, he emphasis what he’s done and he hasn’t done. In other words, he realizes that it was him who’ve been making all these choices and that is his life. At this point, he knows that he’s done and what they mean to him. Basically, Meursault accepts his life and suffering, which is another existential idea, and knows that even if the life hasn’t any meaning, as he repeated consistently in the beginning of the novel, still it was his choice. Therefore there is no doubt that he wants the crowds to “greet him with hate” because that hate proves that he’s done and his life was real.
Upon waiting for his execution, Meursault gets closer to developing his consciousness. He ponders that his death is inevitable and life is meaningless because everyone will die at one point in their life. These are new views for Meursault than we saw in the beginning. Camus writes," Maman used to say that you can always find something to be happy about. In my prison, when the sky turned red and a new day slipped into my cell, I found out that she was right"(II.5.113). He shows some emotion here as he realized that he gets happy as soon as he realizes that he has another 24 hours to live. He soon accepts death and looks forward with peace. The lack of concern toward anything such as his death reveals that the conviction and trial were both pointless. This is when he accepts that his odd views make him a stranger to society because he is not "the norm". Prior to his execution, he comes to realize,"gentle indifference in the world"(II.6). He believes it is a form of freedom that the world does not pass judgement. He wanted to live a simpler life.
"I see the sky and that's all I see. I spend my days waching how the dwindling of color turns day into night" (108)
ReplyDeleteI've noticed that Mersault's imagery of the sky clearly exemplifies Camus' existentialist thoughts. Mersault only sees the sky as a defined color: dark, or light. There is no grey area that he sees in the sky. He also does not mention anything like clouds, stars, the sun, or anything that would connotate anomalies in the sky other than the backdrop. Therefore, Camus demonstrates the idea of absurdity through the sky by noting how people try to explain processes in the universe with possibly erroneous information (having clouds, the sun, etc.), and defining all processes in the universe as having no underlying causes and being set with a defined theme that humans must accept (the colored sky with no objects). Camus produces a tone of lucidity through the sky in order to address his animosities towards the idea of absurdity and that there is a hidden explanation to everything.
"Of course, hope meant being cut down on some street corner, as you ran like mad, by a random bullet...I would just be caught up in the machinery again" (109)
Mersault's analogy of absurdity and the need for explanation with machinery is very relevant to the idea of existentialism. Humans are like bullets, constantly blowing out and desperately searching for "truths" that they can abide to. When Camus mentions that hope is like being cut at a street corner, he means philosophical or physical suicide in which the hope forever deprives the human of any sense of discovery, longing, and open-mindedness. Overall, his analogy produces a didactic tone in order to have readers accept the reality that all truths in this world are perfectly clear and set in stone, and we can choose either to accept them or commit suicide in some way, shape, or form.
Do you think there is any underlying statement/idea regarding the death penalty here?
DeleteMs. Ballard
"Fumbling a little with my words and realizing how ridiculous I sounded, I blurted out that it was because of the sun. People laughed. My lawyer threw up his hands, and immediately after that he was given the floor," (pg 103).
ReplyDeleteEver since Meursault murdered the Arab, there have been reoccurring references of the sun and heat. After thinking about the meaning behind the symbol of the sun, I realized that it represents evil and/or the devil. If you think about passages such as the one above, it's clear that the devil or evil was tempting Meursault, by being in his face. This is similar to when Satan tempted Adam and Eve with the tree of good and evil. Now that Meursault has committed this crime, he has to deal with a lifetime of suffering and injustice, as did Adam and Eve. Also, evil is normally associated with hell. I found that to be ironic, because of how the magistrate in Meursault's case yelled at him when he discovered that he didn't believe in God, and warned him that his life could become meaningless. I believe that this "meaningless" place that the magistrate refers to is hell. As this was occurring, Meursault described the feeling in the room as "getting hotter and hotter," (pg 69). As the reader, this reminded me of the fight between good and evil. In my head, I could almost picture the two having a showdown. What do you think about the symbolism of the sun/heat, and Meursault blaming the murder on it?
I thought this was a really interesting interpretation of the symbol of heat. I agree that the heat can represent evil and temptation. It also reminded me of the saying "all I could see was red". This is like a veil of perhaps anger or evil which prevented Meursault from thinking straight. He seemed exhausted both mentally and physically and the Arab pulling out his knife could have been the thing to push Meursault over the edge. Overall, I believe that Meursault is definitely at fault for the murder but perhaps there were other factors that clouded his judgment and caused him not to act like himself.
Delete"Well then, why was I armed and why did I return to precisely that spot? I said it just happened that way" (88).
ReplyDeleteThis quote demonstrates the existentialist elements of the story as well as the idea of absurdity. Everyone tries to make sense of Meursault's actions and find some sort of motivation or reasoning only to fail time and time again. The more they try to make sense of things and find underlying causes, the harder it becomes and random facts get thrown into the mix. Meursault, on the other hand, makes no attempt to justify or explain his actions. He chooses not to make sense of all the events that have happened and instead accepts things as they are. This is a key point of existentialism, that one should not try to make sense of the absurd but rather accept it how it is.
"'I accuse this man of burying his mother with crime in his heart!'" (96).
I think this quote exemplifies the ridiculousness of the entire trial. Throughout the whole trial, Meursault is judged based on events unrelated to his case, such as the death of his mom, rather than the evidence gathered about the murder of the Arab. I find this all to be very interesting because the verdict was essentially given based on judgments of his character rather than evidence supporting him being guilty of a crime. It makes Meursault a guilty man before the trial even begins and gives him no chance at freedom. Everyone in the courtroom is appalled by his character traits that they use any small evidence suggesting his guilt even if it is unrelated or weak evidence.
I think Camus purposely exaggerates the judgement people have of each other through the trial scene. The courtroom appalled by his character traits, as you have stated, mocks the fear people have over something that is different than themselves. People like to feel comfortable and be able to understand the world in which they live, and when something or someone threatens that understanding or peace, it causes fear. This is a trait in humans that is prominent in everyday life and I believe Camus wanted to display the absurdity of it to the reader.
DeleteI completely agree with what you're saying. During the trial, they would keep bringing up past events and through those events, they woud judge Meursault. It made me really frustrated because the past should not have been the focus during his trial.
DeleteAbsolutely, Bianca! Talk about trying to assign meaning to an event where there is no meaning... "burying his mother with crime in his heart?!" Do you guys see people doing this on a regular basis, though? I'd like to say I don't, but really, I think this happens a lot...
DeleteMs. Ballard
I believe the last few chapters of the book are a distinct turning point for Meursault's character. The first moment that I noticed his character change was during Meursault's trial when he states, "...the prosecutor exclaimed, 'Oh no, that is quite sufficient!' with such glee and with such a triumphant look in my direction that for the first time in years I had this stupid urge to cry, because I could feel how much all these people hated me," (90). Meursault is finally feeling the repercussions of his behavior. He saliently states his emotions in this moment, which is out of character for him. He obviously dislikes expressing emotion, especially crying over things in life he usually claims are meaningless, which shows how much the trial and the prosecutor has affected him. Meursault, however, does not care about the actual crime that he has committed but only about how the other people feel about him. For as much as he ridicules others for being a robot in society, he is being a hypocrite since he now cares about what others think about him enough to have the urge to cry, emotions he would most definitely mock others for possessing. Later in chapter five, after Meursault found out he was going to be executed, he says, "Then I blame myself every time for not having paid enough attention to accounts of executions," (108). Meursault still does not take responsibility for his actions. Instead of blaming himself for wrongly murdering an Arab, he blames himself for not knowing more about executions. He is clearly not an existentialist at this moment since he refuses to take responsibility, a strong belief Camus withheld. The reader previously uses existentialism to justify and explain Meursault's behavior, but now as it is clear he is not an existentialist, the reader no longer has a means of justification for him and might think he is simply an immoral person who lacks enough thought to care about anything. Also, he continues to express his new desire for freedom which is a complete turn around from his previous behavior of taking everything as it is,which shows more of his hypocrisy. This creates a negative connotation around Meursault's character and detaches the reader from him, causing them to feel no pity for his situation and agree with his punishment. At least that is how I felt towards the end of the book.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the closing few chapters really exemplified the changes in Meursault's character. As you stated, he begins to care about what other people think of him, which he did not in the previous chapters, as demonstrated by his often apathetic behavior. this pathetic behavior continues in the form of having no demonstrated remorse for his fatal actions, but he now begins to contemplate how other think of him.I also agreed, that his behavior toward the end of the novel shows how little he takes responsibility for his actions. I really like your point on how the reader uses existentialism to justify his actions, but now, with the realization that he is not existentialist.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the last chapters of the book, one can see another side of Meursault. It seems like Meursault has become a foil of himself. This can first be seen when Meursault is in trial. He says, "... For the time in years I had this stupid urge to cry, because I could feel how much all these people hated me"(3.90). Meursault was never one to express emotions. Not even when his mother died nor when he killed the Arab. He was always calm and neutral about everything no matter how traumatic it was. I find it confusing and a little irritating that Meursault has the urge to cry now but didn't when his mother died. That isn't the main point though. The thing that caught my eye was the fact that he was now starting to express emotion which was something that he never did in the past. Meursault's personality change can also be seen in the last line of the book when he says, "...I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate"(5.123). Throughout the book, the diction is basic, short, and sort of boring. That kind of defined Meursault. Meursault was a really simple person who was had a neutral feeling about everything in life. The last few chapters have more emotional sentences and the last sentence of the book is a great example. It is filled with emotion which demonstrates how Meursault has now opened up and expressed his thoughts with more meaning. He knows he screwed up and he knows he was inconsiderate and selfish. He still holds some existentialist beliefs though. One of them is acceptance/ acceptance of suffering. He is accepting the fact that he messed up and he is willing to suffer because of it. He actually says he wants to suffer because he wishes that people greet him with "cries of hate".
ReplyDeleteOne can see Meursault's drastic personality change by comparing the first two sentences of the book with the last sentence of the book. The first few show little to no emotion at all and the last sentence is the complete opposite. What do you guys think? Does Meursault still hold some existentialist beliefs towards the end of the book?
Yes! In fact, I would argue that he is much MORE of an existentialist at the end! I don't think an existentialist has no emotion--he/she just realizes that, while technically nothing matters, you can MAKE things matter on your own.
ReplyDeleteMs. Ballard
I thought a major theme in this book was Camus' attempt to show the reader the thin line between existentialism and borderline clinical depression, which he does perfectly with Meursault's character. For me, "The Stranger" not only made me question the legitimacy of existentialism but the difference between existentialist thought and mood disorders.
DeleteOne thing that really struck when I was reading the transition between the last two chapters, was the pointlessness for holding Meursault a trial. I understood the fact that in the judicial system everyone is to be tried in order to avoid the convection of a person who did not in actuality commit the crime, but what confused me was to why Meursault didn't call the trial off. Of course near the end Meursault goes into his large rant all about how death is inevitable. This obviously proves his indifference towards the results of the trial, and therefore disregarding its importance. What we must consider though is that he comes to this realization after he is forced to accept it (forced being his fate has been decided already). The reader comes to think that he wasn't excepting the worst until he received it. However, in chapter four he generally seemed displeased by the inconvenience of it all. Did Meursault think of himself as innocent? Or was he possibly just waiting for them to convict him as guilt? When in the court case, he describes, "The utter pointlessness of whatever I was doing there seized me by the throat" (105). Meursault mentions wanting to go back to his cell and sleep, something he has been doing for quite awhile before this court case. This is yet again another thing that follows Camus' idea of life being a string of repetition. Before Meursault comes to the realization of the inevitable death, he considers things such as, "mak[ing] up new laws and reform[ing] the penal code" (111). All of these things are of course obscurities that could never occur, but the hope of there being a way out, can often cloud judgement. By holding a court case there is always this false hope that they may let you off easy, or make a mistake and not convict you at all. This hope of a slip up is what Meursault says causes people to not be able to accept the inevitable. Hope is a false illusion. Hope, just like too much light, can blind us from the truth. This all comes down to a basic theme of the book- to accept what is inevitable.
ReplyDeleteAfter hearing his verdict, Meursault calculates the likelihood that he may escape his fate. During this time, he makes a very interesting observation. Meursault comments that to get to the guillotine, he thought that you had to climb steps. But on the contrary, "everything was very simple: the guillotine is on the same level as the man approaching it. He walks up to it the way you walk up to another person." Meursault goes on to state: "Mounting the scaffold, going right up into the sky, was something the imagination could hold on to. Whereas, once again, the machine destroyed everything: you were killed discreetly, with a little shame and with great precision," (112). In this passage, Meursault reveals a different kind of thinking. Instead of coming to his usual conclusion that "nothing really matters," Meursault actually shows some sort of consideration for the fate of his existence. Meursault prefers his preconception of the guillotine as something so step up to, as if he is stepping up towards the sky because it gives his death meaning or purpose. His preference for this manifestation of the guillotine supports the overarching pattern in the second part of The Stranger where Meursault gives greater thought to his personal philosophy and purpose. In reality, the guillotine is just a tool for precision killing which makes Meursault an object of the machine. Meursault expresses dislike towards being an object of the machine because he finds the idea absurd; he who finds his life actually has meaning finds himself dying a meaningless death. Meursault also makes an interesting metaphor in this passage. He says that the reason he thought the guillotine followed a series of steps was "because of everything [he'd] been taught or shown." In addition, he says "You always get exaggerated notions of things you don't know anything about," (112). I found this to be an allusion to the jury trial since Meursault describes the jury members as a row of anonymous faces. The best Meursault can assume is that the jury will make decisions based on everything they had been taught about morals. They will receive an exaggerated notion about his crime based on what the prosecutor proclaims in his speech. As a result, Meursault's trial has little meaning since the jury will act based on their preconceptions of Meursault's crime, rather than evidence or external logic.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really interesting observation that you made about the stepping up towards the sky. I have to agree that his fate is based on the juries preconceptions of Meursault's crime. I wonder if/how Meursault's trial would be different if he had said that he believed in God. Even if he was lying, I feel like the jury would treat Meursault differently, because they believed that it was up to God to make judgments based on his doings. I also think it is intriguing how his entire thought path changed around the time when he learned his verdict.
DeleteThroughout the trial I thought that the prosecutor was the opposite of an existentialist because he judged Meursault and was continually pointing out how terrible he thought Meursault was. The prosecutor did not try to understand Meursault or his situation, he just thought he was not a good person because his lack of expressing his emotions. In the prosecutor's closing statement, it is clear that he has made up his mind about what kind of person Meursault was and how he should be punished. "Has he so much as expressed any remorse? Never, gentlemen. Not once during the preliminary hearings did this man show emotion over his heinous offense. At that point, he turned in my direction, pointed his finger at me, and went on attacking me without my ever really understanding why." (100) This demonstrates how much he does not like Meursault and thinks that he is a terrible person for not "feeling" remorse, when really he just might not express it in a way that makes it clear he is feeling remorse. I also think that the diction of calling Meursault's crime heinous demonstrates his opinions further. I think that the prosecutor is saying it was heinous because he does not like Meursault's lack of expressions. I think that if Meursault was feeling guilty and remorse, the prosecutor would not have used such a harsh term regarding the murder. Further in his closing statement, he uses much harsher diction because he is trying to convince the jury to give Meursault the death penalty. "For if in the course of what has been a long career I have had occasion to call the death penalty, never as strongly as today have I felt this painful duty mad easier, lighter, clearer by the certain knowledge of a sacred imperative and by the horror I feel when I look into a man's face and all I see is a monster." (102) Calling Meursault a monster is clearly judging him based only on what he has seen. He does not know Meursault and does not understand him, so he thinks that because he does not express his emotions that he is a terrible person. One of the existentialist ideas is to not judge others because everyone has or will behave in the same way, which the prosecutor does not follow.
ReplyDeleteThese last few chapters were very different in terms of how Meursault behaved. What really interested me, though, was the prosecutor and his feelings toward Meursault. After interviewing Marie, the prosecutor declared, “ ‘Gentlemen of the jury, the day after his mother’s death, this man was out swimming, starting up a dubious liaison, and going to the movies, a comedy, for laughs. That is all I have to say.’ “ (94). This quote demonstrates how the prosecutor is going out of his way to make Meursault appear bad. This is not the behavior of a normal prosecutor because he is intentionally picking on Meursault’s grieving. Because, Camus writes this story from Meursault’s perspective, the reader immediately feels negatively about the prosecutor. This creates a negative tone surrounding the trial and the prosecutor. His hatred of Meursault demonstrates the opposite of existential thinking that you should forgive others mistakes. Additionally, at he end of the trial, the character of the prosecutor is further depicted. Camus writes, “He states that I had no place in a society whose fundamental rules I ignored and that I could not appeal to the same human heart whose elementary response I knew nothing of.” (Page 102). This quote conveys that the prosecutor does not make an attempt to understand Meursault and just views him as a nuisance to society. The fact that he alludes to the fact that Meursault does not have a heart indicates how he views dissenters as evil; he wants everyone to conform to these “fundamental rules” he referenced. This makes the reader feel that Meursault never had a chance because he had a hatred for him based on Meursault’s behavior in comparison to the rest of society. This creates a negative tone toward the justice system and also elicits a feeling of pity for Meursault. I am curious if Camus was trying to comment on the justice system. Please comment if you have anything to add.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading whatever book it is my favorite authors craft work to look for is the use of foreshadowing. Its always interesting when the authors gives the reader a clue as to what is to happen, but the way he writes is interesting in itself because it makes the reader have to find it and actually think about it to make full sense of its being there. Although there isn't to much foreshadowing in "The Stranger" by Albert Camus, there is still a sufficient amount that made me as a reader interpret it in many ways and kept me thinking actively. In the first couple of chapters Camus referred to the color red a lot and no other color and i interpreted that as something bad to come where blood might be spilled and sure enough Meursault ends up killing an Arab by shooting him multiple times. After murdering the Arab I thought that there wouldn't be as much reference to the color red but as a matter of fact tit continued. It was present in the first couple chapters of the second part but towards the end of Meursault trial it appeared again. As Meursault's hearing was about to start, Meursault describes the scene by saying at first," I saw a tall, thin man dressed in red."(85) Then he say's,"Three judges , two in black, the third in red, entered with files."(85) By using the color red and black in so many descriptions, Camus just like in the beginning of the book is trying to give us a hint as to what is to come. Since Meursault was in jail I knew that if something were to happen it would most likely be to him as the focus of the story has narrowed down strictly to him. Due to this I anticipated that the trial would most likely deem Meursault guilty and he would be executed in some way and that is exactly what ends up happening to him when he is sentenced to the guillotine. Something else other than authors craft that made me think a lot was the Meursault's trial itself. Throughout the whole trial it seemed that the prosecutor was only focusing on things other than the murder itself especially things that had to do with Meursault's mom. This strongly frustrated me because I felt it wasn't morally right to ask him all these questions about his mom that made him seem as though he didn't care about her when indeed he did, and whenever Meursault tried to stand up for himself the Prosecutor would interrupt him and say,"that was enough." If one were in Meursault he/she could see the pressure that was built on to him throughput the whole trial. It establishes a dominant effect of sadness in the reader as he/she realizes that the prosecutor made the court hate Meursualt which was why in the end they sentenced him to be killed. It is things like this that make this world an unfair place but one can do little to nothing which is what probably limited Meursault in the end.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you doing up at midnight? You know that teenagers need 9-10 hours of sleep a night, right?!?!
DeleteMs. Ballard
In the end of the book I noticed that Meursault gave up his life to a higher power. Camus uses heat diction with reference to a higher power to create a hopeless tone in Meursault’s inner dialogue and to cause the reader to begin to doubt Meursault which shows that when control of one’s life is relinquished that one cannot exist in peace. When Meursault describes his time spent in jail he says, “I knew as soon as the weather turned hot that something new was in store for me”(82). Here Meursault uses the phrase “new in store for me” which shows that it is out of Meursault’s control. This instills doubt in the reader because for the entirety of the novel so far Meursault has been sure that he is in control and that there was not a higher power besides himself and his own actions. Because his ideas have become so wishy-washy the reader feels less likely to pay attention to what he is actually saying because it is something he doesn't truly believe in. This could lead the reader to be easily swayed by the prosecutor later on during Meursault’s trial. During the trial Meursault again comments on the heat, “It was getting hotter, and I could see the people in the courtroom fanning themselves with newspapers, which made a continuous low rustling sound”(86-87). When Meursault complains about the heat it shows that he no longer has a desire to control his life. This release of control instills doubt in the reader because Meursault has been so sure of himself up until this point. Once Meursault gives up his control of his life the reader begins to doubt them even more than they did before. After this event Meursault begins to feel more and more displeased with his situation which shows that when one does not have control over their lives they can no longer experience peace.
ReplyDelete“I thought it was a way to exclude me even further from the case, reduce me to nothing, and, in a sense, substitute himself for me. But I think I was already very far removed from that courtroom.” (103)
ReplyDeleteThis passage illustrates the fact that Meursault no longer seems to even be a part of the court case anymore, but it goes much deeper than that. What intrigues me is that Meursault’s actual crime and wrongdoing is being examined far less than him as a person, and yet he still feels as though he is no longer a part of the case. At the same time, the courtroom can be seen as representing religion in many ways. Since he does not believe in a God, he is seen as an outsider or stranger and is “very far removed from that courtroom”, so to speak. While people, such as the prosecuting attorney, examine his character when they should really be looking at what is truly important, it is a parallel to Camus’ view that people of religion are examining all of the wrong things in life, and that they are committing theological suicide rather than examining the real questions. The case falling apart and becoming about Meursault as a character rather than Meursault’s single action is representative of the absurdist belief that a person kills themselves, in a sense, when they follow a religion, and that their life, or trial, no longer becomes about them or their important issues.
“You always get exaggerated notions of things you don’t know about.” (112)
At this point, Meursault is thinking constantly about his impending doom from his cell and is talking about his stereotypical view of the guillotine. He believed that the guillotine was a larger, more magnificent structure when, in fact, it was not as grandiose as he had imagined. The notion of the guillotine is representative of people who try to make sense out of the absurd. Camus would argue that people invent meaning for things that should not be seen as spectacular or amazing. While the guillotine has the power to take lives, Meursault finds out that you do not have “to climb stairs onto a scaffold” (112) and that really, he is on the same level as the guillotine. It is no more spectacular or grand than Meursault himself is. Throughout history, the guillotine has been built up as if it is something magnificent, but those perceptions were only simple perceptions made by other humans, trying to put meaning to something inanimate. Camus would argue that the fabricated meaning to the guillotine is no different than the meanings that people give to plenty of other absurd elements of life.
“For everything to be consummated, for large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that that greet me with cries of hate” (123).
ReplyDeleteWhile re-reading the last few pages, I was focusing on understanding the last line because I thought this line essentially sums up the existential idea in the novel. In the first time, I couldn’t understanding the meaning behind it. However, after while I figured out that what is the truth Meursault realized at the end from the lines during his conversation with chaplain. Right after Meursault expresses radical emotion in first tine, he narrates, “He [Chaplain] wasn’t even sure he was alive, because he was living like a dead man” (120). This is very closely related to the idea that religion is spiritual suicide. In the scene, no matter how Meursault explains his thoughts, the chaplain repeats the same argument over and doesn’t show any intension to understand Meursault. It seems like he’s a parrot that talks without actually knowing the meaning. This demonstrates the Camus philosophy that people who believes religion don’t try to think and blindly follow their god. In Meursault’s perspective, that’s not truly living, just like him before gone through all these events and realized the meaning of life. Then he clearly exposes the main idea, or the theme of the novel in is narration, saying, “But I was sure about me, about everything, surer than he could ever be, sure of my life and sure of the death I had waiting for me. Yes, that was all I had... I have done this and I hadn’t done that” (121). In this line, he emphasis what he’s done and he hasn’t done. In other words, he realizes that it was him who’ve been making all these choices and that is his life. At this point, he knows that he’s done and what they mean to him. Basically, Meursault accepts his life and suffering, which is another existential idea, and knows that even if the life hasn’t any meaning, as he repeated consistently in the beginning of the novel, still it was his choice. Therefore there is no doubt that he wants the crowds to “greet him with hate” because that hate proves that he’s done and his life was real.
Upon waiting for his execution, Meursault gets closer to developing his consciousness. He ponders that his death is inevitable and life is meaningless because everyone will die at one point in their life. These are new views for Meursault than we saw in the beginning. Camus writes," Maman used to say that you can always find something to be happy about. In my prison, when the sky turned red and a new day slipped into my cell, I found out that she was right"(II.5.113). He shows some emotion here as he realized that he gets happy as soon as he realizes that he has another 24 hours to live. He soon accepts death and looks forward with peace. The lack of concern toward anything such as his death reveals that the conviction and trial were both pointless. This is when he accepts that his odd views make him a stranger to society because he is not "the norm". Prior to his execution, he comes to realize,"gentle indifference in the world"(II.6). He believes it is a form of freedom that the world does not pass judgement. He wanted to live a simpler life.
ReplyDelete