The Stranger seems to convey the idea that passivity is an appropriate way to live one’s life. The narrator, Meursault, goes through life carelessly and almost cynically. On the long walk to his Maman’s funeral, a nurse tells him, “‘If you go slowly, you risk getting sunstroke. But if you go too fast, you work up a sweat and then catch a chill inside the church,’” and Meursault comments to himself, “She was right. There was no way out,” (Camus 17). Metaphorically stuck between a rock and a hard place, Meursault chooses to do nothing and just accepts it as it is. This indifference towards life reflects on the author’s belief of existentialism. Existentialism is the idea that there is no God or any meaning of life. It is apparent that Meursault shares the same belief as his author because he doesn’t seem to care about anything that happens to him, like his Maman dying. He even admits, “It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed,” (Camus 24). He treats the weekend of his Maman’s funeral as just “one more Sunday.” Even though he doesn’t narrate it, he seems like the guy that just shrugs all the time. Even when his girlfriend Marie proposes to him, he just goes, “…it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to,” (Camus 41). Meursault is so hung up on life not having any meaning that nothing phases him, and it’s really annoying.
I like how you point out that it is frustrating to read through Meursault's lack of actions.. Do you think that Camus meant to frustrate the reader with Meursault or show one outlook on life that should not be taken too far or..?
In the novel, The Stranger by Albert Camus, there are many characters that play a role in Mersault’s life. In relation to Mersault, each individual has varied reasons for being in his life. For example, Raymond seems to appreciate Mersault because he has someone to speak to because he doesn't have many friends. Mersault says that, “generally speaking, he’s not very popular” (28) when talking about Raymond. Marie likes to be around Mersault, as written in, “after another moment’s silence, she mumbled that I was peculiar, that was probably why she loved me..” (42). Both of these characters are with him by choice.
Mersault himself though doesn't think much of any of these relations. In regards to talking to Raymond, he says that, “I find what has to say interesting. Besides, I don't have any reason not to talk to him” (28). He didn't even realise Raymond considered Mersault to be his friend until Raymond explicitly stated, “Now you’re a pal Mersault” to which he reacted by thinking “and said it again that it struck me.” (33). With Marie, when she proposed to him he said that, “I answered the same way I had the last time, that it didn’t mean anything but that I probably didn't love her” (41). He later says he would have accepted a proposal from any woman he had a similar relation with.
All these individuals choose to be in Mersault’s company, there are no legal or blood ties binding them to stay together.However, his mother gave birth to him and raised him, and in society, parents usually support their children because they are their responsibility. It is almost forced so even if his mother did not want to be around Mersault, a parent-child relationship still exists. This may give it more value or truth but according to Mersault all his relationships are equal. He expresses his indifference in the last chapter when he says, “What did other people’s dreams or a mother’s love matter to me…” (121). My parents were responsible for my birth and they have taken care of me, which makes this relation more valid and of greater importance, contrary to what Mersault believes in.
Passivity becomes very evident early on in the book. The most evident example of passivity in this novel is Meursault's encountrance with Raymond. Very quickly, Meursault agrees to be pals with Raymond. He then tells Meursault the story of when his wife cheated on him and so he hit her. Raymond seems to be telling Meursault a lot about himself for only just becoming pals. We then learn that he was telling him all of this because he wants Meursault to write a letter for him, asking his wife to come back. When she comes back, he will sleep with her and then spit on her. Although this all seems pretty manipulative and impolite, Meursault agrees to help Raymond and write the letter. Raymond continues to seem as though he has control over Meursault, following this encounter. Even when Raymond hits his wife, Meursault still testifies to the police and helps his friend. Raymond manipulates Meursault to such an extent that Meursault seems to get more involved in Raymond’s conflicts than Raymond himself. This passivity caused Raymond to be insecure and bland. He refuses to show any emotion as he did not show any excitement when his boss offered him a job in Paris. He also neglects to tell Marie that he loves her which shows his insincerity towards major situations.
In the novel The Stranger by Albert Camus, Mersault leads his life in such a way as to suggest passivity. He appears emotionless and neutral to many events that take place. Passivity is the act of letting others walk over you, or to not be assertive enough to stop them. What's more is that Mersault appears to be fine with this establishment. This is seen throughout the novel as Mersault is strung together with the fellow characters. For example, when Mersault returns home. When contemplating his trip he states, "Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed." (pg. 24) This comes across as passive, as a major thing in Mersault's life did occur; his mother died. However, he seems oblivious to this, and does not seem to be able to place a value on events. When discussing one of his neighbors, Raymond, Mersault mentions, "But he often talks to me and sometimes stops by my place for a minute, because I listen to him...besides, I don't have any reason not to talk to him." (pg. 28) Regardless of Raymond's reputation, Mersault doesn't appear to care. Passivity appears to affect many of the characters in one way or another; many remain neutral about an event. Remaining this way is an example of existentialism in that it doesn't matter what a person does, every human being will die. This also goes to show that Mersualt, especially, is not living his life to a full potential (something that goes against a factor of existentialism). Mersault is an example of not living ones' life to the fullest, and this serves a message to the reader to live their own life, and make their own decisions.
“She said,’If you go slowly, you risk getting sunstroke. But if you go too fast, you work up a sweat and then catch a chill inside the church’ She was right. There was no way out” (17). Here the nurse is suggesting that the effects of the sun are inescapable. It seems that Meursault views the idea of life in a similar way. Similar to the sun at the funeral, death is inescapable and Meursault acts as if nothing is import because in the end he will die and none of it will have mattered. I disagree with the idea that in order to find true meaning in life you must reach a state of nothingness. Meursault seems to be living in this state of nothingness, however, I don’t think he is anywhere near finding meaning in life. It is hard to understand how someone could find the meaning to their life while at the same time they believe that their life is irrelevant. Much like the nurse’s statement about the lose-lose situation the weather has created during the funeral, Meursault views his daily life this way. He believes that the decisions he makes have no importance because he will die regardless. Essentially the only meaning Meursault could assign to his life would be that it is meaningless.
The novel starts out with Meursalt’s indifference at his mother’s funeral and the anxiety it creates in everyone around him. We see it again at the trial, where Meursalt’s passivity towards his mother’s death is what ultimately turns the jury against him. People’s surprise and dismay at the beginning of the novel imply that they are judging him based on his indifferent and passive attitude. Meursalt is also indifferent towards Marie, who, of all of the characters, is the nicest to him. Even though he likes her and enjoys her company, he shows passivity towards her. When Marie asks Meursalt whether he wants to marry her, he states, “I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to. Then she wanted to know if I loved her. I answered the same way I had the last time, that it didn’t mean anything but that I probably didn’t love her…she just wanted to know if I would have accepted the same proposal from another woman, with whom I was involved in the same way. I said, ‘Sure’” (10). When Meursalt is in prison later on, he fantasizes about women without imagining Marie specifically, and is not disturbed when she stops writing. His emotional indifference contributes to his general sense of passivity. Lacking goals and desires of his own, Meursalt hardly ever cares how things turn out and acts to satisfy his immediate needs without any consideration to the future or thoughts of others. This passive identity seems to threated society and those around him throughout the book.
In his novel, “The Stranger,” Albert Camus uses a lack of imagery and simple language to create a tone of calm and feeling of passivity on the part of Mr. Meursault.
At one point, Meursault is hanging out with his friend Raymond. Camus writes that Raymond, “remarked how quickly the time passed, and in a way it was true. I felt sleepy, but it was hard for me to get up. I must have looked tired, because Raymond told me not to let things get to me”(33). Camus uses simple language to convey how Meursault does not involve himself with the complexity of emotions. The use of simple language, such as how Camus only notes the basic information(what was said and not much body language), creates a calm tone because it doesn't seem like there is very much going on. However, when it is clear to the reader that things are indeed happening, such as when Raymond beats his girlfriend, Camus continues to tell the reader only the most basic of information regarding the situation. This creates a feeling of passivity because the reader is not told of any emotional reaction on the part of Meursault.
As a side note: Albert Camus comes from Burgundy, a region of France. Meursault is a town in Burgundy as well, with the name derived from “muris saltus”, the mouse leap, according to Wikipedia. This was because of a small stream that was easy to cross. This seems in line with the character Meursault because he is rather passive.
In Albert Camus' novel, The Stranger, the relationships between the characters are an important aspect of the story because they form the basis of the plot. Before the death of Maman, Meursault does not have very many relationships with other people, if any at all, because of his general emotional detachment towards people, even his own mother, as expressed in the opening lines of the book, "Maman died today. Or yesterday, maybe, I don't know...That doesn't mean anything..." (Camus, 1). While this seems like he is in a state of depression, his emotional detachment from his mother is revealed further into the story, as he described how his mother was happier in an elderly people's home instead of with him, therefore he didn't visit her, "...[M]uch this past year. And also because it took up my Sunday - not to mention the trouble of getting to the bus, buying tickets, and spending two hours traveling" (Camus, 5). This passage shows the reader that Meursault sees visiting his mother as a chore or obligation instead of genuinely seeing how she is. However, in a state of irony, Maman's death brings Meursault into the company of the caretaker. Although the caretaker does not significantly impact the story, Meursault's interaction with him shows that they become fairly acquainted with one another, shown through actions like Meaursault offering him a cigarette and the two of them smoking together, or the caretaker housing Meaursault for the night during his mother's funeral. However, although this tragic event becomes the basis for the relationships that Meaursault develops, his attitude towards his mother's death is complicated because he expresses different views about the way he feels about the event. He begins by treating it as just another Sunday, making it seem like he does not really care about his mother, followed by being unable to look at the opened casket with his mother lying inside, making it seem like he can't stand to see his mother that way, especially by describing previously that when he asked his boss for the day off, "...[I]t's almost as if Maman weren't dead" (Camus, 1). However, when the caretaker is taking Meaursault to his room, he notices the view of the country from his window, which he claims he, "...[C]ould feel how much I'd enjoy going for a walk if it hadn't been for Maman" (Camus, 12). This statement makes it seem that Meaursault is blaming his mother for dying, which is therefore making him lose interest in something that he takes pleasure in, once again highlighting the selfish aspects of his character. This selfishness comes from Meaursault's detachment from people, which causes him to be unaware of proper social etiquette, therefore being the reason that he has no personal relationships in the beginning of the book. However, Maman's death now throws him into a situation where he must form many new relationships, therefore being the basis of the story.
In the novella “The Stranger” by Albert Camus, the idea of passivity is integral to the story. This goes hand-in-hand with similar conditions, such as apathy. Throughout the book, the main character Meursault makes numerous decisions based off of apathy, the most notable of which being the murder of the arab man without cause. It’s this passivity that draws him into so much trouble through the plot, and ultimately ends with his conviction and a death sentence. Meursault’s passivity begins with the death of his mother. Camus does not hesitate to characterize him, as the opening paragraph reveals most of what we need to know about the main character. “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: ‘Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.’ That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.” This opening line puts Meursault’s apathy on full display, describing how much he cares for such a disparaging moment in anyone’s life. As the chapter goes on, this assumption by the reader is only supported as he shows apathy in the face of death while holding vigil over her body. He refuses to see her body one last time on multiple occasions and offers the caretaker a cigarette--something seen a s disrespectful to dead elders. This passivity also lands him in trouble legally. Raymond Sintés, his neighbor, asks him over for dinner one night, where they discuss what to do about Raymond’s supposedly cheating girlfriend. Instead of questioning if the evidence is sound or denouncing his plan to beat her, he merely goes along with the plan. He seems to not have a true opinion on the matter, neither expressing distaste nor delight at the idea of beating the woman. He even testified as a witness for Raymond once the police became involved. However, it was how these past actions became involved in his court case that turned his passivity against him. All of the above actions and decisions by Meursault were used in his murder case by the prosecution to prove his lack of morality and justification for a death penalty. Overall, the idea of passivity is thought of similarly to indifference in Night, where one must always take a side in a dispute. In The Stranger, however, things end up a little differently. Instead of meursault being no different than the oppressor, he is now faced with the consequences of not caring for his actions. Being able to listen only helps you so long as you can form an opinion on it.
In Chapter 2, Meursault and Marie have a conversation in the jail where Meursault is staying which helped explain their odd relationship. Meursault tells the reader, “In fact, I wasn’t really in prison those first few days… It was only after Marie’s first and last visit that it all started” (72). At first, I found Meursault’s sadness over his lack of Marie to be strange—until that point, the way he demurred when she discussed the idea of marriage with him had not given much indication that he really cared about her as anything more than a warm body. But part of their dialogue helped me realize why Meursault’s apparent change of heart was not a change at all: “She shouted again, ‘You’ll get out and we’ll get married!’ I answered, ‘You think so?’ but it was mainly just to say something” (75). It was when I read this quote that I noticed a pattern in Meursault’s rejections: he rejected Marie when she talked about marriage, but it did not mean that he did not have feelings for her, but simply that he viewed as marriage as an unnecessary step in consummating his feelings. One of the key parts of existentialism is the rejection of societal labels, and marriage, at least to Camus, was simply a societal label placed on interpersonal relationships. It makes sense, then, that the main character of his philosophical manifesto would similarly reject marriage. After coming to this realization, I came to recognize that Meursault did love Marie, even from the start, and that the way I was reading into his rejection of marriage with her was completely wrong.
The Myth of Sisyphus elicits the idea that happiness and absurdity are inseparable. This idea can be interpreted in many different ways. In the instance of Sisyphus, struggling to overcome a struggle can give someone happiness. The overwhelming challenge builds determination within oneself and allows them to eventually be at peace with himself. In the instance of everyday high school student, life is absurd. It is absurd that we were born in this exact time and into our exact family. It is also absurd that we were born in such an exact town where the friends we make shape who we are. If one little thing was a little different, our entire life would be completely different. Everyone must be content and find happiness in the fact that we were born in such an exact time and place. Everything could be so far off from what it is now and everyone should feel blessed that they have the opportunities that they have now. People should take the challenges that they face in life as an opportunity to grow as a person, just as Sisyphus did. With every difficult situation comes a positive outcome and a learning experience. Sometimes people must grow the hard way by learning from their mistakes. Mistakes and the need to overcome a challenge is inevitable. Everyone must find positivity and happiness from every absurd situation and learn how to better themself from it.
The myth of Sisyphus brings up some interesting points that can be traced to The Stranger, and Camus' perception of absurdity. Sisyphus appears to have strong free-will, as he refused to go back to the underworld, even though the gods were telling him just that. This also showed his lack of respect/belief in these gods. Both qualities are examples of existentialism; no religion and free-will. Camus believed that with Sisyphus, he was still able to make his own decisions without conforming to society, but his task he had to repeat everyday was what caused him sadness. This part I agree with, because we see this in The Stranger with Mersault. When looking at Mersault, though, there are some apparent differences. He first has little free-will; he lets other characters talk to him, lead him, and persuade him to do things that he could've disagreed with. Instead he remains impassive and goes along with the crowd;he conforms to society. Secondly, Mersault does not seem to thoroughly enjoy life. Events that happen around him have little effect, and events that happen to him, specifically the death of his mother and his relationship with Marie, he appears indifferent or emotionless about. He simply exists, without having any reaction to anything. This is an example of the darker existentialism ideals; how life is absurd, and everyone will eventually die.
Do you think that the way Meursault only follows and leads an unfulfilling life is like Govinda except that Govinda had more morals and eventually was able to take a step on his own?
The myth of Sisyphus is an interesting comparison to “The Stranger” because Sisyphus is anything but a person who lives his life passively. Sisyphus angers multiple Gods and is punished by rolling a rock to the top of a mountain repeatedly forever. Albert Camus says that the myth is tragic because the hero is conscious. Sisyphus hates his punishment because he knows there is no hope and yet he must continue. Camus compares Sisyphus’ task of forever moving a rock to the top of a mountain to a person with repetitive lifestyle that only distresses the person when they realize what they could have. In pop culture, it’s said that few people live, most people merely exist. For example, many people who travel often and experience new things frequently are many happy. In contrast, there is no large improvement in happiness based on income after a certain point. Although Sisyphus did anger the Gods, he did not want a repetitive lifestyle. The fact that Sisyphus meant to do things with his life separates him from Mr. Meursault. Both characters ended up being punished severely for their actions, but, according to Camus, stand in stark contrast of each other because they chose different ways to deal with the absurdity of life. Camus believed that there were three options to deal with the absurd, and simply existing was philosophical suicide. Sisyphus would have fallen into the category of acceptance because, despite being a mortal, he tries to do meaningful things in his life, even against the wills of various Gods. On the other hand, Mr. Meursault committed philosophical suicide by other people’s morals to rule his actions.
In the essay, Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus discusses the tale of Sisyphus and his personal philosophy. The character of Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure because like everybody, he is the master of his fate. In my interpretation, throughout the essay Camus discusses how we as individuals are responsible for our fate, and what becomes of it is due to our actions in the past. When we are in misery and happiness, we are to blame because we bring it upon ourselves, and happiness comes when this is accepted. Sisyphus is an embodiment of modern man. Everyday he needs to push a rock up a hill that will eventually tumble down, but that is his life and he is content with it. Similar to the modern human, which as Camus states, “The workman of today works everyday at his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd”. Both the workman and Sisyphus’s actions don't matter because they are meaningless, but each person has found meaning within them. A line which was striking to me was, “But crushing truths perish from being acknowledged” because this is applicable for Meursalt too. In terms of Sisyphus, Camus says that he felt extreme sorrow and grief when he remembered memories of happiness or things that were important to him which he can no longer access. For Meursalt, there may be a chance that he too was devastated by the death of his mother, but as the quote says, he ignored the truth so he could continue living his life. In the book there is a line which says, “He (Salamano) he supposed I must be very sad sine Maman died, and I didn't say anything.” (45). Meursalt understands that everyone must die eventually, the way they die or their age doesn't matter as read in, “ He asked me if I wasn't too tired and he also wanted to know Maman’s age. I said, “About sixty,” so as not to make a mistake; and I don't know why, but he seemed to be relieved somehow and to consider the matter closed.” (25). Usually people find it more impactful or hurtful when someone younger dies because they had their whole life ahead of them. We place importance on the amount of years they have lived, but as Meursault says in the last chapter, it is all of equal significance/insignificance. Sisyphus and Meursault realise that there is no point is being caught up in the past, because it cannot be changed and they understand that what occurred, happened due to the person’s own actions. From what I have understood, I generally agree with Camus’ hypothesis. However, there is one part I find contradictory because he says that, “His fate belongs to him” and how we decide what happens, whether it be good or bad but later he says, “There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night”. He says this with certainty but if we are in charge of our own fate, maybe some people live lives full of happiness while others of sadness. If everyone’s fate is uncertain, how can he be sure that one must experience sadness in order to be happy? Our perceptions of what is bad and good, depend a lot upon our experiences and personalities, so stating that it is essential to know the night while many may not know it, is contradictory to me.
You made an interesting point when you said that Meursault ignores his mother's death to be able to move on with his life. However, if he needed to do so in order to move on, why didn't Meursault have more emotion towards it that he needed to overcome to continue? I also like how you pointed out issues in Camus' hypothesis.
It is hard to compare Sisyphus to Meursault because even though they both exemplify existentialism, they chose different paths for the absurdity of life. First of all, only one of them truly has free will. After Sisyphus gets permission to leave the Underworld to go chastise his wife, he gets distracted by the beautifies of nature and refuses to go back to the darkness of the Underworld. This defiance symbolizes his free will. In Meursault’s case, he is easily persuaded by others’ opinions and actions instead of just deciding things for himself like one would if they had free will. Meursault’s inability to make decisions could also be because of his passivity towards life, which is another reason he is different from Sisyphus. Sisyphus isn’t a passive person because his punishment of rolling the rock up the hill only for it to roll back after he finished made him sad; a passive person wouldn’t be phased by such hopeless labor. Under The Absurd, life is meaningless and one can either kill themselves (cowardly), turn to God (philosophical suicide), or just accept it. Sisyphus seemed to accept it as he continues to roll the rock up the hill over and over for eternity, while Meursault has committed philosophical suicide by letting others control him. The only comparison I can give Sisyphus and Meursault is they were both brutally punished for their actions.
I like how you point out that between Meursault and Sisyphus, only one of them really has free will. However, I thought it was interesting that you thought Sisyphus has more free will than Meursault, considering that even though Meursault is persuaded by what other people say easily, he can still turn away from what other people say, whereas Sisyphus was punished by the gods later. What do you think about Meursault having more free will because he believes that existence is pointless, while Sisyphus has to work to please the gods, therefore his fate is not really his own?
In his literary thesis, author Albert Camus writes about the mythological Sisyphus and about how he influences his view of existentialism. However, The Stranger's Meursault is difficult to compare to Sisyphus because they are stark contrasts of one another. One major difference between these two characters is that despite Meursault behaving heavily off of what other people say to him, this is because the basis of his actions is his belief that life is meaningless and that there is no point to his existence, therefore he only does things that people influence him to do in order to carry himself out throughout his life. This kind of behaviour is the complete opposite of that of Sisyphus, whose daily conduct revolves around pleasing the gods of Greek mythology, therefore showing that he knows that he is going somewhere after death, which differs heavily from Meursault's view that God is a waste of time, as expressed in chapter of five of part 2, when he describes how the chaplain, "...[W]anted to talk to me about God again, but I went up to him and made one last attempt to explain to him that I only had a little time left and I didn't want to waste it on God" (Camus, 120). Despite both characters being punished for the crimes that they committed, even the punishments that they receive show how different they are. Sisyphus is condemned to rolling a giant boulder up a hill, only for it to roll back down and having to carry it back up, while Meursault is merely given the death penalty. Even in the end, these two characters heavily contrast with one another.
In Albert Camus’ exposition “The Myth of Sisyphus,” he writes about futile labor and the absurd in the context of a prominent figure in Greek mythology: Sisyphus. The poor man was condemned for eternity to push a boulder all the way to the top of a hill, only to have it roll back to the bottom. He described how the absurd is much like trying to roll that boulder to the top of the hill-- working pointlessly to put meaning into a life without meaning, only to have the weight of it all crush you on the way down just as you think you’ve reached the end. What caught my attention the most, however, was when Camus went into the detail of describing Sisyphus’ situation as the boulder was rolling down the hill. He is conscious during this time, able to think of something other than the rock he must endlessly push to the top of the hill. Camus describes him as “superior to his fate” and “stronger than his rock.” At this point, he is-- he has the high ground on the origin of his suffering. He can turn his back on all of the pain, yet he doesn’t. The authority of the gods is too threatening--somewhat similar to the way we obey our figures of authority, even if they don’t work for the greater good. According to Camus, the myth is so tragic because Sisyphus is conscious of all of this. However, this is the way many of us carry out our lives-- ceaselessly toiling away at futile labor in the vain hope it may reward us.
The myth of Sisyphus tells the tale of never ending suffering. Sisyphus is taken to the underworld after his death, where he is given the task of pushing a stone up a mountain. However once he reaches the top, the stone rolls back down and he must try again. From an existential view, this myth is incredibly similar to the idea of life on Earth. Life is filled with never ending suffering until death comes. Nothing that Sisyphus does matters because he cannot do anything to stop the suffering. Similarly, nothing we humans do on Earth can affect our outcome of death in the end. This myth and the idea of existentialism correlate to Meursault's actions in “The Stranger”. There is rarely any emotion at all in his personality because he has accepted this idea that nothing he does matters. He recognizes his ultimate fate of death and has made the assumption that nothing can change this fate, therefore nothing that happens while he is alive matters. Meursault and Sisyphus are very different however. Even after the stone rolls down the mountain, Sisyphus walks back down and gives it another try. The persistence of Sisyphus to achieve his task suggests that he believes there is something more for him other than the endless labor he has been struggling through. On the other hand, Meursault seems to have given up on life as he believes nothing can change his future.
When looking at “The Stranger” and “the Myth of Sisyphus,” Albert Camus addresses idea of fate and consciousness through Sisyphus and Meursault. By the ability to recognize his past, Sisyphus shows how Meursault lacks unhappiness. Meursault has nothing to compare his feeling of pleasure with, so he is continually content and always happy. However, Sisyphus understands his past but chooses not to compare it to the present or future. When the priest asks Meursault if he would prefer a different life to his own, he remarks he wants a life “where I could remember this one.” Camus has defined supreme knowledge through his theme about consciousness. The common principle that depicts this lack of consciousness is that we cannot experience anything from a perspective other than our own. If we could be sure of someone else’s present mental state as it related to our own, we could confirm not only existence, but find true knowledge as well. Meursault exists only in the present, and it is only the society that he lives in that forces him to have a connection to his past actions. Similarly, Sisyphus is forced to roll the boulder up the hill every day because of his past actions. In Meursault’s relation to society, however, he would prefer to treat the past as unstable and society must hold him accountable for it. What Camus is trying to say is that everyone, no matter how they are condemned, is responsible for their own actions. The frustration of Meursault’s character is that we cannot truly know that these actions ever really existed. So it is because we have a consciousness that we are held accountable for our past, but because we are conscious, we can confront death.
The efforts of Albert Camus greatly contributed to the progress and influence of the philosophy of absurdism; a set of beliefs that imply that a human cannot express the meaning of anything. His views emphasized how the absurd is a result from human inclination for control and the indifference of the universe. And in order to respond to the situation, a person has three choices; physical suicide, philosophical suicide and acceptance of the absurd. However, while Camus rejected physical suicide as a cowardly solution, he saw philosophical suicide, a more religious option, as simply undesirable. This is because he viewed the absurd as concrete and inevitable, so seeking hope in a supernatural solution only evades the problem and defeats reason; similar to physical suicide. With this, Camus believed the only way to avoid philosophical suicide was to accept and embrace absurdity: finding security in religion, or even death, only interferes with the reality of the absurd. For example, in the myth of Sisyphus, a man was punished with the task of pushing a boulder up a hill for eternity, only to have it roll back down to the bottom. Sisyphus represents the acceptance of the absurd as he continues to live his life, exerting himself over an unavoidable task, while accomplishing nothing.
Regarding question 4, Meursault greatly evolves throughout the book. Meursault does not believe in God, and for that he receives a lot hatred. The magistrate tells him that his life has no meaning because he chooses to believe in God. They also repeatedly ask Meursault if he was sad when his mother died. He responds that he did love his mother but that did not mean anything. These responses are proving that Meursault does not like to get involved or care about many things in life. This gives explanation to many things that took place in the first part of the book. He neglects to say he loves Marie back because he never let himself get fully involved in the relationship. He lives life just making it to the next day, without feeling any excitement or sorrow, even in big situations. He lack of involvement is proven once more when he begins to daydream while his lawyer speaks. This was a very pivotal moment in his life, yet he continued to not show interest and daydream. The only time Meursault truly begins to think about things thoroughly is when he begins to face the concept of death, and death becomes a reality for him. This goes back to the idea that death may be one’s most authentic moment in life. At the end of the novel, Meursault comes to peace with his fate and realizes that everyone dies at some point, so what is the difference between dying now through execution or many years later. However, as he finally begins to put thought into something, he realizes that he can live for many more years if he can get freedom and change the circumstance of his death. As Meursault finally thinks about situations in his life, he faces a great deal of internal conflict.
To answer question nine, Absurdist philosophy is a way to show the existentialism prevalent in The Stranger. This role is played by Mersault, a character who begins to change his views on the world in the end, but who in the beginning lives life without very much meaning. The book overall is another great example of absurdity. In the novel, it affects the reader's ability to concentrate on anything else, so they must focus on this key feature. With freedom, existentialism is strong about free-will, yet in the novel, Mersault lives his life through others, and doesn't seem able/to care about making his own decisions. Therefore, freedom feels constricted and the reader feels as though Mersualt is holding them back. Rational thoughts appear to be quite clear in the book. There are no what if's or sugar coating in the book; everything appears blunt, just like aburdist philosophy. The world has no meaning is quite frank and doesn't seem to soften the blow to reality, which is similar to the situation in The Stranger. Because of this, irrational thoughts do not really appear, as Mersault knows what life is and doesn't need a nicer explanation. In terms of happiness, this book lacks the optimism and positivity that others have, but this is because of the philosophical belief that there is no meaning in the world, and that life is meaningless in itself. Therefore, there appears to be no reason to search for it.
Throughout the course of the book, we see Meursault develop from being an indifferent and detached character into a more accepting and inquisitive one. One example of his lack of emotional connection to the world around him can be seen in his relationship with women. The first few lines of the novel state, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know” (1). The fact that Meursault doesn’t even seem to care that is own mother is dead shows how distant from his life he really is. Even in his interactions with Marie, it is obvious that he does not return her affection. He treats her well, but with little actual interest. He also has an indifferent attitude towards religion, believing that he is essentially alone and there is no God that exists. While visiting with the chaplain, Meursault says, “What did other people’s deaths or a mother’s love matter to me; what did his God or the lives people choose or the fate they think they elect matter to me when we’re all elected by the same fate, me and billions of privileged people like him who also call themselves my brothers?” (115). Meursault says that one person’s death does not stand out since each one is the same and all of them are meaningless. The idea of afterlife has completely evaded his way of thinking, and only in part two do we start to see Meursault start to question what he truly knows. This also encompasses his ideas about death; while he believes that death is inevitable, he does not believe that death is something to be feared or focused on, as with life itself.
Personally I disagree with number ten because having a positive effect on other people is something that is important to me. I believe that even the most selfish person would have trouble making decisions solely on what is important for themselves while disregarding everyone else’s needs. Even Meursault who seems to care about nothing, shows a couple signs that the needs of others somewhat matter to him. We see this when Raymond asks him whether he thinks his girlfriend cheated on him or not. Meursault thinks, “He [Raymond] asked if I thought she was cheating on him, and it seemed to me she was; if I thought she should be punished and what I would do in his place, and I said you can't ever be sure, but I understood his wanting to punish her” (1.3.110). The fact that Meursault forms the opinion that it is likely Raymond’s girlfriend cheated on him, but does not say this out loud suggests he is protecting her from Raymond. Another time the reader sees this from Meursault is when Marie asks him if he wants to get married. He replies that he does not mind but he will marry her if that is what she wants. We know that Meursault does not seem to care about much of anything, but it is interesting that he is trying to please Marie rather than simply replying that he does not care. It seems to me that the only time a way of life such that one only cares about themselves could exist would be in a survival situation where the person values their own life above the people around him.
In regards to question ten, religion and faith have their part to play towards the end of the novel, after Meursault is arrested for murder. Due to Meursault's beliefs in absurdity, his thoughts on religion are that it is manmade, and therefore rather believes that there is nothing that happens after death. Further more, Meursault also believes that religion causes people to act strange, as shown when the magistrate tries to threaten Meursault with the punishment of going to hell if he does not except God before death, waving a silver crucifix over him, like a weapon. Despite the waving of the crucifix being meant to lure Meursault to except God, the only thing he thinks of it is that the Magistrate looks crazy in his futile attempt. Camus also uses the motif of religion as a means of guilt, as expressed when the magistrate chides Meursault for not "weeping in guilt" as the criminals did when seeing the image of Christ suffering, claiming that he'd, "...[N]ever met a soul as hardened as yours." The magistrate tries to make Meursault feel guilty by speaking ill of his character in order to bruise Meursault's ego to get him to accept religion. These two examples show how religion is a big part of the society they live in, therefore prisoners are pushed to accept Christianity before death because the people genuinely believe that they will face eternal damnation if they do not. However, Meursault's views make up such a large part of his mentality that he is unwilling to compromise his beliefs, and still refuses to do so in the end. This illustrates how beliefs in religion and faith have such an active part in the story.
10) Under The Absurd, religion is philosophical suicide because one is attempting to create meaning to a meaningless world. In Part II, the clerk asks Meursault if he is religious and simply says no. The clerk is outraged and preaches at him, and Meursault pretends to look like he’s agreeing only to say no again. Meursault is so ingrained on life being meaningless that believing in God is just false hope. We see Meursaults lack of faith later when the chaplain tries to get through to Meursault, only to get annoyed at his stubbornness. “‘Have you no hope at all? And do you really live with the thought that when you die, you die and nothing remains?’ ‘Yes,’ I said.” (Camus 177). An afterlife doesn’t mean anything to him because the life he’s living now already lacks meaning. Meursault is later asked by the chaplain if he’s ever wished for another life, and he says yes but it “didn’t mean any more than wishing to be rich, to be able to swim faster, or to have a more nicely shaped mouth. It was all the same,” (Camus 119). To Meursault, life, an afterlife, and a hypothetical different life are all as meaningless as wishing for materialist things like money. I believe Camus focused on the topic of religion—or lack there of—to show the similarities between The Absurd ideals to atheism.
Absurdist philosophy plays a very important part in the first half of Albert Camus’ The Stranger. The general idea behind absurdist philosophy is that life has no meaning initially, so one must give their life meaning. Camus shows how Meursault’s brand of absurdist philosophy and they way he goes about life, but this existentialist thinking sows the seeds for his demise later in the book. Meursault’s own philosophy follows the famous existentialists’ opinions on the absurd, and he does not try to put any meaning to his mother’s death or his observations of the people on Sunday-- he merely accepts what happens and moves on. For example a quote from chapter 2 states “It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed at all.” In this quote, Meursault essentially puts all of the tiring events of the weekend out of his mind. He does not let his thoughts linger on his late mother-- he accepts the fact that she’s gone without trying to figure out how she died or what he’ll do without her. However, this is pretty easy for him to do-- he has been living on his own for a while after sending her to the elderly home. Through latter part of chapter 2, he observes the people walking through the street below. Nowhere in his description does he judge, condemn, nor assume anything about these people. Existentialist thinking can free a person from futile labor, as evident in “The Myth of Sisyphus.” To the layperson, though, it may seem cruel or inhuman as proved later in the book. To the majority of us, it doesn’t make any sense. Then again, neither does life.
Albert Camus uses the passive actions of Mr. Meursault to demonstrate the dangers of passivity in the face of absurdism. It is arguable that Mr. Meursault's passivity is not acceptance of the absurdity but is philosophical suicide in the way that Mr. Meursault allows other people's values and opinions to drive his actions. In this way, Meursault is the ultimate follower because he will take responsibility for actions and pay no attention to if someone else motivated him to do it.
In the first portion of the novel, Meursault writes a letter for his neighbor Raymond to a girl that supposedly cheated on Raymond. Raymond wanted to punish the girl, but, “… he didn't think he could write the kind of letter itwould take him and that he'd thought of asking me[Meursault] to write it for him. Since I didn't say anything, he asked if I'd mind doing it right then and I said no”(32). Meursault, despite saying that he was unsure about the situation, consented to write the letter for Raymond because he didn't have a reason to go against Raymond. However, it could be considered that Meursault is going against the girl that Raymond wants to beat up. Thus, Meursault's passivity is costing him true neutrality.
In the second portion of the novel, Mr. Meursault is in prison and finds it tedious that there is nothing to do. Camus writes that Meursault, “… didn't sleep well at night and not at all during the day. Little by little, my nights got better and I[Meursault] was able to sleep during the day, too. In fact, during the last few months I've been sleeping sixteen to eighteen hours a day. That would leave me six hours to kill with meals, nature's call, my memories, and the story about the Czechoslovakian”(79). Although in some ways, it seems Meursault has become less passive in the second half of the novel, Meursault also seems to have found new ways to avoid having to do anything. I'm not sure where I'm going with this.
Question 4 In The stranger, Meursault’s characterisation mainly occurs through his thoughts and feelings. The biggest change I noticed was his opinion and realisation towards death. At the beginning of the novel, Meusault says that, “For now, it’s almost as if Maman wasn't dead.After the funeral, though, the case will be closed, and everything will have a more official feel to it.” (3). He doesn’t realise the implications because its the same as him living away from his mother. They hardly see each other so his daily routine doesn't change. However, in part 2 Meursault says that, “I was forced to admit,however, that from the moment it had been passed its consequences became as real and as serious as the wall against which I pressed the length of my body.” (110). Even though this statement was in regards to him being convicted, it can be applied to his initial reaction towards his mother’s death. His mother’s death was real from the moment he received the letter, not after her burial occurred. His thoughts regarding death and his understanding is made clear when he says, “Deep down I knew perfectly well that it doesn't much matter whether you die at thirty or at seventy, since in either case other men and women will naturally go on living-and for thousands of years” (114). He doesn't see himself as a special individual but as someone who is part of the human species. Everybody is the same because we all belong to the same species. It doesn't matter if we die or not because the human race still continues. From my understanding, his attitude towards women remains static throughout the novel. He sees them as objects or as physical beings who he can gain something from. Whenever he talks about women, Meursault doesn’t really talk about their personalities. He likes Marie because of her smile or the pretty sun dress she wears, he doesn't discuss her interior traits. This makes sense according to his way of life, since everyone is the same, their personality doesn't matter. In part 2 he says that, “I never thought specifically of Marie. But I thought about so much about a woman, about women, about all the ones I had known, about all the circumstances in which I had enjoyed them, that my cell would be filled with their faces and crowded with my desires” (77). His natural human desires or experiences usually overpower his emotions which is seen throughout the book. This can be perceived as a very primal way of living. Lastly, in terms of God, his views don't change very much either. When asked why he didn't believe in God he says, “He wanted to know if I was sure and I said that i didn't see any reason to ask myself that question: It seemed unimportant.” (116) and later when talking to the chaplain he says that,“As for me, I didn't want anybody’s help, and I just didn't have the time to interest myself in what didn't interest me.” (117). I think this contradicts his earlier statements about death because he says, “Whether it was now or twenty years from now, I would still be the one dying” (114). If time doesn't matter to him, or the age at which he dies, he does have enough time to interest himself. Along with that, he implies that he sees himself as “other men”, which is a rather humanistic approach but then he says that he doesn't want anybody’s help. By saying this, he detaches himself from this race and it contradicts what he implies before.
The religious confrontation between the magistrate and Meursualt in chapter one convey the message of philosophical suicide in an attempt to refute absurdism. In this chapter, the magistrate pressures Meursault into accepting Christ as his savior, and yet, much to his dismay, Meursault refuses; in fact, he doesn't even believe in God. To his reply, the magistrate says that, "all men believed in God...that was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt it, his life would become meaningless"( 69). This quote demonstrate Camus' views of peoples' attempts to avoid acceptance of a non-meaningless life. As an alternative to committing physical suicide, they seek God for guidance in what Camus calls "philosophical suicide". The magistrate has committed just that and believes that God is what provides meaning to life. When the magistrate asks Meursault if he wants his [the magistrate's] life to be meaningless, Meursault answers that he doesn't really care as it has nothing to do with him. This only serves to further anger the magistrate and become more insistent. This is representative of how people latch onto their beliefs and opinions of life's meaning and are unable to accept that life in fact has no meaning in a form of "absurdist" denial. People cannot comprehend this notion and do not want to even consider it because they fear to face that realization. At the end of the chapter, the judge dismissed Meursault with, "That's all for today, Monsieur Antichrist" (71). Even though he says this in a joking manner, this shows how Meursault is vilified for not believing in God. He is not just an atheist, he is called an "antichrist" like he opposes God. This relates to philosophical suicide and absurdism as Meursault is rejected for his own non-religious ideas to which the rest of society cannot fathom. The judge, a symbol of justice and morality, even considers Meursault an anomaly who is considered 'ill' for not blindly following in an absurd world.
To answer questio five, isolation and acceptance are both relevant in the novel, but indifference occurs at the beginning, and acceptance takes place later. In many ways indifference leads to consequences, and from that consequence stems acceptance. We see this specifically with Mersault and how he reacts to events in the beginning of The Stranger. When reconciling about his mothers death, Mersault states," Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know." (Pg 1) This is an example of indifference. It doesn't sound like he's accepted his mother's death, but really has no emotional attachment to it or cares. Mersault at the beginning perfectly embodies what not to do according to existentialism. It is not okay to submit to the absurdity and mundane, but rather to accept it and move on while trying to find meaning to your own life. Later on in the book, Mersault changes from indifference to acceptance and begins to see details and events he would've overlooked. While he was in prison, Mersault realized, "there were others worse off than me." (Pg 77)He was able to realize that despite the wrong he had done, and the consequences he had to face, he still was alive. He had found meaning to his life, and he was able to accept what his punishments and limitations were.
For my two passages, I will compare part of the final passage in part 1 between the French and the English translation. When comparing the French and the English, it was difficult to find an appropriate passage as the translation is of quality and I had to look up a lot of words to be better able to compare the two.. I apologize in advance for the size of the text below. Sentences correlate for the most part, except the first two in French equal the first one in English.
Camus wrote: À cause de cette brûlure que je ne pouvais pas supporter. Je savais que c'était stupide, que je ne me débarrasserais pas du soleil en me déplaçant d'un pas. Mais j'ai fait un pas, un seul pas en avant. Et cette fois, sans se soulever, l'Arabe a tiré son couteau qu'il m'a présenté dans le soleil. La lumière a giclé sur l'acier et c'était comme un lone lame étincelante qui m'atteignait au front. Au même instant, la sueur amassée dans mes sourcils a coulé d'un coup sur les paupières et les a recouvertes d'un voile tiède et épais. Mes yeux étaient aveuglés derrière ce rideau de larmes et de sel… Cette épée brûlante rongeait mes cils et fouillait mes yeux douloureux… Et c'était comme quatre coups brefs que je frappais sur la porte du malheur. (93)
The corresponding text in English: It was this burning, which I couldn't stand anymore, that made me move forward. I knew that it was stupid, that I wouldn't get the sun off me by stepping forward. But I took a step, one step, forward. And this time, without getting up, the Arab drew his knife and held it up to me in the sun. The light shot off the steel and it was like a long flashing blade cutting at my forehead. At the same instant the sweat in my eyebrows dripped down over my eyelids all at once and covered them with a warm, thick film. My eyes were blinded behind the curtain of tears and salt… The scorching blade slashed at my eyelashes and stabbed at my stinging eyes… And it was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness.(59)
Camus uses burning diction to create a tone of conflict and a feeling that it is uncomfortably warm. The author uses brûlure(burn, burning/noun) and brûlante(burning/adjective) to emphasize the heat and conflict of the moment. It is interesting that the translator chose to translate brûlante to scorching because burning and scorching are very similar, but one provides for repeating diction.
Furthermore, Camus writes, “Cette épée brûlante rongeait mes cils et fouillait mes yeux douloureux”(93). The term épée is usually used to refer to a sword. It is interesting that Camus used the term for a sword when he previously referred to the Arab having a knife(couteau), showing how Meursault is not thinking properly and the knife is disproportionally large in his mind. Furthermore, Camus uses imagery when he writes of the knife eating through Meursault's eyelashes and searching his (stinging/painful) eyes. Camus uses this imagery to suggest that Meursault feels attacked. To the reader, it seems perfectly logical that the Arab should feel defensive after being threatened earlier.
In addition, Camus writes that Meursault knocked on the door of unhappiness. The term in french, malheur, can also have the implication of bad luck, which fits in with how Meursault lives his life by the values and priorities of others, and, in this way, had the bad luck of following Raymond.
I like how you chose to evaluate the original alongside the translation. The French version seems to contain more subtleties than the American version, such as using épée instead of a more appropriate word for a knife. One question I have is why do you think Matthew Ward's translation does not contain more of these subtleties in English? For example, he could have used "dagger" or simply "blade" to describe the knife and convey the same message you say Camus is. My second question is how would you translate the passage from French to English if you were trying to stay as faithful as possible to the original work?
To begin, Camus does use the term for knife a few times in the passage and even says that the sunlight is "spattering" off the steel, so Camus does vary his terminology a bit. I think I would change it to have the burning diction repeating as in the original. I would also consider changing how it says that the light shot off the steel because in the original, it uses the verb gicler(which I looked up and it means spattered), which I think creates very different imagery and makes Meursault seem more confused..
“Then I smoked a few cigarettes, still in bed, till noon. I didn’t feel like having lunch at Celeste’s like I usually did because they’d be sure to ask me questions and I don’t like that. I fixed myself some eggs and ate them out of the pan, without breads because I didn’t have any left and didn’t feel like going downstairs to buy some” (21).
“I feel that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, 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” (123).
In the first passage, Meursault's lethargic personality is evident. He lives life by barely getting through each day. He lives life barely putting in any emotion or getting involved in anything. He explains that he did not cry at his mom’s funeral because he feels that that would be an insult to her because she lived a happy and content life. However this greatly differs from Meursault's death. In the second passage we see that he wants people to be there when he gets executes. He has come to terms with his death and realizes that death is the one thing that is certain in life, death is inevitable. He figures that if he is going to die through execution, he might as well die properly. With execution, those watching must feel deep hatred towards the person being executed. That is why he states that he only hopes to see all his spectators crying tears of hate. In the first passage, meursault's passive personality is very evident. However by the end of the book he has come accepted his fate and sees himself as a happy person. He is beginning to understand the universe. He now sees that he is similar to the universe in that they both don’t care about what happens in life.
There were two passages that I was interested in through The Stranger: the very beginning and the very end. Based on how Meursault matures through the plot, examining and comparing these two passages should reveal just how extensively the contrast between his original and matured philosophical beliefs really is. The first passage reads from the sentence “Maman died today,” all the way to “...and everything will have a more official feel to it” (pg. 3). Through this passage, Meursault speaks only about the impression of his surroundings on him. This is due to his acceptance of the absurd and his understanding that there is no meaning to these actions, so therefore there is no reason to rationalize them. His only mention of any emotions is when he says “But he wasn’t too happy about it,” in reference to the two days off he is asking for to attend Maman’s funeral (pg. 3). The rest of the descriptions through this passage feel passive and apathetic. Camus conveys this idea through the descriptive diction he uses-- or lack thereof. There are no examples of vivid imagery or colorful diction to be found, providing only a bare-bones summary of the day. This makes it sound as if Meursault does not care about what is going on around him-- a theme to his early philosophy. The second passage I chose was also the last paragraph of the book. On pages 122 and 123, it went from “With him gone, I was able to calm down again,” to “...and that they greet me with cries of hate.” One obvious difference with this passage is that Camus is using diction and imagery to paint a picture, something that was painfully lacking in the beginning of the story. Some examples include how he “threw” himself on his bed, or how he awoke “with the stars in his face,” just to name a few (pg. 122). However, he still does not attempt to explain these phenomena. This is very similar to a more mature existentialist philosophy, where though life has no inherent meaning (and therefore there is no reason to explain it), there is still every opportunity for one to put meaning into his or her own life (much like how Camus now uses the imagery to define Meursault’s image). He also is no longer indifferent to what goes on around him. He begins to wonder what Maman would have felt when she died, coming to the conclusion that “Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again” (pg. 122). When these two passages are compared, it shows just how much Meursault changes-- he goes from indifferent and apathetic, almost nihilistic in the beginning to passionate, caring, and accepting towards the end, truly showing a maturing of his existential philosophy.
Throughout both parts one and two of “The Stranger,” Albert Camus uses heat imagery and diction along with metaphors and similes when describing Meursault’s emotional state in order to show the progression of his character and how accepting one’s fate is essential in an ideal life. The first passage I chose was from the very end of part one where Meursault kills the Arab man on the beach. Camus writes, “My eyes were blinded behind the curtain of tears and salt. All I could feel were the cymbals of sunlight crashing on my forehead and, indistinctly, the dazzling spear flying up from the knife in front of me. The scorching blade slashes at my eyelashes and stabbed at my stinging eyes” (59). Words like “cymbals of sunlight” and “scorching blade” are associated with heat; in fact, the entire section of the book where Meursault kills the man is described specifically as being hot and uncomfortable for Meursault himself. At this point in the book, Meursault is still struggling to make sense of the world and his place in it. He is detached and distant from everyone around him and seems to be in his own world, even when he is killing the man. In the way he always talks about the heat and describes it as shown in the passage above, it can be seen that he is uneasy and unsure about his fate and the decisions that he is making. In the second passage, however, Camus’ choice of language changes. The passage I chose was from the very end of the book before Meursault’s execution. Camus writes, “Sounds of the countryside were drifting in. Smells of night, earth, and salt air were cooling my temples. The wondrous peace of that sleeping summer flowed through me like a tide” (122). At this point in the book, it is clear that Meursault has truly accepted his fate. This can be seen in the shift from hot to cold diction, especially in the words “cooling my temples.” The simile “flowed through me like a tide” also symbolizes Meursault’s peaceful state of mind and how he truly believes that what he did and the situation he is in are ideal.
Between Part I and II of The Stranger, Camus uses diction and symbols to show Meursault's loneliness. During Part I, Meursault seems content with being alone, claiming his mother's death "doesn't mean anything," and it changed nothing (Camus 3). As apathetic as it sounds, his mother lived in a nursing home 2 hours away and he rarely saw her, so it did really not change much. But, despite Meursault's lack of emotion towards her death, he psychologically replaces his mother with Marie, a typist from his old job. Though he's unaware of it, his lack of ability to love Marie back is caused by the void his mother leaves behind when she dies. When one experiences a family death, it is common to feel empty and unable to loving emotions. Though Meursault seems to be emotionless and indifferent in Part I, he really transforms after his arrest in Part II and begins to feel emotions that he's never felt before. The ending quote "...for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my executions and that they greet me with cries of hate," strongly shows how he's finally aware that he's lost everyone important to him: his mother, his girlfriend, and even himself when he killed the Arab. (Camus 123)
“We just sat there like that for a quite a while. The woman’s sighs and sobs were quieting down. She sniffled a lot…They were so lost in their thoughts that they weren't even aware of it. I even had an impression that the dead woman lying in front them didn't mean anything to them. But I think now that that was a false impression.” (11) Through the use of short sentences and using an epithet for his mother, Meursault comes across as detached but his actions later contradict this tone. In this paragraph Meursault comments on how everyone seems to be so focused on their own actions that they didn't realise the actual purpose of why they were present. Meursault later retracts this statement because he realises its contradictory nature. He may have realised this because he too was lost in his thoughts. Even though the people weren't sobbing, they still felt sorrow, similar to Meursault. It leads me to think that even though Meusault didn't openly express sorrow, everyone has different ways of expressing their emotions. Meusault may be dealing with his mother’s death by spending time with Marie, distracting himself. He also repeatedly brings up his mother throughout the novel which prove that her death was impactful and he did care. We expect people to cry if they are feeling intense grief, but we cannot see what we feel. It is unfair to have physical representations for abstract concepts which we cannot see and then judge people based upon it.
“This perked me up a little. I said I had been looking at the stones in these walls for months. There wasn’t anything or anyone in the world I knew better. Maybe at one time, way back I had searched for a face in them. But the face I was looking for was as bright as the sun and the flame of desire- and it belonged to Marie. I had searched for it in vain. Now it was all over. And in any case, I’d never seen anything emerge from any sweating stones.” (119) In this paragraph, Camus uses similes and personification to symbolise how we cannot find meaning, but we must create it.He uses fire diction such as “bright as the sun” and “flame of desire” to portray longing and desperation Meursault felt for Marie. He compares her to the sun, which emits light, often associated with positivity.His inability to find this light reflect the hopelessness of his situation. He tries to find Marie, or what Marie symbolises for him, in inanimate objects but he fails to do so. They stones are personified to be “sweating” which could symbolise hardship. The fact that he is unable to find any meaning in these objects reflect how we cannot find meaning, but we must give our lives meaning. He was only searching for Marie’s face, he didn't give the objects an essence so they were therefore meaningless. Earlier he said that if Marie was dead or alive, it didn't matter. In this paragraph he contradicts his earlier statement because he seems to miss her. This leads me to believe that Meursault may be in love with Marie, but he does not know how to define the emotion or what classifies as love, this ties in with the paragraph in Part One where he doesn't cry during his mother’s funeral.
There are many symbols and images used in No Exit which relate to Sartre’s philosophy about existentialism and his viewpoints. Some of the more obvious symbols are the mirror, bronze ornament and paper knife. I found the use of the ornament and the colour symbolism behind the sofas they very interesting. In my interpretation the bronze ornament is symbolic of death itself. At the beginning Garcin says that: Garcin: …And suppose I took that contraption on the mantelpiece and dropped it on the lamp- wouldn't it go out? Valet: You can’t move it. It’s too heavy. Garcin: [seizing the bronze ornament and trying to life it]: You’re right? It’s too heavy. (7)
The mantelpiece can be symbolic of death because we are all bound to die. It is not something that can be lifted or changed. We are destined to die and nothing can change that. Garcin understands that it’s heavy but he doesn't realise the metaphorical value of the ornament until the end, when he states:
Garcin: This bronze. [strokes it thoughtfully.] Yes, now’s the moment; I’m looking at this thing on the mantelpiece, and I understand that I’m in hell. I tell you, everything’s been thought out beforehand. They knew I’d stand at the fireplace stroking this thing of bronze, with all those eyes intent on me. Devouring me… (45)
In this book death is personified as a bronze statue with its eyes intent on Garcin. This makes sense because death is always waiting. Another interesting aspect is the use of bronze. Bronze is not a special metal but it is strong and durable. Death is not something many people look forward to and by making it bronze, the durability represents the inevitable nature of death and the non lustrous shine displays the lack of attraction death has.
Sartre also utilises colour symbolism to characterise and foreshadow the characters’ temperament. Estelle walks in wearing a blue dress, and is originally going to sit on a green sofa but refuses to because it clashes with her dress. Green is often symbolic of jealously and envy which is displayed later in the play when Garcin doesn't give her the attention she wants. When her friend, Olga, dances with Peter, she says that, “He belonged to me” (32). She doesn't love Peter but she is envious of Olga dancing with him. Inez is sitting on a “claret-colored one” (10) which is a dark shade of red. Red is associated with anger or lust. Inez displays both of these traits throughout the novel. She lusts after Estelle and is angry after her affection isn't reciprocated. The colour of Garcin’s couch is never discussed which leads me to believe that he is a neutral character. He gave up his sofa for Estelle which characterises him as polite, and as someone who simply does not care about materialistic items.
The last line in “The Stranger” has a large impact on the novel and leaves the readers thinking quite a bit. It seems odd that he Meursault would want people to be crying tears of hate at his execution. However it seems that his mindset has completely changed. He feels that if he is going to die, and die by execution, then he should do it the right way. The right way to die by execution is to have an audience full of hatred. This interestingly contradicts what he said about Maman’s funeral. He said that it would be an insult to her to cry at her funeral because she lived a happy and content life, so that is why he hardly showed any emotion at her funeral. However, now he is showing a great deal of emotion at the end of the book. The emotion felt at the end of the book can relate to the idea the death is one’s most authentic moment in life. He states that the guillotine is a machine that kills with great precision and little shame. Meursault finds positives with in his death and learns to accept his death. He has come to terms with his life and understood that this execution is his fate. He figures that everyone is going to die at some point in their life, so what difference does it make to die now versus 40 years from now. The last page states that he felt he was happy again. This truly shows the emotion he has put forth into death, his most authentic moment. He is at peace with his life because he understand that death is truly inevitable and this was his way and time to die.
In the last line of his novel, "The Stranger", Albert Camus concludes the life of Meursault with emotion, hatred, and finality.
In the second half of the novel, Meursault begins to express himself with more emotion. In the last line, Camus writes that for Meursault to feel less lonely, there should be, "... a large crowd of spectators the day of my[Meursault's] execution and that they greet me[Meursault] with cries of hate(123). It is interesting that once Meursault starts to feel emotion, he wishes others to do the same, in a way. In addition, existentialist ideals were such that death is the most authentic moment in life. Meursault wanted his death to be real. Despite not desiring a public execution, Meursault wanted his death to be proper in itself and have the full nine yards. Meursault considered his mother's death and how, in a retirement community, his mother died in a fulfilled and proper way. For Meursault, he wants the full execution. The cries of hate mean people care, and they mean he has done something with his life. He will not die alone because there will be people there to witness it. The cries of hatred would be proof that Meursault was not passive.
Furthermore, it is interesting that Meursault uses the term consummated because it is normally used in reference to marriage. The use of the term is the ultimate indicator that Meursault has accepted his death because a marriage is a voluntary choice for most and is very planned, much like Meursault's choice to kill the Arab and subsequent trial and verdict.
For my analysis of the last sentence of the Stranger, I’m going to compare the translation in our book and another translation I found online: 1.) “For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, 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.” 2.) “For all to be accomplished, for me to feel less lonely, all that remained to hope was that on the day of my execution there should be a huge crowd of spectators and that they should greet me with howls of execration." I think the word “howl” is a better translation than “cries” because it fits Meursault’s character better. Though Camus describes the cries full of hatred, when I hear/read “cries” I think tears and sadness, and Meursault wasn’t one for tears. When people cried at his mother’s funeral, Meursault was angered because she lived a good life so there was nothing to pity. In contrast, Meursault doesn’t want people to cry for him for he led a meaningless life, so he’d rather be shouted at by an angry mob, as if their words would affect him.
The last line of The Stranger is quite an impactful one. While not initially clear, it becomes understandable why Meursault would feel this way once it is put in context with the events and Meursault’s thoughts immediately before this line. On page 122, Meursault thinks “So close to death, Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again.” This is where Meursault starts to compare his death to his mother’s death. Her death is also a very important symbol to the story, running parallel to how his philosophy matures. At first, he seems apathetic about his mother’s death, much like he was about everything. Now, however, he has come to accept not only the importance of his mother’s death, but how life needs your own meaning to be worthwhile. The next line after that is a key to understanding why Meursault wishes people to not feel sad for him. It reads, “Nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her,” (pg. 122). This heavily influences Meursault’s idea on how he wants to die. Therefore, he now thinks that no one should cry over him-- they wouldn’t miss him for very long anyway, being a murderer. He also opens himself up to the “gentle indifference of the world,” realizing that, according to existentialism, the world does not care about him. He also realizes the similarities between himself and the world-- he no longer cares about anyone or anything else, either. “Finding it so much like myself…” he says (pg. 122). Public executions were often considered a spectacle, too-- something you’d watch for entertainment. Therefore, feeling that no one should cry over his death, Meursault wishes that those who do watch his execution at least find some joy in it, however macabre it seems.
“As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, 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.” These are the very last lines of the novel, where Meursault finally is able to accept his fate and no longer see the world as an entirely pointless place. After his meeting with the chaplain, whose insistence that Meursault turn to God in the wake of his death sentence puts Meursault into a “blind rage,” Meursault accepts the absurdist idea that the universe is indifferent to human affairs and that life lacks meaning. He moves toward this revelation through the course of the novel, but does not fully grasp it until he accepts the impossibility of avoiding his death. Once the realization has hit him, he feels free and no longer haunted by the burden of a pointless life. Meursault realizes that the universe’s indifference to human affairs mirrors his own personal indifference to human affairs, and the similarity evokes a feeling of companionship in him that leads him to label the world “a brother.” As opposed to earlier in the novel, when Meursault was passively content at best, now Meursault finds that he is actually happy once he opens himself to the reality of human existence. Meursault finds that he is also happy with his position in society. He does not mind being a loathed criminal. He only wishes for companionship, “to feel less alone.” He accepts that this companionship will take the form of an angry mob on his execution day. He sees his impending execution as the “consummation” of his new understanding as he is finally able to be at peace with himself and his life.
In Albert Camus' The Stranger, Meursault goes through a complex series of events that continuously changes his personality. Throughout the novel, from lingering in the aftermath of his mother's death to eventually waiting for his own death, Meursault's experience make him into who he becomes, as he reflects on his actions in accordance with his beliefs. The two passages from the opposite ends of the book that truly show the significance of the growth of his character are the opening passage of the novel and the ending passage of the novel. The attitude that Meursault has at the beginning of the novel, in the opening words, "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know. I got a telegram from the home: "Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours." That doesn't mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday" (Camus, 1). This attitude reflects how he doesn't care about anything in his life, how nothing matters to him because he feels that everything is completely pointless, even visiting his own mother, which is expressed when he says, "She was used to it. That's partly why I didn't go there much this past year. And also because it took up my Sunday..." (Camus, 5). However, this attitude about not caring about anything eventually begins to change, as Meursault meets the various characters that appear in the book, their effect on him affects the way he acts, a prime example being when he murders the Arab man that he sees on the beach, when he expresses his emotions, saying, "I knew that I had shattered the harmony of the day, the exceptional silence of a beach where I had been happy. Then I fired four more times at the motionless body where the bullets lodged without leaving a trace. And it was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness" (Camus, 59). This passage shows that all throughout Part 1, Meursault eventually grows to feel emotions, which he had denied himself of in the beginning of the book. He mentions that the beach was a place where he had been happy, and that he had felt harmony before shooting the Arab man, therefore showing that he appreciates the existence of the things around him, despite his belief that everything that exists has no meaning to it. This feeling of emotions is felt once again in Part 2, when Meursault reflects on his life before the execution, thinking, "Finding it so much like myself - so like a brother, really - I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again" (Camus, 123). This passage shows that Meursault has finally become more in tune with his emotions, and that he has come to peace with himself before his execution. Directly claiming that he is now happy again shows that he has become a different person from who he was at the beginning of the book. Therefore, the significance in the comparison of these two passages is that they show how Meursault was able to grow as a character throughout the story.
The final line in The Stanger demonstrates how Meursault is going to face his death, which is essentially the resolution to the book."For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, 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." I believe that Meursault is still terrified to die because he does not know what comes after death, if anything at all. However, here he is saying that he wants to leave a mark on the Earth. I can make this assumption because he says he hopes a large crowd forms to watch his execution and yell bad things at him. I think that Meursault does not mind what he is remembered for, whcih will be a murderer, he just wants to be remembered when he is gone. He starts to imagine his execution filled with people in order to bring himself comfort and make his death easier to face. His idea of leaving a mark on society temporarily distracts him from the brutal execution that lies before him. As an existentialist, Meursault believes that the decisions he made in his lifetime were extremely important, and he hopes they will be remembered. In addition, he does not believe in an afterlife, so he wants to always be remembered for what he did in his life.
1. Estelle needs to look at herself in a mirror because when she doesn't see herself she wonders if she truly exists. "I pat myself just to make sure, but it doesn't help much," (19). There are no mirrors because mirrors symbolize self-reflection, which Estella lacks because she "hasn't a notion, not the foggiest" reason for why she's in Hell (15). She refuses to analyze her actions nor admit her faults. Estelle's obsession with mirrors shows her obsession with herself. Whenever she talked to people she made sure she was near a mirror so she could see herself talking because it kept her "alert." She was even called "glancing stream" and "crystal" by a boy who liked her, and both of those things reflect like a mirror. Estelle wants not only to look at herself, but others--such as Garcin--to look at her, too. She is someone who exists for others, as if she is an object. Estelle is in bad faith because she lets herself be objectified.
3. As they say, time passes quickly when you're having fun. For the damned trio, there is none as they all bicker and fight over the other. Time passing so slow in Hell is not only a play on the common saying, but to show the magical realism portrayed in this play. It's realistic that three very different people are in the same room arguing, but it's magical that they're all stuck there forever without ever aging, nor dying since they're already dead.
Question 3 In Existentialism, a huge focus is placed upon living in the moment and not thinking about the past or future. When time passes quickly on Earth, it can be a metaphor for how people rush through their lives without treasuring any moments. In hell, time passes slowly, they are forced to scrutinise every minute of their existence in that room. They have no distractions or commitments and are rid of their past, the only thing they can do is to focus on the present. In a more explicit sense, time passes quicker on Earth because there is day and night, and the people are able to sleep. There is a routine which makes life easier to live, instead of finding something new to do everyday. In hell, the people cannot sleep and the lights are always switched on. There is no escaping the present moment like we can on Earth.
Question 4 I believe that the valet doesn't have eyelids to show that he cannot escape from his reality. For the valet, it is being in hell. He needs to deal with it and Garcin realises this when he says, “ I’m to live without eyelids. Don’t act the fool, you know what i mean. No eyelids, no sleep; it follows, doesn't it? I shall never sleep again. But then- how shall I endure my own company?…Down there I had my nights. I slept. I always had good nights. By the way of compensation, I suppose. And happy little dreams…” (6). Similar to the concept of time passing slower in hell, not being able to sleep, adds to the agony. With the valet, Garcin feels like his gaze was uncomfortable. His eyelids are paralysed, it seemed to me that the valet just stared intently. He didn’t make any judgement because it did not matter. Inez on the other hand, was more active with her gaze. When Estelle says, “ …I’m going to smile, and my smile will sink down into your pupils, and heaven knows what it will become.”(21). Inez can think for herself. She doesn't reflect other people, she has her own interpretations. Instead of having a passive stare like the valet, Inez has an active stare.
Regarding question 12, Hell is not depicted as many people would imagine it to be like. Sartre states that there is Second-Empire styled furniture. Even Garcin is surprised by the furniture and does not like it very much. The Valet does not have eyelids, which was shocking to Garcin. I think this was shocking because this made him afraid of what he might look like now that he is dead and in hell. However, it is evident that there are no mirrors in hell. This gives the characters in the book a large feeling of suspicion towards their appearance. Many of the characters can not grasp the idea that they are dead and in hell. They often forget the fact. This becomes mainly apparent when Estelle tries to stab Inez, because she forgot that they were already dead.
Regarding question 9, human relationships were very prominent in this play. Inez wanted to be with Estelle but Estelle wanted to be with Garcin. There was a great deal of conflict within the personal relationships in this play. It somewhat relates backs to the idea that everyone wants what they can not have. It makes people strive to be better and can cause people to change a great amount. Many of the characters also have problems confessing about issues from their past life. This can relate to the audience in that everyone can struggle to tell the truth at some time in their life. It can be especially hard when trying to confess something troublesome to people you have barely met and therefore judgement is on the line.
1) Estelle is introduced as a character who thinks highly of herself and values materials; she is materialistic. She constantly needs to check her appearance, and values others based on their appearance. When she is first introduced to Inez and Garcin, one of the first things she says is that she cannot sit on her "couch" because it doesn't match the color of her dress. Even in hell, where appearance is the least of worries, she still stresses over hers. This hints at her life before death, and maybe as to why she was sent to hell. As to why there are no mirrors in the room, this for her specifically, could be a part of her hell; not knowing what she looks like and not being able to see herself ever again. It could also be a form of hell for the other two characters, as their appearance is solely based on what the other two see. Their physical body could have been changed and morphed to fit their reason for being in hell, so the constant stress is apparent, especially for Estelle. When Estelle uses Inez as a mirror, this again exemplifies her need to feel pretty and important. Even if not told, Estelle realizes that Inez likes her, so to use this for her advantage, she uses Inez as a mirror to boost her self-confidence. Not only does this make Inez an object in Estelle's eye, it also lowers Inez's self-esteem. Estelle has dominated herself over Inez, knowing that Inez thinks this is an amazing opportunity, but Estelle is the only one getting a benefit from this. Another take is that this is her refusal to accept fate and her hell.
3) Time passes more quickly on Earth than hell because this in itself is a form of hell. Inez, Estelle, and Garcin are able to see life on Earth while they're in hell. They are able to see loved ones or friends dealing with their deaths, and they are also able to see potential loves going after others. This is an example of torture for the characters. So much happens, yet they stand by unable to change anything. Time is so slow in hell because it causes those in it to suffer through every event, and to watch as time passes and people die. Since they will be dead forever, this "time" is really a continuum that never stops; in a way, it is like living a day for an infinite amount of time.
2. Estelle's attempt at killing Inez showed the absurdity of the situation and characterized Estelle. It showed the absurdity of the situation because the three of them are dead and the knife is paper, so the attempt is beyond futile, but it also shows how Estelle wants peace of mind and will do anything. Before Estelle attempts to stab Inez, she says, "Right! In that case, I'll stop her watching"(45). Estelle's quick thinking shows how little she thinks of the morals of her actions and jumps quickly to a solution regardless of if it is permissable.
3. Self deception in the play, "No Exit," is used to show how the truth will come out and that lying to oneself does not alleviate guilt. In his attempt to find peace, Garcin asks Inez to have faith in him and believe he is not a coward. It is ironic that as much as Garcin does not regret his cruelty towards his wife, he wants someone else to believe that he could be better. In this way, Garcin seems like a fraud, or as some might say, a phony. However, Garcin only wants someone else's faith once he believes that it will free him from hell, so in this way Garcin is unchanged from when he was alive in that he is very self serving.
Regarding question #3, in John Paul Sartre's play, No Exit, Garcin, Estelle, and Inez all establish that time moves slower in Hell than it does on Earth. The reason for this is because the three of them are in Hell because they are being punished for eternity because each one has committed a crime, involving the various people in their lives. On Earth, all three of them took their lives for granted, continuously hurting the people that they (supposedly) cared about, and therefore the lack of appreciation for what they had caused them to lose it, and only realize how valuable it was to them once they had lost it. In Hell, however, time passes by very slowly because the loss of their lives, due to the lack of appreciation they had for it, now condemns them to an eternity of longing for what they once had, and for what the people that they had hurt now have, with the exception of Estelle, who is in Hell for taking away the lives of others, however she also pays the price by being forced to forever watch her sister get what she had always wanted, the man whom she had affections for when she was still alive. Sartre uses irony in this way because Garcin, Estelle, and Inez all do terrible things in their lives in order to get some personal benefit from it, but the means by which they tried to get what they were after only got them eternal damnation. Each character must now suffer the consequences and watch as everything they had tried to do merely backfired, and even in death, everything on Earth happened as the rest of them had wished it had not.
To answer question 13, Hell is no more than a hotel room without windows. It is decorated with second-empire furniture to look like a drawing room. When Garcin first enters, he is obviously displeased by its appearance: “Still, I certainly didn’t expect--this!” (pg. 3, line 23). The true purpose of this hell begins to be exposed once Inez and Garcin meet. “I beg your pardon. Who do you suppose I am?” asks Garcin (pg. 8, line 21). Inez replies “You? Why, the torturer, of course.” (pg. 8, line 24). This serves as foreshadowing for what the three characters will later realize. Each character reacts differently once they realize they’re in Hell. Garcin seems almost disappointed at how there are no tools of physical torture. Inez easily comes to terms with being in Hell, but doesn’t quite understand that Garcin is not a physical torturer. Estelle thinks Garcin is a relative who lost his face. The substantial thing to understand is that Sartre does not have a dedicated torturer for the three characters-- their own human traits are enough to send them nearly insane. As for question 6, there are no real protagonists in the play. All three characters can be considered evil for their actions: Garcin was a deserter, Inez was a sadist and a cheater, and Estelle killed her child. They do all have conflicts they are trying to overcome, however-- each other. They were placed in the room together specifically to torture each other. They do not overcome this, though-- not traditionally. They merely accept the fact that they’ll be stuck in the same room for eternity.
In regards to question #2, Estelle tries to stab Inez because Inez threatens to watch her and Garcin be intimate with each other, despite Inez's attraction to Estelle. However, Estelle cannot handle this, and therefore tries to kill her. In the characterization of Estelle, this is a motif because in the beginning of the play, Estelle is forced to watch her sister dance, and win over, the man that she had wanted for herself when she was still alive. Estelle is immediately attracted to Garcin upon entering Hell, and subsequently tries to win him over. However, Inez being there reminds Estelle that every time she finds a man whom she likes, another woman is there to interfere with her forming a relationship with them, and although Inez is not attracted to men, she still reminds Estelle that she can never have someone to herself. Estelle is not able to maintain stable relationships with men, which causes her to long for someone to love, as she had once had, but every time she finds somebody, there is always something that takes him away from her, and now that she is in Hell, Estelle decides that she cannot take it anymore and that she deserves to have what she wants in death, because it was what caused her to end up in Hell in the first place. However, this attempt at trying to kill Inez is absurd because Inez does not pose a threat to Estelle, for Garcin admits to being attracted to Estelle. In addition, Inez does not even have any attraction towards Garcin, and Estelle does not reciprocate Inez's feelings for her, so her attempt at killing Inez is absurd, especially since they are already dead. The paper knife that Estelle uses has significance to it. The paper knife is left on the mantle to symbolize the essence of one's existence, which is reflected when Estelle tries to kill Inez, because they are already dead, but they still act like they are alive, therefore the essence of life is still there, despite these actions occurring in death.
“When I can't see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist. I pat myself just to make sure, but it doesn't help much…I've six big mirrors in my bedroom. There they are. I can see them. But they don't see me. They're reflecting the carpet, the settee, the window – but how empty it is, a glass in which I'm absent! When I talked to people I always made sure there was one near by in which I could see myself. I watched myself talking. And somehow it kept me alert, seeing myself as the others saw me…No, I can't do without a looking-glass for ever and ever. I simply can't” (25). Throughout the play, the audience gets the idea that Estelle wants to be turned into an object and lose her humanity. She strives to give up her freedom instead of trying to reclaim it. Her use of Inez as a mirror is just one example of her “bad faith.” She wants the mirrors to objectify her and relieve her of her role as a subject on earth and in hell. For example, her relationship with Garcin shows her longing to no longer be a subject. Jean Paul Sartre believed that sex, too, was in bad faith. When you desire someone, he said, it’s because you wish to turn them into an object. If you turn someone else into a sexual thing, you maintain your subjectivity and make them the object. However, if you also turn into a sexual being, you become an object as well. Although Estelle isn’t interested in Garcin in particular, it seems that any man will satisfy her. Estelle just needs a guy to desire her so she can become an object and be free of the responsibility of being a subject. Throughout the play her repeated pleas for Garcin to look at her, hold her, touch her, or want her have to do with this particular brand of bad faith.
The Stranger seems to convey the idea that passivity is an appropriate way to live one’s life. The narrator, Meursault, goes through life carelessly and almost cynically. On the long walk to his Maman’s funeral, a nurse tells him, “‘If you go slowly, you risk getting sunstroke. But if you go too fast, you work up a sweat and then catch a chill inside the church,’” and Meursault comments to himself, “She was right. There was no way out,” (Camus 17). Metaphorically stuck between a rock and a hard place, Meursault chooses to do nothing and just accepts it as it is. This indifference towards life reflects on the author’s belief of existentialism. Existentialism is the idea that there is no God or any meaning of life. It is apparent that Meursault shares the same belief as his author because he doesn’t seem to care about anything that happens to him, like his Maman dying. He even admits, “It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed,” (Camus 24). He treats the weekend of his Maman’s funeral as just “one more Sunday.” Even though he doesn’t narrate it, he seems like the guy that just shrugs all the time. Even when his girlfriend Marie proposes to him, he just goes, “…it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to,” (Camus 41). Meursault is so hung up on life not having any meaning that nothing phases him, and it’s really annoying.
ReplyDeleteI like how you point out that it is frustrating to read through Meursault's lack of actions.. Do you think that Camus meant to frustrate the reader with Meursault or show one outlook on life that should not be taken too far or..?
DeleteIn the novel, The Stranger by Albert Camus, there are many characters that play a role in Mersault’s life. In relation to Mersault, each individual has varied reasons for being in his life. For example, Raymond seems to appreciate Mersault because he has someone to speak to because he doesn't have many friends. Mersault says that, “generally speaking, he’s not very popular” (28) when talking about Raymond. Marie likes to be around Mersault, as written in, “after another moment’s silence, she mumbled that I was peculiar, that was probably why she loved me..” (42). Both of these characters are with him by choice.
ReplyDeleteMersault himself though doesn't think much of any of these relations. In regards to talking to Raymond, he says that, “I find what has to say interesting. Besides, I don't have any reason not to talk to him” (28). He didn't even realise Raymond considered Mersault to be his friend until Raymond explicitly stated, “Now you’re a pal Mersault” to which he reacted by thinking “and said it again that it struck me.” (33). With Marie, when she proposed to him he said that, “I answered the same way I had the last time, that it didn’t mean anything but that I probably didn't love her” (41). He later says he would have accepted a proposal from any woman he had a similar relation with.
All these individuals choose to be in Mersault’s company, there are no legal or blood ties binding them to stay together.However, his mother gave birth to him and raised him, and in society, parents usually support their children because they are their responsibility. It is almost forced so even if his mother did not want to be around Mersault, a parent-child relationship still exists. This may give it more value or truth but according to Mersault all his relationships are equal. He expresses his indifference in the last chapter when he says, “What did other people’s dreams or a mother’s love matter to me…” (121). My parents were responsible for my birth and they have taken care of me, which makes this relation more valid and of greater importance, contrary to what Mersault believes in.
Passivity becomes very evident early on in the book. The most evident example of passivity in this novel is Meursault's encountrance with Raymond. Very quickly, Meursault agrees to be pals with Raymond. He then tells Meursault the story of when his wife cheated on him and so he hit her. Raymond seems to be telling Meursault a lot about himself for only just becoming pals. We then learn that he was telling him all of this because he wants Meursault to write a letter for him, asking his wife to come back. When she comes back, he will sleep with her and then spit on her. Although this all seems pretty manipulative and impolite, Meursault agrees to help Raymond and write the letter. Raymond continues to seem as though he has control over Meursault, following this encounter. Even when Raymond hits his wife, Meursault still testifies to the police and helps his friend. Raymond manipulates Meursault to such an extent that Meursault seems to get more involved in Raymond’s conflicts than Raymond himself. This passivity caused Raymond to be insecure and bland. He refuses to show any emotion as he did not show any excitement when his boss offered him a job in Paris. He also neglects to tell Marie that he loves her which shows his insincerity towards major situations.
ReplyDeleteIn the novel The Stranger by Albert Camus, Mersault leads his life in such a way as to suggest passivity. He appears emotionless and neutral to many events that take place. Passivity is the act of letting others walk over you, or to not be assertive enough to stop them. What's more is that Mersault appears to be fine with this establishment. This is seen throughout the novel as Mersault is strung together with the fellow characters. For example, when Mersault returns home. When contemplating his trip he states, "Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed." (pg. 24) This comes across as passive, as a major thing in Mersault's life did occur; his mother died. However, he seems oblivious to this, and does not seem to be able to place a value on events. When discussing one of his neighbors, Raymond, Mersault mentions, "But he often talks to me and sometimes stops by my place for a minute, because I listen to him...besides, I don't have any reason not to talk to him." (pg. 28) Regardless of Raymond's reputation, Mersault doesn't appear to care. Passivity appears to affect many of the characters in one way or another; many remain neutral about an event. Remaining this way is an example of existentialism in that it doesn't matter what a person does, every human being will die. This also goes to show that Mersualt, especially, is not living his life to a full potential (something that goes against a factor of existentialism). Mersault is an example of not living ones' life to the fullest, and this serves a message to the reader to live their own life, and make their own decisions.
ReplyDelete“She said,’If you go slowly, you risk getting sunstroke. But if you go too fast, you work up a sweat and then catch a chill inside the church’ She was right. There was no way out” (17). Here the nurse is suggesting that the effects of the sun are inescapable. It seems that Meursault views the idea of life in a similar way. Similar to the sun at the funeral, death is inescapable and Meursault acts as if nothing is import because in the end he will die and none of it will have mattered. I disagree with the idea that in order to find true meaning in life you must reach a state of nothingness. Meursault seems to be living in this state of nothingness, however, I don’t think he is anywhere near finding meaning in life. It is hard to understand how someone could find the meaning to their life while at the same time they believe that their life is irrelevant. Much like the nurse’s statement about the lose-lose situation the weather has created during the funeral, Meursault views his daily life this way. He believes that the decisions he makes have no importance because he will die regardless. Essentially the only meaning Meursault could assign to his life would be that it is meaningless.
ReplyDeleteThe novel starts out with Meursalt’s indifference at his mother’s funeral and the anxiety it creates in everyone around him. We see it again at the trial, where Meursalt’s passivity towards his mother’s death is what ultimately turns the jury against him. People’s surprise and dismay at the beginning of the novel imply that they are judging him based on his indifferent and passive attitude. Meursalt is also indifferent towards Marie, who, of all of the characters, is the nicest to him. Even though he likes her and enjoys her company, he shows passivity towards her. When Marie asks Meursalt whether he wants to marry her, he states, “I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to. Then she wanted to know if I loved her. I answered the same way I had the last time, that it didn’t mean anything but that I probably didn’t love her…she just wanted to know if I would have accepted the same proposal from another woman, with whom I was involved in the same way. I said, ‘Sure’” (10). When Meursalt is in prison later on, he fantasizes about women without imagining Marie specifically, and is not disturbed when she stops writing. His emotional indifference contributes to his general sense of passivity. Lacking goals and desires of his own, Meursalt hardly ever cares how things turn out and acts to satisfy his immediate needs without any consideration to the future or thoughts of others. This passive identity seems to threated society and those around him throughout the book.
ReplyDeleteIn his novel, “The Stranger,” Albert Camus uses a lack of imagery and simple language to create a tone of calm and feeling of passivity on the part of Mr. Meursault.
ReplyDeleteAt one point, Meursault is hanging out with his friend Raymond. Camus writes that Raymond, “remarked how quickly the time passed, and in a way it was true. I felt sleepy, but it was hard for me to get up. I must have looked tired, because Raymond told me not to let things get to me”(33). Camus uses simple language to convey how Meursault does not involve himself with the complexity of emotions. The use of simple language, such as how Camus only notes the basic information(what was said and not much body language), creates a calm tone because it doesn't seem like there is very much going on. However, when it is clear to the reader that things are indeed happening, such as when Raymond beats his girlfriend, Camus continues to tell the reader only the most basic of information regarding the situation. This creates a feeling of passivity because the reader is not told of any emotional reaction on the part of Meursault.
As a side note:
Albert Camus comes from Burgundy, a region of France. Meursault is a town in Burgundy as well, with the name derived from “muris saltus”, the mouse leap, according to Wikipedia. This was because of a small stream that was easy to cross. This seems in line with the character Meursault because he is rather passive.
as in it was not difficult to cross the stream, and Meursault exhibited minimal effort throughout.
DeleteI did not know that! Yay, French! :)
DeleteIn Albert Camus' novel, The Stranger, the relationships between the characters are an important aspect of the story because they form the basis of the plot. Before the death of Maman, Meursault does not have very many relationships with other people, if any at all, because of his general emotional detachment towards people, even his own mother, as expressed in the opening lines of the book, "Maman died today. Or yesterday, maybe, I don't know...That doesn't mean anything..." (Camus, 1). While this seems like he is in a state of depression, his emotional detachment from his mother is revealed further into the story, as he described how his mother was happier in an elderly people's home instead of with him, therefore he didn't visit her, "...[M]uch this past year. And also because it took up my Sunday - not to mention the trouble of getting to the bus, buying tickets, and spending two hours traveling" (Camus, 5). This passage shows the reader that Meursault sees visiting his mother as a chore or obligation instead of genuinely seeing how she is. However, in a state of irony, Maman's death brings Meursault into the company of the caretaker. Although the caretaker does not significantly impact the story, Meursault's interaction with him shows that they become fairly acquainted with one another, shown through actions like Meaursault offering him a cigarette and the two of them smoking together, or the caretaker housing Meaursault for the night during his mother's funeral. However, although this tragic event becomes the basis for the relationships that Meaursault develops, his attitude towards his mother's death is complicated because he expresses different views about the way he feels about the event. He begins by treating it as just another Sunday, making it seem like he does not really care about his mother, followed by being unable to look at the opened casket with his mother lying inside, making it seem like he can't stand to see his mother that way, especially by describing previously that when he asked his boss for the day off, "...[I]t's almost as if Maman weren't dead" (Camus, 1). However, when the caretaker is taking Meaursault to his room, he notices the view of the country from his window, which he claims he, "...[C]ould feel how much I'd enjoy going for a walk if it hadn't been for Maman" (Camus, 12). This statement makes it seem that Meaursault is blaming his mother for dying, which is therefore making him lose interest in something that he takes pleasure in, once again highlighting the selfish aspects of his character. This selfishness comes from Meaursault's detachment from people, which causes him to be unaware of proper social etiquette, therefore being the reason that he has no personal relationships in the beginning of the book. However, Maman's death now throws him into a situation where he must form many new relationships, therefore being the basis of the story.
ReplyDeleteIn the novella “The Stranger” by Albert Camus, the idea of passivity is integral to the story. This goes hand-in-hand with similar conditions, such as apathy. Throughout the book, the main character Meursault makes numerous decisions based off of apathy, the most notable of which being the murder of the arab man without cause. It’s this passivity that draws him into so much trouble through the plot, and ultimately ends with his conviction and a death sentence.
ReplyDeleteMeursault’s passivity begins with the death of his mother. Camus does not hesitate to characterize him, as the opening paragraph reveals most of what we need to know about the main character. “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: ‘Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.’ That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.” This opening line puts Meursault’s apathy on full display, describing how much he cares for such a disparaging moment in anyone’s life. As the chapter goes on, this assumption by the reader is only supported as he shows apathy in the face of death while holding vigil over her body. He refuses to see her body one last time on multiple occasions and offers the caretaker a cigarette--something seen a s disrespectful to dead elders.
This passivity also lands him in trouble legally. Raymond Sintés, his neighbor, asks him over for dinner one night, where they discuss what to do about Raymond’s supposedly cheating girlfriend. Instead of questioning if the evidence is sound or denouncing his plan to beat her, he merely goes along with the plan. He seems to not have a true opinion on the matter, neither expressing distaste nor delight at the idea of beating the woman. He even testified as a witness for Raymond once the police became involved. However, it was how these past actions became involved in his court case that turned his passivity against him. All of the above actions and decisions by Meursault were used in his murder case by the prosecution to prove his lack of morality and justification for a death penalty. Overall, the idea of passivity is thought of similarly to indifference in Night, where one must always take a side in a dispute. In The Stranger, however, things end up a little differently. Instead of meursault being no different than the oppressor, he is now faced with the consequences of not caring for his actions. Being able to listen only helps you so long as you can form an opinion on it.
In Chapter 2, Meursault and Marie have a conversation in the jail where Meursault is staying which helped explain their odd relationship. Meursault tells the reader, “In fact, I wasn’t really in prison those first few days… It was only after Marie’s first and last visit that it all started” (72). At first, I found Meursault’s sadness over his lack of Marie to be strange—until that point, the way he demurred when she discussed the idea of marriage with him had not given much indication that he really cared about her as anything more than a warm body. But part of their dialogue helped me realize why Meursault’s apparent change of heart was not a change at all: “She shouted again, ‘You’ll get out and we’ll get married!’ I answered, ‘You think so?’ but it was mainly just to say something” (75). It was when I read this quote that I noticed a pattern in Meursault’s rejections: he rejected Marie when she talked about marriage, but it did not mean that he did not have feelings for her, but simply that he viewed as marriage as an unnecessary step in consummating his feelings. One of the key parts of existentialism is the rejection of societal labels, and marriage, at least to Camus, was simply a societal label placed on interpersonal relationships. It makes sense, then, that the main character of his philosophical manifesto would similarly reject marriage. After coming to this realization, I came to recognize that Meursault did love Marie, even from the start, and that the way I was reading into his rejection of marriage with her was completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe Myth of Sisyphus elicits the idea that happiness and absurdity are inseparable. This idea can be interpreted in many different ways. In the instance of Sisyphus, struggling to overcome a struggle can give someone happiness. The overwhelming challenge builds
ReplyDeletedetermination within oneself and allows them to eventually be at peace with himself. In the instance of everyday high school student, life is absurd. It is absurd that we were born in this exact time and into our exact family. It is also absurd that we were born in such an exact town where the friends we make shape who we are. If one little thing was a little different, our entire life would be completely different. Everyone must be content and find happiness in the fact that we were born in such an exact time and place. Everything could be so far off from what it is now and everyone should feel blessed that they have the opportunities that they have now. People should take the challenges that they face in life as an opportunity to grow as a person, just as Sisyphus did. With every difficult situation comes a positive outcome and a learning experience. Sometimes people must grow the hard way by learning from their mistakes. Mistakes and the need to overcome a challenge is inevitable. Everyone must find positivity and happiness from every absurd situation and learn how to better themself from it.
The myth of Sisyphus brings up some interesting points that can be traced to The Stranger, and Camus' perception of absurdity. Sisyphus appears to have strong free-will, as he refused to go back to the underworld, even though the gods were telling him just that. This also showed his lack of respect/belief in these gods. Both qualities are examples of existentialism; no religion and free-will. Camus believed that with Sisyphus, he was still able to make his own decisions without conforming to society, but his task he had to repeat everyday was what caused him sadness. This part I agree with, because we see this in The Stranger with Mersault. When looking at Mersault, though, there are some apparent differences. He first has little free-will; he lets other characters talk to him, lead him, and persuade him to do things that he could've disagreed with. Instead he remains impassive and goes along with the crowd;he conforms to society. Secondly, Mersault does not seem to thoroughly enjoy life. Events that happen around him have little effect, and events that happen to him, specifically the death of his mother and his relationship with Marie, he appears indifferent or emotionless about. He simply exists, without having any reaction to anything. This is an example of the darker existentialism ideals; how life is absurd, and everyone will eventually die.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the way Meursault only follows and leads an unfulfilling life is like Govinda except that Govinda had more morals and eventually was able to take a step on his own?
DeleteThe myth of Sisyphus is an interesting comparison to “The Stranger” because Sisyphus is anything but a person who lives his life passively. Sisyphus angers multiple Gods and is punished by rolling a rock to the top of a mountain repeatedly forever. Albert Camus says that the myth is tragic because the hero is conscious. Sisyphus hates his punishment because he knows there is no hope and yet he must continue. Camus compares Sisyphus’ task of forever moving a rock to the top of a mountain to a person with repetitive lifestyle that only distresses the person when they realize what they could have. In pop culture, it’s said that few people live, most people merely exist. For example, many people who travel often and experience new things frequently are many happy. In contrast, there is no large improvement in happiness based on income after a certain point. Although Sisyphus did anger the Gods, he did not want a repetitive lifestyle. The fact that Sisyphus meant to do things with his life separates him from Mr. Meursault. Both characters ended up being punished severely for their actions, but, according to Camus, stand in stark contrast of each other because they chose different ways to deal with the absurdity of life. Camus believed that there were three options to deal with the absurd, and simply existing was philosophical suicide. Sisyphus would have fallen into the category of acceptance because, despite being a mortal, he tries to do meaningful things in his life, even against the wills of various Gods. On the other hand, Mr. Meursault committed philosophical suicide by other people’s morals to rule his actions.
ReplyDeleteIn the essay, Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus discusses the tale of Sisyphus and his personal philosophy. The character of Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure because like everybody, he is the master of his fate. In my interpretation, throughout the essay Camus discusses how we as individuals are responsible for our fate, and what becomes of it is due to our actions in the past. When we are in misery and happiness, we are to blame because we bring it upon ourselves, and happiness comes when this is accepted. Sisyphus is an embodiment of modern man. Everyday he needs to push a rock up a hill that will eventually tumble down, but that is his life and he is content with it. Similar to the modern human, which as Camus states, “The workman of today works everyday at his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd”. Both the workman and Sisyphus’s actions don't matter because they are meaningless, but each person has found meaning within them.
ReplyDeleteA line which was striking to me was, “But crushing truths perish from being acknowledged” because this is applicable for Meursalt too. In terms of Sisyphus, Camus says that he felt extreme sorrow and grief when he remembered memories of happiness or things that were important to him which he can no longer access. For Meursalt, there may be a chance that he too was devastated by the death of his mother, but as the quote says, he ignored the truth so he could continue living his life. In the book there is a line which says, “He (Salamano) he supposed I must be very sad sine Maman died, and I didn't say anything.” (45). Meursalt understands that everyone must die eventually, the way they die or their age doesn't matter as read in, “ He asked me if I wasn't too tired and he also wanted to know Maman’s age. I said, “About sixty,” so as not to make a mistake; and I don't know why, but he seemed to be relieved somehow and to consider the matter closed.” (25). Usually people find it more impactful or hurtful when someone younger dies because they had their whole life ahead of them. We place importance on the amount of years they have lived, but as Meursault says in the last chapter, it is all of equal significance/insignificance. Sisyphus and Meursault realise that there is no point is being caught up in the past, because it cannot be changed and they understand that what occurred, happened due to the person’s own actions.
From what I have understood, I generally agree with Camus’ hypothesis. However, there is one part I find contradictory because he says that, “His fate belongs to him” and how we decide what happens, whether it be good or bad but later he says, “There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night”. He says this with certainty but if we are in charge of our own fate, maybe some people live lives full of happiness while others of sadness. If everyone’s fate is uncertain, how can he be sure that one must experience sadness in order to be happy? Our perceptions of what is bad and good, depend a lot upon our experiences and personalities, so stating that it is essential to know the night while many may not know it, is contradictory to me.
You made an interesting point when you said that Meursault ignores his mother's death to be able to move on with his life. However, if he needed to do so in order to move on, why didn't Meursault have more emotion towards it that he needed to overcome to continue? I also like how you pointed out issues in Camus' hypothesis.
DeleteIt is hard to compare Sisyphus to Meursault because even though they both exemplify existentialism, they chose different paths for the absurdity of life. First of all, only one of them truly has free will. After Sisyphus gets permission to leave the Underworld to go chastise his wife, he gets distracted by the beautifies of nature and refuses to go back to the darkness of the Underworld. This defiance symbolizes his free will. In Meursault’s case, he is easily persuaded by others’ opinions and actions instead of just deciding things for himself like one would if they had free will. Meursault’s inability to make decisions could also be because of his passivity towards life, which is another reason he is different from Sisyphus. Sisyphus isn’t a passive person because his punishment of rolling the rock up the hill only for it to roll back after he finished made him sad; a passive person wouldn’t be phased by such hopeless labor. Under The Absurd, life is meaningless and one can either kill themselves (cowardly), turn to God (philosophical suicide), or just accept it. Sisyphus seemed to accept it as he continues to roll the rock up the hill over and over for eternity, while Meursault has committed philosophical suicide by letting others control him. The only comparison I can give Sisyphus and Meursault is they were both brutally punished for their actions.
ReplyDeleteI like how you point out that between Meursault and Sisyphus, only one of them really has free will. However, I thought it was interesting that you thought Sisyphus has more free will than Meursault, considering that even though Meursault is persuaded by what other people say easily, he can still turn away from what other people say, whereas Sisyphus was punished by the gods later. What do you think about Meursault having more free will because he believes that existence is pointless, while Sisyphus has to work to please the gods, therefore his fate is not really his own?
DeleteIn his literary thesis, author Albert Camus writes about the mythological Sisyphus and about how he influences his view of existentialism. However, The Stranger's Meursault is difficult to compare to Sisyphus because they are stark contrasts of one another. One major difference between these two characters is that despite Meursault behaving heavily off of what other people say to him, this is because the basis of his actions is his belief that life is meaningless and that there is no point to his existence, therefore he only does things that people influence him to do in order to carry himself out throughout his life. This kind of behaviour is the complete opposite of that of Sisyphus, whose daily conduct revolves around pleasing the gods of Greek mythology, therefore showing that he knows that he is going somewhere after death, which differs heavily from Meursault's view that God is a waste of time, as expressed in chapter of five of part 2, when he describes how the chaplain, "...[W]anted to talk to me about God again, but I went up to him and made one last attempt to explain to him that I only had a little time left and I didn't want to waste it on God" (Camus, 120). Despite both characters being punished for the crimes that they committed, even the punishments that they receive show how different they are. Sisyphus is condemned to rolling a giant boulder up a hill, only for it to roll back down and having to carry it back up, while Meursault is merely given the death penalty. Even in the end, these two characters heavily contrast with one another.
ReplyDeleteIn Albert Camus’ exposition “The Myth of Sisyphus,” he writes about futile labor and the absurd in the context of a prominent figure in Greek mythology: Sisyphus. The poor man was condemned for eternity to push a boulder all the way to the top of a hill, only to have it roll back to the bottom. He described how the absurd is much like trying to roll that boulder to the top of the hill-- working pointlessly to put meaning into a life without meaning, only to have the weight of it all crush you on the way down just as you think you’ve reached the end.
ReplyDeleteWhat caught my attention the most, however, was when Camus went into the detail of describing Sisyphus’ situation as the boulder was rolling down the hill. He is conscious during this time, able to think of something other than the rock he must endlessly push to the top of the hill. Camus describes him as “superior to his fate” and “stronger than his rock.” At this point, he is-- he has the high ground on the origin of his suffering. He can turn his back on all of the pain, yet he doesn’t. The authority of the gods is too threatening--somewhat similar to the way we obey our figures of authority, even if they don’t work for the greater good. According to Camus, the myth is so tragic because Sisyphus is conscious of all of this. However, this is the way many of us carry out our lives-- ceaselessly toiling away at futile labor in the vain hope it may reward us.
The myth of Sisyphus tells the tale of never ending suffering. Sisyphus is taken to the underworld after his death, where he is given the task of pushing a stone up a mountain. However once he reaches the top, the stone rolls back down and he must try again. From an existential view, this myth is incredibly similar to the idea of life on Earth. Life is filled with never ending suffering until death comes. Nothing that Sisyphus does matters because he cannot do anything to stop the suffering. Similarly, nothing we humans do on Earth can affect our outcome of death in the end. This myth and the idea of existentialism correlate to Meursault's actions in “The Stranger”. There is rarely any emotion at all in his personality because he has accepted this idea that nothing he does matters. He recognizes his ultimate fate of death and has made the assumption that nothing can change this fate, therefore nothing that happens while he is alive matters. Meursault and Sisyphus are very different however. Even after the stone rolls down the mountain, Sisyphus walks back down and gives it another try. The persistence of Sisyphus to achieve his task suggests that he believes there is something more for him other than the endless labor he has been struggling through. On the other hand, Meursault seems to have given up on life as he believes nothing can change his future.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at “The Stranger” and “the Myth of Sisyphus,” Albert Camus addresses idea of fate and consciousness through Sisyphus and Meursault. By the ability to recognize his past, Sisyphus shows how Meursault lacks unhappiness. Meursault has nothing to compare his feeling of pleasure with, so he is continually content and always happy. However, Sisyphus understands his past but chooses not to compare it to the present or future. When the priest asks Meursault if he would prefer a different life to his own, he remarks he wants a life “where I could remember this one.” Camus has defined supreme knowledge through his theme about consciousness. The common principle that depicts this lack of consciousness is that we cannot experience anything from a perspective other than our own. If we could be sure of someone else’s present mental state as it related to our own, we could confirm not only existence, but find true knowledge as well. Meursault exists only in the present, and it is only the society that he lives in that forces him to have a connection to his past actions. Similarly, Sisyphus is forced to roll the boulder up the hill every day because of his past actions. In Meursault’s relation to society, however, he would prefer to treat the past as unstable and society must hold him accountable for it. What Camus is trying to say is that everyone, no matter how they are condemned, is responsible for their own actions. The frustration of Meursault’s character is that we cannot truly know that these actions ever really existed. So it is because we have a consciousness that we are held accountable for our past, but because we are conscious, we can confront death.
ReplyDeleteThe efforts of Albert Camus greatly contributed to the progress and influence of the philosophy of absurdism; a set of beliefs that imply that a human cannot express the meaning of anything. His views emphasized how the absurd is a result from human inclination for control and the indifference of the universe. And in order to respond to the situation, a person has three choices; physical suicide, philosophical suicide and acceptance of the absurd. However, while Camus rejected physical suicide as a cowardly solution, he saw philosophical suicide, a more religious option, as simply undesirable. This is because he viewed the absurd as concrete and inevitable, so seeking hope in a supernatural solution only evades the problem and defeats reason; similar to physical suicide. With this, Camus believed the only way to avoid philosophical suicide was to accept and embrace absurdity: finding security in religion, or even death, only interferes with the reality of the absurd. For example, in the myth of Sisyphus, a man was punished with the task of pushing a boulder up a hill for eternity, only to have it roll back down to the bottom. Sisyphus represents the acceptance of the absurd as he continues to live his life, exerting himself over an unavoidable task, while accomplishing nothing.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteRegarding question 4, Meursault greatly evolves throughout the book. Meursault does not believe in God, and for that he receives a lot hatred. The magistrate tells him that his life has no meaning because he chooses to believe in God. They also repeatedly ask Meursault if he was sad when his mother died. He responds that he did love his mother but that did not mean anything. These responses are proving that Meursault does not like to get involved or care about many things in life. This gives explanation to many things that took place in the first part of the book. He neglects to say he loves Marie back because he never let himself get fully involved in the relationship. He lives life just making it to the next day, without feeling any excitement or sorrow, even in big situations. He lack of involvement is proven once more when he begins to daydream while his lawyer speaks. This was a very pivotal moment in his life, yet he continued to not show interest and daydream. The only time Meursault truly begins to think about things thoroughly is when he begins to face the concept of death, and death becomes a reality for him. This goes back to the idea that death may be one’s most authentic moment in life. At the end of the novel, Meursault comes to peace with his fate and realizes that everyone dies at some point, so what is the difference between dying now through execution or many years later. However, as he finally begins to put thought into something, he realizes that he can live for many more years if he can get freedom and change the circumstance of his death. As Meursault finally thinks about situations in his life, he faces a great deal of internal conflict.
To answer question nine, Absurdist philosophy is a way to show the existentialism prevalent in The Stranger. This role is played by Mersault, a character who begins to change his views on the world in the end, but who in the beginning lives life without very much meaning. The book overall is another great example of absurdity. In the novel, it affects the reader's ability to concentrate on anything else, so they must focus on this key feature. With freedom, existentialism is strong about free-will, yet in the novel, Mersault lives his life through others, and doesn't seem able/to care about making his own decisions. Therefore, freedom feels constricted and the reader feels as though Mersualt is holding them back. Rational thoughts appear to be quite clear in the book. There are no what if's or sugar coating in the book; everything appears blunt, just like aburdist philosophy. The world has no meaning is quite frank and doesn't seem to soften the blow to reality, which is similar to the situation in The Stranger. Because of this, irrational thoughts do not really appear, as Mersault knows what life is and doesn't need a nicer explanation. In terms of happiness, this book lacks the optimism and positivity that others have, but this is because of the philosophical belief that there is no meaning in the world, and that life is meaningless in itself. Therefore, there appears to be no reason to search for it.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the course of the book, we see Meursault develop from being an indifferent and detached character into a more accepting and inquisitive one. One example of his lack of emotional connection to the world around him can be seen in his relationship with women. The first few lines of the novel state, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know” (1). The fact that Meursault doesn’t even seem to care that is own mother is dead shows how distant from his life he really is. Even in his interactions with Marie, it is obvious that he does not return her affection. He treats her well, but with little actual interest. He also has an indifferent attitude towards religion, believing that he is essentially alone and there is no God that exists. While visiting with the chaplain, Meursault says, “What did other people’s deaths or a mother’s love matter to me; what did his God or the lives people choose or the fate they think they elect matter to me when we’re all elected by the same fate, me and billions of privileged people like him who also call themselves my brothers?” (115). Meursault says that one person’s death does not stand out since each one is the same and all of them are meaningless. The idea of afterlife has completely evaded his way of thinking, and only in part two do we start to see Meursault start to question what he truly knows. This also encompasses his ideas about death; while he believes that death is inevitable, he does not believe that death is something to be feared or focused on, as with life itself.
ReplyDeletePersonally I disagree with number ten because having a positive effect on other people is something that is important to me. I believe that even the most selfish person would have trouble making decisions solely on what is important for themselves while disregarding everyone else’s needs. Even Meursault who seems to care about nothing, shows a couple signs that the needs of others somewhat matter to him. We see this when Raymond asks him whether he thinks his girlfriend cheated on him or not. Meursault thinks, “He [Raymond] asked if I thought she was cheating on him, and it seemed to me she was; if I thought she should be punished and what I would do in his place, and I said you can't ever be sure, but I understood his wanting to punish her” (1.3.110). The fact that Meursault forms the opinion that it is likely Raymond’s girlfriend cheated on him, but does not say this out loud suggests he is protecting her from Raymond. Another time the reader sees this from Meursault is when Marie asks him if he wants to get married. He replies that he does not mind but he will marry her if that is what she wants. We know that Meursault does not seem to care about much of anything, but it is interesting that he is trying to please Marie rather than simply replying that he does not care. It seems to me that the only time a way of life such that one only cares about themselves could exist would be in a survival situation where the person values their own life above the people around him.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to question ten, religion and faith have their part to play towards the end of the novel, after Meursault is arrested for murder. Due to Meursault's beliefs in absurdity, his thoughts on religion are that it is manmade, and therefore rather believes that there is nothing that happens after death. Further more, Meursault also believes that religion causes people to act strange, as shown when the magistrate tries to threaten Meursault with the punishment of going to hell if he does not except God before death, waving a silver crucifix over him, like a weapon. Despite the waving of the crucifix being meant to lure Meursault to except God, the only thing he thinks of it is that the Magistrate looks crazy in his futile attempt. Camus also uses the motif of religion as a means of guilt, as expressed when the magistrate chides Meursault for not "weeping in guilt" as the criminals did when seeing the image of Christ suffering, claiming that he'd, "...[N]ever met a soul as hardened as yours." The magistrate tries to make Meursault feel guilty by speaking ill of his character in order to bruise Meursault's ego to get him to accept religion. These two examples show how religion is a big part of the society they live in, therefore prisoners are pushed to accept Christianity before death because the people genuinely believe that they will face eternal damnation if they do not. However, Meursault's views make up such a large part of his mentality that he is unwilling to compromise his beliefs, and still refuses to do so in the end. This illustrates how beliefs in religion and faith have such an active part in the story.
ReplyDelete10) Under The Absurd, religion is philosophical suicide because one is attempting to create meaning to a meaningless world. In Part II, the clerk asks Meursault if he is religious and simply says no. The clerk is outraged and preaches at him, and Meursault pretends to look like he’s agreeing only to say no again. Meursault is so ingrained on life being meaningless that believing in God is just false hope. We see Meursaults lack of faith later when the chaplain tries to get through to Meursault, only to get annoyed at his stubbornness. “‘Have you no hope at all? And do you really live with the thought that when you die, you die and nothing remains?’ ‘Yes,’ I said.” (Camus 177). An afterlife doesn’t mean anything to him because the life he’s living now already lacks meaning. Meursault is later asked by the chaplain if he’s ever wished for another life, and he says yes but it “didn’t mean any more than wishing to be rich, to be able to swim faster, or to have a more nicely shaped mouth. It was all the same,” (Camus 119). To Meursault, life, an afterlife, and a hypothetical different life are all as meaningless as wishing for materialist things like money. I believe Camus focused on the topic of religion—or lack there of—to show the similarities between The Absurd ideals to atheism.
ReplyDeleteAbsurdist philosophy plays a very important part in the first half of Albert Camus’ The Stranger. The general idea behind absurdist philosophy is that life has no meaning initially, so one must give their life meaning. Camus shows how Meursault’s brand of absurdist philosophy and they way he goes about life, but this existentialist thinking sows the seeds for his demise later in the book. Meursault’s own philosophy follows the famous existentialists’ opinions on the absurd, and he does not try to put any meaning to his mother’s death or his observations of the people on Sunday-- he merely accepts what happens and moves on. For example a quote from chapter 2 states “It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed at all.” In this quote, Meursault essentially puts all of the tiring events of the weekend out of his mind. He does not let his thoughts linger on his late mother-- he accepts the fact that she’s gone without trying to figure out how she died or what he’ll do without her. However, this is pretty easy for him to do-- he has been living on his own for a while after sending her to the elderly home. Through latter part of chapter 2, he observes the people walking through the street below. Nowhere in his description does he judge, condemn, nor assume anything about these people. Existentialist thinking can free a person from futile labor, as evident in “The Myth of Sisyphus.” To the layperson, though, it may seem cruel or inhuman as proved later in the book. To the majority of us, it doesn’t make any sense. Then again, neither does life.
ReplyDeleteThe quote is from pg 24
DeleteAlbert Camus uses the passive actions of Mr. Meursault to demonstrate the dangers of passivity in the face of absurdism. It is arguable that Mr. Meursault's passivity is not acceptance of the absurdity but is philosophical suicide in the way that Mr. Meursault allows other people's values and opinions to drive his actions. In this way, Meursault is the ultimate follower because he will take responsibility for actions and pay no attention to if someone else motivated him to do it.
ReplyDeleteIn the first portion of the novel, Meursault writes a letter for his neighbor Raymond to a girl that supposedly cheated on Raymond. Raymond wanted to punish the girl, but, “… he didn't think he could write the kind of letter itwould take him and that he'd thought of asking me[Meursault] to write it for him. Since I didn't say anything, he asked if I'd mind doing it right then and I said no”(32). Meursault, despite saying that he was unsure about the situation, consented to write the letter for Raymond because he didn't have a reason to go against Raymond. However, it could be considered that Meursault is going against the girl that Raymond wants to beat up. Thus, Meursault's passivity is costing him true neutrality.
In the second portion of the novel, Mr. Meursault is in prison and finds it tedious that there is nothing to do. Camus writes that Meursault, “… didn't sleep well at night and not at all during the day. Little by little, my nights got better and I[Meursault] was able to sleep during the day, too. In fact, during the last few months I've been sleeping sixteen to eighteen hours a day. That would leave me six hours to kill with meals, nature's call, my memories, and the story about the Czechoslovakian”(79). Although in some ways, it seems Meursault has become less passive in the second half of the novel, Meursault also seems to have found new ways to avoid having to do anything. I'm not sure where I'm going with this.
Question 4
ReplyDeleteIn The stranger, Meursault’s characterisation mainly occurs through his thoughts and feelings. The biggest change I noticed was his opinion and realisation towards death. At the beginning of the novel, Meusault says that, “For now, it’s almost as if Maman wasn't dead.After the funeral, though, the case will be closed, and everything will have a more official feel to it.” (3). He doesn’t realise the implications because its the same as him living away from his mother. They hardly see each other so his daily routine doesn't change. However, in part 2 Meursault says that, “I was forced to admit,however, that from the moment it had been passed its consequences became as real and as serious as the wall against which I pressed the length of my body.” (110). Even though this statement was in regards to him being convicted, it can be applied to his initial reaction towards his mother’s death. His mother’s death was real from the moment he received the letter, not after her burial occurred. His thoughts regarding death and his understanding is made clear when he says, “Deep down I knew perfectly well that it doesn't much matter whether you die at thirty or at seventy, since in either case other men and women will naturally go on living-and for thousands of years” (114). He doesn't see himself as a special individual but as someone who is part of the human species. Everybody is the same because we all belong to the same species. It doesn't matter if we die or not because the human race still continues.
From my understanding, his attitude towards women remains static throughout the novel. He sees them as objects or as physical beings who he can gain something from. Whenever he talks about women, Meursault doesn’t really talk about their personalities. He likes Marie because of her smile or the pretty sun dress she wears, he doesn't discuss her interior traits. This makes sense according to his way of life, since everyone is the same, their personality doesn't matter. In part 2 he says that, “I never thought specifically of Marie. But I thought about so much about a woman, about women, about all the ones I had known, about all the circumstances in which I had enjoyed them, that my cell would be filled with their faces and crowded with my desires” (77). His natural human desires or experiences usually overpower his emotions which is seen throughout the book. This can be perceived as a very primal way of living.
Lastly, in terms of God, his views don't change very much either. When asked why he didn't believe in God he says, “He wanted to know if I was sure and I said that i didn't see any reason to ask myself that question: It seemed unimportant.” (116) and later when talking to the chaplain he says that,“As for me, I didn't want anybody’s help, and I just didn't have the time to interest myself in what didn't interest me.” (117). I think this contradicts his earlier statements about death because he says, “Whether it was now or twenty years from now, I would still be the one dying” (114). If time doesn't matter to him, or the age at which he dies, he does have enough time to interest himself. Along with that, he implies that he sees himself as “other men”, which is a rather humanistic approach but then he says that he doesn't want anybody’s help. By saying this, he detaches himself from this race and it contradicts what he implies before.
The religious confrontation between the magistrate and Meursualt in chapter one convey the message of philosophical suicide in an attempt to refute absurdism. In this chapter, the magistrate pressures Meursault into accepting Christ as his savior, and yet, much to his dismay, Meursault refuses; in fact, he doesn't even believe in God. To his reply, the magistrate says that, "all men believed in God...that was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt it, his life would become meaningless"( 69). This quote demonstrate Camus' views of peoples' attempts to avoid acceptance of a non-meaningless life. As an alternative to committing physical suicide, they seek God for guidance in what Camus calls "philosophical suicide". The magistrate has committed just that and believes that God is what provides meaning to life. When the magistrate asks Meursault if he wants his [the magistrate's] life to be meaningless, Meursault answers that he doesn't really care as it has nothing to do with him. This only serves to further anger the magistrate and become more insistent. This is representative of how people latch onto their beliefs and opinions of life's meaning and are unable to accept that life in fact has no meaning in a form of "absurdist" denial. People cannot comprehend this notion and do not want to even consider it because they fear to face that realization. At the end of the chapter, the judge dismissed Meursault with, "That's all for today, Monsieur Antichrist" (71). Even though he says this in a joking manner, this shows how Meursault is vilified for not believing in God. He is not just an atheist, he is called an "antichrist" like he opposes God. This relates to philosophical suicide and absurdism as Meursault is rejected for his own non-religious ideas to which the rest of society cannot fathom. The judge, a symbol of justice and morality, even considers Meursault an anomaly who is considered 'ill' for not blindly following in an absurd world.
ReplyDeleteTo answer questio five, isolation and acceptance are both relevant in the novel, but indifference occurs at the beginning, and acceptance takes place later. In many ways indifference leads to consequences, and from that consequence stems acceptance. We see this specifically with Mersault and how he reacts to events in the beginning of The Stranger. When reconciling about his mothers death, Mersault states," Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know." (Pg 1) This is an example of indifference. It doesn't sound like he's accepted his mother's death, but really has no emotional attachment to it or cares. Mersault at the beginning perfectly embodies what not to do according to existentialism. It is not okay to submit to the absurdity and mundane, but rather to accept it and move on while trying to find meaning to your own life. Later on in the book, Mersault changes from indifference to acceptance and begins to see details and events he would've overlooked. While he was in prison, Mersault realized, "there were others worse off than me." (Pg 77)He was able to realize that despite the wrong he had done, and the consequences he had to face, he still was alive. He had found meaning to his life, and he was able to accept what his punishments and limitations were.
ReplyDeleteFor my two passages, I will compare part of the final passage in part 1 between the French and the English translation. When comparing the French and the English, it was difficult to find an appropriate passage as the translation is of quality and I had to look up a lot of words to be better able to compare the two.. I apologize in advance for the size of the text below. Sentences correlate for the most part, except the first two in French equal the first one in English.
ReplyDeleteCamus wrote:
À cause de cette brûlure que je ne pouvais pas supporter. Je savais que c'était stupide, que je ne me débarrasserais pas du soleil en me déplaçant d'un pas. Mais j'ai fait un pas, un seul pas en avant. Et cette fois, sans se soulever, l'Arabe a tiré son couteau qu'il m'a présenté dans le soleil. La lumière a giclé sur l'acier et c'était comme un lone lame étincelante qui m'atteignait au front. Au même instant, la sueur amassée dans mes sourcils a coulé d'un coup sur les paupières et les a recouvertes d'un voile tiède et épais. Mes yeux étaient aveuglés derrière ce rideau de larmes et de sel… Cette épée brûlante rongeait mes cils et fouillait mes yeux douloureux… Et c'était comme quatre coups brefs que je frappais sur la porte du malheur. (93)
The corresponding text in English:
It was this burning, which I couldn't stand anymore, that made me move forward. I knew that it was stupid, that I wouldn't get the sun off me by stepping forward. But I took a step, one step, forward. And this time, without getting up, the Arab drew his knife and held it up to me in the sun. The light shot off the steel and it was like a long flashing blade cutting at my forehead. At the same instant the sweat in my eyebrows dripped down over my eyelids all at once and covered them with a warm, thick film. My eyes were blinded behind the curtain of tears and salt… The scorching blade slashed at my eyelashes and stabbed at my stinging eyes… And it was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness.(59)
Camus uses burning diction to create a tone of conflict and a feeling that it is uncomfortably warm. The author uses brûlure(burn, burning/noun) and brûlante(burning/adjective) to emphasize the heat and conflict of the moment. It is interesting that the translator chose to translate brûlante to scorching because burning and scorching are very similar, but one provides for repeating diction.
Furthermore, Camus writes, “Cette épée brûlante rongeait mes cils et fouillait mes yeux douloureux”(93). The term épée is usually used to refer to a sword. It is interesting that Camus used the term for a sword when he previously referred to the Arab having a knife(couteau), showing how Meursault is not thinking properly and the knife is disproportionally large in his mind. Furthermore, Camus uses imagery when he writes of the knife eating through Meursault's eyelashes and searching his (stinging/painful) eyes. Camus uses this imagery to suggest that Meursault feels attacked. To the reader, it seems perfectly logical that the Arab should feel defensive after being threatened earlier.
In addition, Camus writes that Meursault knocked on the door of unhappiness. The term in french, malheur, can also have the implication of bad luck, which fits in with how Meursault lives his life by the values and priorities of others, and, in this way, had the bad luck of following Raymond.
I like how you chose to evaluate the original alongside the translation. The French version seems to contain more subtleties than the American version, such as using épée instead of a more appropriate word for a knife. One question I have is why do you think Matthew Ward's translation does not contain more of these subtleties in English? For example, he could have used "dagger" or simply "blade" to describe the knife and convey the same message you say Camus is. My second question is how would you translate the passage from French to English if you were trying to stay as faithful as possible to the original work?
DeleteTo begin, Camus does use the term for knife a few times in the passage and even says that the sunlight is "spattering" off the steel, so Camus does vary his terminology a bit. I think I would change it to have the burning diction repeating as in the original. I would also consider changing how it says that the light shot off the steel because in the original, it uses the verb gicler(which I looked up and it means spattered), which I think creates very different imagery and makes Meursault seem more confused..
Delete
ReplyDelete“Then I smoked a few cigarettes, still in bed, till noon. I didn’t feel like having lunch at Celeste’s like I usually did because they’d be sure to ask me questions and I don’t like that. I fixed myself some eggs and ate them out of the pan, without breads because I didn’t have any left and didn’t feel like going downstairs to buy some” (21).
“I feel that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, 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” (123).
In the first passage, Meursault's lethargic personality is evident. He lives life by barely getting through each day. He lives life barely putting in any emotion or getting involved in anything. He explains that he did not cry at his mom’s funeral because he feels that that would be an insult to her because she lived a happy and content life. However this greatly differs from Meursault's death. In the second passage we see that he wants people to be there when he gets executes. He has come to terms with his death and realizes that death is the one thing that is certain in life, death is inevitable. He figures that if he is going to die through execution, he might as well die properly. With execution, those watching must feel deep hatred towards the person being executed. That is why he states that he only hopes to see all his spectators crying tears of hate. In the first passage, meursault's passive personality is very evident. However by the end of the book he has come accepted his fate and sees himself as a happy person. He is beginning to understand the universe. He now sees that he is similar to the universe in that they both don’t care about what happens in life.
There were two passages that I was interested in through The Stranger: the very beginning and the very end. Based on how Meursault matures through the plot, examining and comparing these two passages should reveal just how extensively the contrast between his original and matured philosophical beliefs really is.
ReplyDeleteThe first passage reads from the sentence “Maman died today,” all the way to “...and everything will have a more official feel to it” (pg. 3). Through this passage, Meursault speaks only about the impression of his surroundings on him. This is due to his acceptance of the absurd and his understanding that there is no meaning to these actions, so therefore there is no reason to rationalize them. His only mention of any emotions is when he says “But he wasn’t too happy about it,” in reference to the two days off he is asking for to attend Maman’s funeral (pg. 3). The rest of the descriptions through this passage feel passive and apathetic. Camus conveys this idea through the descriptive diction he uses-- or lack thereof. There are no examples of vivid imagery or colorful diction to be found, providing only a bare-bones summary of the day. This makes it sound as if Meursault does not care about what is going on around him-- a theme to his early philosophy.
The second passage I chose was also the last paragraph of the book. On pages 122 and 123, it went from “With him gone, I was able to calm down again,” to “...and that they greet me with cries of hate.” One obvious difference with this passage is that Camus is using diction and imagery to paint a picture, something that was painfully lacking in the beginning of the story. Some examples include how he “threw” himself on his bed, or how he awoke “with the stars in his face,” just to name a few (pg. 122). However, he still does not attempt to explain these phenomena. This is very similar to a more mature existentialist philosophy, where though life has no inherent meaning (and therefore there is no reason to explain it), there is still every opportunity for one to put meaning into his or her own life (much like how Camus now uses the imagery to define Meursault’s image). He also is no longer indifferent to what goes on around him. He begins to wonder what Maman would have felt when she died, coming to the conclusion that “Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again” (pg. 122). When these two passages are compared, it shows just how much Meursault changes-- he goes from indifferent and apathetic, almost nihilistic in the beginning to passionate, caring, and accepting towards the end, truly showing a maturing of his existential philosophy.
Throughout both parts one and two of “The Stranger,” Albert Camus uses heat imagery and diction along with metaphors and similes when describing Meursault’s emotional state in order to show the progression of his character and how accepting one’s fate is essential in an ideal life.
ReplyDeleteThe first passage I chose was from the very end of part one where Meursault kills the Arab man on the beach. Camus writes, “My eyes were blinded behind the curtain of tears and salt. All I could feel were the cymbals of sunlight crashing on my forehead and, indistinctly, the dazzling spear flying up from the knife in front of me. The scorching blade slashes at my eyelashes and stabbed at my stinging eyes” (59). Words like “cymbals of sunlight” and “scorching blade” are associated with heat; in fact, the entire section of the book where Meursault kills the man is described specifically as being hot and uncomfortable for Meursault himself. At this point in the book, Meursault is still struggling to make sense of the world and his place in it. He is detached and distant from everyone around him and seems to be in his own world, even when he is killing the man. In the way he always talks about the heat and describes it as shown in the passage above, it can be seen that he is uneasy and unsure about his fate and the decisions that he is making.
In the second passage, however, Camus’ choice of language changes. The passage I chose was from the very end of the book before Meursault’s execution. Camus writes, “Sounds of the countryside were drifting in. Smells of night, earth, and salt air were cooling my temples. The wondrous peace of that sleeping summer flowed through me like a tide” (122). At this point in the book, it is clear that Meursault has truly accepted his fate. This can be seen in the shift from hot to cold diction, especially in the words “cooling my temples.” The simile “flowed through me like a tide” also symbolizes Meursault’s peaceful state of mind and how he truly believes that what he did and the situation he is in are ideal.
Between Part I and II of The Stranger, Camus uses diction and symbols to show Meursault's loneliness. During Part I, Meursault seems content with being alone, claiming his mother's death "doesn't mean anything," and it changed nothing (Camus 3). As apathetic as it sounds, his mother lived in a nursing home 2 hours away and he rarely saw her, so it did really not change much. But, despite Meursault's lack of emotion towards her death, he psychologically replaces his mother with Marie, a typist from his old job. Though he's unaware of it, his lack of ability to love Marie back is caused by the void his mother leaves behind when she dies. When one experiences a family death, it is common to feel empty and unable to loving emotions. Though Meursault seems to be emotionless and indifferent in Part I, he really transforms after his arrest in Part II and begins to feel emotions that he's never felt before. The ending quote "...for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my executions and that they greet me with cries of hate," strongly shows how he's finally aware that he's lost everyone important to him: his mother, his girlfriend, and even himself when he killed the Arab. (Camus 123)
ReplyDelete“We just sat there like that for a quite a while. The woman’s sighs and sobs were quieting down. She sniffled a lot…They were so lost in their thoughts that they weren't even aware of it. I even had an impression that the dead woman lying in front them didn't mean anything to them. But I think now that that was a false impression.” (11)
ReplyDeleteThrough the use of short sentences and using an epithet for his mother, Meursault comes across as detached but his actions later contradict this tone. In this paragraph Meursault comments on how everyone seems to be so focused on their own actions that they didn't realise the actual purpose of why they were present. Meursault later retracts this statement because he realises its contradictory nature. He may have realised this because he too was lost in his thoughts. Even though the people weren't sobbing, they still felt sorrow, similar to Meursault. It leads me to think that even though Meusault didn't openly express sorrow, everyone has different ways of expressing their emotions. Meusault may be dealing with his mother’s death by spending time with Marie, distracting himself. He also repeatedly brings up his mother throughout the novel which prove that her death was impactful and he did care.
We expect people to cry if they are feeling intense grief, but we cannot see what we feel. It is unfair to have physical representations for abstract concepts which we cannot see and then judge people based upon it.
“This perked me up a little. I said I had been looking at the stones in these walls for months. There wasn’t anything or anyone in the world I knew better. Maybe at one time, way back I had searched for a face in them. But the face I was looking for was as bright as the sun and the flame of desire- and it belonged to Marie. I had searched for it in vain. Now it was all over. And in any case, I’d never seen anything emerge from any sweating stones.” (119)
In this paragraph, Camus uses similes and personification to symbolise how we cannot find meaning, but we must create it.He uses fire diction such as “bright as the sun” and “flame of desire” to portray longing and desperation Meursault felt for Marie. He compares her to the sun, which emits light, often associated with positivity.His inability to find this light reflect the hopelessness of his situation. He tries to find Marie, or what Marie symbolises for him, in inanimate objects but he fails to do so. They stones are personified to be “sweating” which could symbolise hardship. The fact that he is unable to find any meaning in these objects reflect how we cannot find meaning, but we must give our lives meaning. He was only searching for Marie’s face, he didn't give the objects an essence so they were therefore meaningless.
Earlier he said that if Marie was dead or alive, it didn't matter. In this paragraph he contradicts his earlier statement because he seems to miss her. This leads me to believe that Meursault may be in love with Marie, but he does not know how to define the emotion or what classifies as love, this ties in with the paragraph in Part One where he doesn't cry during his mother’s funeral.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThere are many symbols and images used in No Exit which relate to Sartre’s philosophy about existentialism and his viewpoints. Some of the more obvious symbols are the mirror, bronze ornament and paper knife. I found the use of the ornament and the colour symbolism behind the sofas they very interesting.
In my interpretation the bronze ornament is symbolic of death itself. At the beginning Garcin says that:
Garcin: …And suppose I took that contraption on the mantelpiece and dropped it on the lamp- wouldn't it go out?
Valet: You can’t move it. It’s too heavy.
Garcin: [seizing the bronze ornament and trying to life it]: You’re right? It’s too heavy. (7)
The mantelpiece can be symbolic of death because we are all bound to die. It is not something that can be lifted or changed. We are destined to die and nothing can change that. Garcin understands that it’s heavy but he doesn't realise the metaphorical value of the ornament until the end, when he states:
Garcin: This bronze. [strokes it thoughtfully.] Yes, now’s the moment; I’m looking at this thing on the mantelpiece, and I understand that I’m in hell. I tell you, everything’s been thought out beforehand. They knew I’d stand at the fireplace stroking this thing of bronze, with all those eyes intent on me. Devouring me… (45)
In this book death is personified as a bronze statue with its eyes intent on Garcin. This makes sense because death is always waiting. Another interesting aspect is the use of bronze. Bronze is not a special metal but it is strong and durable. Death is not something many people look forward to and by making it bronze, the durability represents the inevitable nature of death and the non lustrous shine displays the lack of attraction death has.
Sartre also utilises colour symbolism to characterise and foreshadow the characters’ temperament. Estelle walks in wearing a blue dress, and is originally going to sit on a green sofa but refuses to because it clashes with her dress. Green is often symbolic of jealously and envy which is displayed later in the play when Garcin doesn't give her the attention she wants. When her friend, Olga, dances with Peter, she says that, “He belonged to me” (32). She doesn't love Peter but she is envious of Olga dancing with him.
Inez is sitting on a “claret-colored one” (10) which is a dark shade of red. Red is associated with anger or lust. Inez displays both of these traits throughout the novel. She lusts after Estelle and is angry after her affection isn't reciprocated.
The colour of Garcin’s couch is never discussed which leads me to believe that he is a neutral character. He gave up his sofa for Estelle which characterises him as polite, and as someone who simply does not care about materialistic items.
The last line in “The Stranger” has a large impact on the novel and leaves the readers thinking quite a bit. It seems odd that he Meursault would want people to be crying tears of hate at his execution. However it seems that his mindset has completely changed. He feels that if he is going to die, and die by execution, then he should do it the right way. The right way to die by execution is to have an audience full of hatred. This interestingly contradicts what he said about Maman’s funeral. He said that it would be an insult to her to cry at her funeral because she lived a happy and content life, so that is why he hardly showed any emotion at her funeral. However, now he is showing a great deal of emotion at the end of the book. The emotion felt at the end of the book can relate to the idea the death is one’s most authentic moment in life. He states that the guillotine is a machine that kills with great precision and little shame. Meursault finds positives with in his death and learns to accept his death. He has come to terms with his life and understood that this execution is his fate. He figures that everyone is going to die at some point in their life, so what difference does it make to die now versus 40 years from now. The last page states that he felt he was happy again. This truly shows the emotion he has put forth into death, his most authentic moment. He is at peace with his life because he understand that death is truly inevitable and this was his way and time to die.
ReplyDeleteIn the last line of his novel, "The Stranger", Albert Camus concludes the life of Meursault with emotion, hatred, and finality.
ReplyDeleteIn the second half of the novel, Meursault begins to express himself with more emotion. In the last line, Camus writes that for Meursault to feel less lonely, there should be, "... a large crowd of spectators the day of my[Meursault's] execution and that they greet me[Meursault] with cries of hate(123). It is interesting that once Meursault starts to feel emotion, he wishes others to do the same, in a way. In addition, existentialist ideals were such that death is the most authentic moment in life. Meursault wanted his death to be real. Despite not desiring a public execution, Meursault wanted his death to be proper in itself and have the full nine yards. Meursault considered his mother's death and how, in a retirement community, his mother died in a fulfilled and proper way. For Meursault, he wants the full execution. The cries of hate mean people care, and they mean he has done something with his life. He will not die alone because there will be people there to witness it. The cries of hatred would be proof that Meursault was not passive.
Furthermore, it is interesting that Meursault uses the term consummated because it is normally used in reference to marriage. The use of the term is the ultimate indicator that Meursault has accepted his death because a marriage is a voluntary choice for most and is very planned, much like Meursault's choice to kill the Arab and subsequent trial and verdict.
For my analysis of the last sentence of the Stranger, I’m going to compare the translation in our book and another translation I found online:
ReplyDelete1.) “For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, 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.”
2.) “For all to be accomplished, for me to feel less lonely, all that remained to hope was that on the day of my execution there should be a huge crowd of spectators and that they should greet me with howls of execration."
I think the word “howl” is a better translation than “cries” because it fits Meursault’s character better. Though Camus describes the cries full of hatred, when I hear/read “cries” I think tears and sadness, and Meursault wasn’t one for tears. When people cried at his mother’s funeral, Meursault was angered because she lived a good life so there was nothing to pity. In contrast, Meursault doesn’t want people to cry for him for he led a meaningless life, so he’d rather be shouted at by an angry mob, as if their words would affect him.
The last line of The Stranger is quite an impactful one. While not initially clear, it becomes understandable why Meursault would feel this way once it is put in context with the events and Meursault’s thoughts immediately before this line. On page 122, Meursault thinks “So close to death, Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again.” This is where Meursault starts to compare his death to his mother’s death. Her death is also a very important symbol to the story, running parallel to how his philosophy matures. At first, he seems apathetic about his mother’s death, much like he was about everything. Now, however, he has come to accept not only the importance of his mother’s death, but how life needs your own meaning to be worthwhile. The next line after that is a key to understanding why Meursault wishes people to not feel sad for him. It reads, “Nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her,” (pg. 122). This heavily influences Meursault’s idea on how he wants to die. Therefore, he now thinks that no one should cry over him-- they wouldn’t miss him for very long anyway, being a murderer. He also opens himself up to the “gentle indifference of the world,” realizing that, according to existentialism, the world does not care about him. He also realizes the similarities between himself and the world-- he no longer cares about anyone or anything else, either. “Finding it so much like myself…” he says (pg. 122). Public executions were often considered a spectacle, too-- something you’d watch for entertainment. Therefore, feeling that no one should cry over his death, Meursault wishes that those who do watch his execution at least find some joy in it, however macabre it seems.
ReplyDelete“As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, 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.” These are the very last lines of the novel, where Meursault finally is able to accept his fate and no longer see the world as an entirely pointless place. After his meeting with the chaplain, whose insistence that Meursault turn to God in the wake of his death sentence puts Meursault into a “blind rage,” Meursault accepts the absurdist idea that the universe is indifferent to human affairs and that life lacks meaning. He moves toward this revelation through the course of the novel, but does not fully grasp it until he accepts the impossibility of avoiding his death. Once the realization has hit him, he feels free and no longer haunted by the burden of a pointless life. Meursault realizes that the universe’s indifference to human affairs mirrors his own personal indifference to human affairs, and the similarity evokes a feeling of companionship in him that leads him to label the world “a brother.” As opposed to earlier in the novel, when Meursault was passively content at best, now Meursault finds that he is actually happy once he opens himself to the reality of human existence. Meursault finds that he is also happy with his position in society. He does not mind being a loathed criminal. He only wishes for companionship, “to feel less alone.” He accepts that this companionship will take the form of an angry mob on his execution day. He sees his impending execution as the “consummation” of his new understanding as he is finally able to be at peace with himself and his life.
ReplyDeleteIn Albert Camus' The Stranger, Meursault goes through a complex series of events that continuously changes his personality. Throughout the novel, from lingering in the aftermath of his mother's death to eventually waiting for his own death, Meursault's experience make him into who he becomes, as he reflects on his actions in accordance with his beliefs. The two passages from the opposite ends of the book that truly show the significance of the growth of his character are the opening passage of the novel and the ending passage of the novel. The attitude that Meursault has at the beginning of the novel, in the opening words, "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know. I got a telegram from the home: "Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours." That doesn't mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday" (Camus, 1). This attitude reflects how he doesn't care about anything in his life, how nothing matters to him because he feels that everything is completely pointless, even visiting his own mother, which is expressed when he says, "She was used to it. That's partly why I didn't go there much this past year. And also because it took up my Sunday..." (Camus, 5). However, this attitude about not caring about anything eventually begins to change, as Meursault meets the various characters that appear in the book, their effect on him affects the way he acts, a prime example being when he murders the Arab man that he sees on the beach, when he expresses his emotions, saying, "I knew that I had shattered the harmony of the day, the exceptional silence of a beach where I had been happy. Then I fired four more times at the motionless body where the bullets lodged without leaving a trace. And it was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness" (Camus, 59). This passage shows that all throughout Part 1, Meursault eventually grows to feel emotions, which he had denied himself of in the beginning of the book. He mentions that the beach was a place where he had been happy, and that he had felt harmony before shooting the Arab man, therefore showing that he appreciates the existence of the things around him, despite his belief that everything that exists has no meaning to it. This feeling of emotions is felt once again in Part 2, when Meursault reflects on his life before the execution, thinking, "Finding it so much like myself - so like a brother, really - I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again" (Camus, 123). This passage shows that Meursault has finally become more in tune with his emotions, and that he has come to peace with himself before his execution. Directly claiming that he is now happy again shows that he has become a different person from who he was at the beginning of the book. Therefore, the significance in the comparison of these two passages is that they show how Meursault was able to grow as a character throughout the story.
ReplyDeleteThe final line in The Stanger demonstrates how Meursault is going to face his death, which is essentially the resolution to the book."For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, 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." I believe that Meursault is still terrified to die because he does not know what comes after death, if anything at all. However, here he is saying that he wants to leave a mark on the Earth. I can make this assumption because he says he hopes a large crowd forms to watch his execution and yell bad things at him. I think that Meursault does not mind what he is remembered for, whcih will be a murderer, he just wants to be remembered when he is gone. He starts to imagine his execution filled with people in order to bring himself comfort and make his death easier to face. His idea of leaving a mark on society temporarily distracts him from the brutal execution that lies before him. As an existentialist, Meursault believes that the decisions he made in his lifetime were extremely important, and he hopes they will be remembered. In addition, he does not believe in an afterlife, so he wants to always be remembered for what he did in his life.
ReplyDelete1. Estelle needs to look at herself in a mirror because when she doesn't see herself she wonders if she truly exists. "I pat myself just to make sure, but it doesn't help much," (19). There are no mirrors because mirrors symbolize self-reflection, which Estella lacks because she "hasn't a notion, not the foggiest" reason for why she's in Hell (15). She refuses to analyze her actions nor admit her faults. Estelle's obsession with mirrors shows her obsession with herself. Whenever she talked to people she made sure she was near a mirror so she could see herself talking because it kept her "alert." She was even called "glancing stream" and "crystal" by a boy who liked her, and both of those things reflect like a mirror. Estelle wants not only to look at herself, but others--such as Garcin--to look at her, too. She is someone who exists for others, as if she is an object. Estelle is in bad faith because she lets herself be objectified.
ReplyDelete3. As they say, time passes quickly when you're having fun. For the damned trio, there is none as they all bicker and fight over the other. Time passing so slow in Hell is not only a play on the common saying, but to show the magical realism portrayed in this play. It's realistic that three very different people are in the same room arguing, but it's magical that they're all stuck there forever without ever aging, nor dying since they're already dead.
Question 3
ReplyDeleteIn Existentialism, a huge focus is placed upon living in the moment and not thinking about the past or future. When time passes quickly on Earth, it can be a metaphor for how people rush through their lives without treasuring any moments. In hell, time passes slowly, they are forced to scrutinise every minute of their existence in that room. They have no distractions or commitments and are rid of their past, the only thing they can do is to focus on the present.
In a more explicit sense, time passes quicker on Earth because there is day and night, and the people are able to sleep. There is a routine which makes life easier to live, instead of finding something new to do everyday. In hell, the people cannot sleep and the lights are always switched on. There is no escaping the present moment like we can on Earth.
Question 4
I believe that the valet doesn't have eyelids to show that he cannot escape from his reality. For the valet, it is being in hell. He needs to deal with it and Garcin realises this when he says, “ I’m to live without eyelids. Don’t act the fool, you know what i mean. No eyelids, no sleep; it follows, doesn't it? I shall never sleep again. But then- how shall I endure my own company?…Down there I had my nights. I slept. I always had good nights. By the way of compensation, I suppose. And happy little dreams…” (6). Similar to the concept of time passing slower in hell, not being able to sleep, adds to the agony. With the valet, Garcin feels like his gaze was uncomfortable. His eyelids are paralysed, it seemed to me that the valet just stared intently. He didn’t make any judgement because it did not matter. Inez on the other hand, was more active with her gaze. When Estelle says, “ …I’m going to smile, and my smile will sink down into your pupils, and heaven knows what it will become.”(21). Inez can think for herself. She doesn't reflect other people, she has her own interpretations. Instead of having a passive stare like the valet, Inez has an active stare.
Regarding question 12, Hell is not depicted as many people would imagine it to be like. Sartre states that there is Second-Empire styled furniture. Even Garcin is surprised by the furniture and does not like it very much. The Valet does not have eyelids, which was shocking to Garcin. I think this was shocking because this made him afraid of what he might look like now that he is dead and in hell. However, it is evident that there are no mirrors in hell. This gives the characters in the book a large feeling of suspicion towards their appearance. Many of the characters can not grasp the idea that they are dead and in hell. They often forget the fact. This becomes mainly apparent when Estelle tries to stab Inez, because she forgot that they were already dead.
ReplyDeleteRegarding question 9, human relationships were very prominent in this play. Inez wanted to be with Estelle but Estelle wanted to be with Garcin. There was a great deal of conflict within the personal relationships in this play. It somewhat relates backs to the idea that everyone wants what they can not have. It makes people strive to be better and can cause people to change a great amount. Many of the characters also have problems confessing about issues from their past life. This can relate to the audience in that everyone can struggle to tell the truth at some time in their life. It can be especially hard when trying to confess something troublesome to people you have barely met and therefore judgement is on the line.
1) Estelle is introduced as a character who thinks highly of herself and values materials; she is materialistic. She constantly needs to check her appearance, and values others based on their appearance. When she is first introduced to Inez and Garcin, one of the first things she says is that she cannot sit on her "couch" because it doesn't match the color of her dress. Even in hell, where appearance is the least of worries, she still stresses over hers. This hints at her life before death, and maybe as to why she was sent to hell. As to why there are no mirrors in the room, this for her specifically, could be a part of her hell; not knowing what she looks like and not being able to see herself ever again. It could also be a form of hell for the other two characters, as their appearance is solely based on what the other two see. Their physical body could have been changed and morphed to fit their reason for being in hell, so the constant stress is apparent, especially for Estelle. When Estelle uses Inez as a mirror, this again exemplifies her need to feel pretty and important. Even if not told, Estelle realizes that Inez likes her, so to use this for her advantage, she uses Inez as a mirror to boost her self-confidence. Not only does this make Inez an object in Estelle's eye, it also lowers Inez's self-esteem. Estelle has dominated herself over Inez, knowing that Inez thinks this is an amazing opportunity, but Estelle is the only one getting a benefit from this. Another take is that this is her refusal to accept fate and her hell.
ReplyDelete3) Time passes more quickly on Earth than hell because this in itself is a form of hell. Inez, Estelle, and Garcin are able to see life on Earth while they're in hell. They are able to see loved ones or friends dealing with their deaths, and they are also able to see potential loves going after others. This is an example of torture for the characters. So much happens, yet they stand by unable to change anything. Time is so slow in hell because it causes those in it to suffer through every event, and to watch as time passes and people die. Since they will be dead forever, this "time" is really a continuum that never stops; in a way, it is like living a day for an infinite amount of time.
2.
ReplyDeleteEstelle's attempt at killing Inez showed the absurdity of the situation and characterized Estelle. It showed the absurdity of the situation because the three of them are dead and the knife is paper, so the attempt is beyond futile, but it also shows how Estelle wants peace of mind and will do anything. Before Estelle attempts to stab Inez, she says, "Right! In that case, I'll stop her watching"(45). Estelle's quick thinking shows how little she thinks of the morals of her actions and jumps quickly to a solution regardless of if it is permissable.
3.
Self deception in the play, "No Exit," is used to show how the truth will come out and that lying to oneself does not alleviate guilt. In his attempt to find peace, Garcin asks Inez to have faith in him and believe he is not a coward. It is ironic that as much as Garcin does not regret his cruelty towards his wife, he wants someone else to believe that he could be better. In this way, Garcin seems like a fraud, or as some might say, a phony. However, Garcin only wants someone else's faith once he believes that it will free him from hell, so in this way Garcin is unchanged from when he was alive in that he is very self serving.
Regarding question #3, in John Paul Sartre's play, No Exit, Garcin, Estelle, and Inez all establish that time moves slower in Hell than it does on Earth. The reason for this is because the three of them are in Hell because they are being punished for eternity because each one has committed a crime, involving the various people in their lives. On Earth, all three of them took their lives for granted, continuously hurting the people that they (supposedly) cared about, and therefore the lack of appreciation for what they had caused them to lose it, and only realize how valuable it was to them once they had lost it. In Hell, however, time passes by very slowly because the loss of their lives, due to the lack of appreciation they had for it, now condemns them to an eternity of longing for what they once had, and for what the people that they had hurt now have, with the exception of Estelle, who is in Hell for taking away the lives of others, however she also pays the price by being forced to forever watch her sister get what she had always wanted, the man whom she had affections for when she was still alive. Sartre uses irony in this way because Garcin, Estelle, and Inez all do terrible things in their lives in order to get some personal benefit from it, but the means by which they tried to get what they were after only got them eternal damnation. Each character must now suffer the consequences and watch as everything they had tried to do merely backfired, and even in death, everything on Earth happened as the rest of them had wished it had not.
ReplyDeleteTo answer question 13, Hell is no more than a hotel room without windows. It is decorated with second-empire furniture to look like a drawing room. When Garcin first enters, he is obviously displeased by its appearance: “Still, I certainly didn’t expect--this!” (pg. 3, line 23). The true purpose of this hell begins to be exposed once Inez and Garcin meet. “I beg your pardon. Who do you suppose I am?” asks Garcin (pg. 8, line 21). Inez replies “You? Why, the torturer, of course.” (pg. 8, line 24). This serves as foreshadowing for what the three characters will later realize. Each character reacts differently once they realize they’re in Hell. Garcin seems almost disappointed at how there are no tools of physical torture. Inez easily comes to terms with being in Hell, but doesn’t quite understand that Garcin is not a physical torturer. Estelle thinks Garcin is a relative who lost his face. The substantial thing to understand is that Sartre does not have a dedicated torturer for the three characters-- their own human traits are enough to send them nearly insane.
ReplyDeleteAs for question 6, there are no real protagonists in the play. All three characters can be considered evil for their actions: Garcin was a deserter, Inez was a sadist and a cheater, and Estelle killed her child. They do all have conflicts they are trying to overcome, however-- each other. They were placed in the room together specifically to torture each other. They do not overcome this, though-- not traditionally. They merely accept the fact that they’ll be stuck in the same room for eternity.
In regards to question #2, Estelle tries to stab Inez because Inez threatens to watch her and Garcin be intimate with each other, despite Inez's attraction to Estelle. However, Estelle cannot handle this, and therefore tries to kill her. In the characterization of Estelle, this is a motif because in the beginning of the play, Estelle is forced to watch her sister dance, and win over, the man that she had wanted for herself when she was still alive. Estelle is immediately attracted to Garcin upon entering Hell, and subsequently tries to win him over. However, Inez being there reminds Estelle that every time she finds a man whom she likes, another woman is there to interfere with her forming a relationship with them, and although Inez is not attracted to men, she still reminds Estelle that she can never have someone to herself. Estelle is not able to maintain stable relationships with men, which causes her to long for someone to love, as she had once had, but every time she finds somebody, there is always something that takes him away from her, and now that she is in Hell, Estelle decides that she cannot take it anymore and that she deserves to have what she wants in death, because it was what caused her to end up in Hell in the first place. However, this attempt at trying to kill Inez is absurd because Inez does not pose a threat to Estelle, for Garcin admits to being attracted to Estelle. In addition, Inez does not even have any attraction towards Garcin, and Estelle does not reciprocate Inez's feelings for her, so her attempt at killing Inez is absurd, especially since they are already dead. The paper knife that Estelle uses has significance to it. The paper knife is left on the mantle to symbolize the essence of one's existence, which is reflected when Estelle tries to kill Inez, because they are already dead, but they still act like they are alive, therefore the essence of life is still there, despite these actions occurring in death.
ReplyDelete“When I can't see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist. I pat myself just to make sure, but it doesn't help much…I've six big mirrors in my bedroom. There they are. I can see them. But they don't see me. They're reflecting the carpet, the settee, the window – but how empty it is, a glass in which I'm absent! When I talked to people I always made sure there was one near by in which I could see myself. I watched myself talking. And somehow it kept me alert, seeing myself as the others saw me…No, I can't do without a looking-glass for ever and ever. I simply can't” (25). Throughout the play, the audience gets the idea that Estelle wants to be turned into an object and lose her humanity. She strives to give up her freedom instead of trying to reclaim it. Her use of Inez as a mirror is just one example of her “bad faith.” She wants the mirrors to objectify her and relieve her of her role as a subject on earth and in hell. For example, her relationship with Garcin shows her longing to no longer be a subject. Jean Paul Sartre believed that sex, too, was in bad faith. When you desire someone, he said, it’s because you wish to turn them into an object. If you turn someone else into a sexual thing, you maintain your subjectivity and make them the object. However, if you also turn into a sexual being, you become an object as well. Although Estelle isn’t interested in Garcin in particular, it seems that any man will satisfy her. Estelle just needs a guy to desire her so she can become an object and be free of the responsibility of being a subject. Throughout the play her repeated pleas for Garcin to look at her, hold her, touch her, or want her have to do with this particular brand of bad faith.
ReplyDelete