One largely recognizable ideal in the novel "The Stranger", as well as in existentialism itself, is an idea of passivity. This is the idea that you will let anyone or anything happen without any interference or real care for what is occurring. This beyond prevalent when it comes to the main character of the novel, Meursault. Camus writes, "At that time, I often thought that if I had had to live in the trunk of a dead tree, with nothing to do but look up at the sky flowing overhead, little by little I would have gotten used to it.". This demonstrates the true ideals of Meursault. He does not recognize any difference between living in a house, or in a tree trunk, to him it is all the same. This is the true meaning behind life for him. He follows the model of passivity to a tee. He lives his life, going along with whatever happens. There is no rhyme or reason to it. This causes a very large lack of emotion. This lack of emotional value to his life allows him to live passively with the existentialist ideals. While these ideals may not be relatable for many audience members. It is important to recognize passivity to further understand humans. There are so many contradicting religions and philosophies, yet this one can almost universally contradict each and every one. With this knowledge, passivity allows us to understand why humans need a certain higher power or belief that gives purpose to life, and as a matter a fact why humans seek a meaning in their life. Meursalt and each other character can be examined side by side to further this understanding. While each person in the novel has their flaws, they each allow us to see a different meaning in living.
Passivity is defined as a state of inactivity. It holds the meaning of not having input into doings in one’s life. In the novel, The Stranger, by Albert Camus, pasitivity is not defined as a state of not thinking, but the state of believing nothing is meant to be thought about. Camus brings into light his view of humanity and reality in the character Meursault, whom seems to take nothing in life as a thought process, or with emotional attachment. His appearance seems to be to only satisfy that which is necessary for physical, human existence. In this novel, passivity is portrayed to display the sense of not having goals and only being in the exact moment of life. Here, the main character refuses to believe or want anything more than what he has. Examples of this lack of interest in traditionally “fulfilling and desired” ideas in a person’s life are seen when Meursault shows apathy towards a new job offered to him. In chapter 5, page 41, this passivity of Meursault is expressed by his boss, Camus writing, “ He looked upset and told me that I never gave him a straight answer, that I had no ambition, and that was disastrous in business.” (Camus 41). Here, when offered a promotion, Meursault replies by saying that it is the same to him whether he gets the promotion or not. A non-passive person would take this as a great opportunity and be thankful for the most part, but Meursault doesn’t believe in the meaningfulness that this promotion may bring to his life, seeing it as indifferent to the reality of living. Here, Camus is trying to contradict traditional ideas of success by numbing the expression and meaning that opportunities bring into one’s life. Another example of this is found on the same page, when Marie and Meursault discuss marriage. Camus writes on page 41, “ Then she asked me 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”(Camus 42). Here, the meaning and joy derived from marriage is taken out and emptied. By saying he would have married any other woman whom offered to marry him, he is implying that he doesn’t particularly love Marie more than anyone else, therefore, marriage to her would be the same as marriage to someone else. This is very much the opposite of what a marriage should be, therefore, by doing this, Camus is attempting to disregard the meaning in the traditions performed by people. In the novel, The Stranger, the idea of passivity is used to contradict and give meaninglessness to traditional ideas of success and joy.
Passivity is, ironically, a driving theme in the novel. The consequences of Meursault’s passivity throughout the novel all come together in the end. In the beginning, he attends his mother’s funeral out of obligation, but plays no part in the planning of it or any other details. The iconic first sentences of the novel say, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know” (3). He does not seem to care at all for his mother’s death, and does not seem surprised in the least. The lack of surprise implies he knew it was going to happen, which makes sense, considering she was old and was likely to die soon anyway. However, most people would make the most of the remaining time with their loved ones, whereas Meursault is shown to have had little to no interaction with ehr after putting her in a home. He let it happen, did nothing to make the situation any better for anyone, and such a character trait is illustrated in the very first lines of the novel. Therefore, the reader knows passivity is a significant part of his character and the book’s themes as a whole. At the end of the novel, the prosecutor in the trial says, “the man who is seated in the dock is also guilty of the murder to be tried in this court tomorrow” (102) in reference to the following trial of parricide. Meursault’s passivity towards his mother is later seen as the equivalent of killing her, due to the actions previously described. Such an accusation is eventually what gets him condemned to his own death. He also fails to take any action in court to defend himself for the first part of it, simply letting it happen, spacing out and not caring what happens to him. The passivity he displays causes him to dissociate himself from the issue. However, he later contemplates why he can’t take any action, why he is there yet not a part of the decision of his fate at all, which is one of the first in a series of many revelations about his life, though that can be an entirely different topic of analysis. In the end, Meursault also uses his passivity as a way to cope with his impending death when he says, “Since we’re all going to die, it’s obvious that when and how don’t matter” (114). He decides to just let his death happen, too, because he fills his mind with pleasant thoughts of the inevitability and inescapability of mortality, trying his best to justify what has already been decided. Meursault’s passive nature both caused the events that led up to the murder and the verdict in the trial itself and helped him deal with such consequences, both ends on the chain of cause and effect.
Albert Camus in “The Stranger” juxtaposes Meursault’s relationships and the relationships among supporting characters. This contrasts the main character’s indifference with other characters’ volatile bonds. Camus portrays two types of relations: bonds without genuine emotion (Meursault) and emotional relationships that are often viewed by society as the norm. Meursault’s views his relationship with Marie Cardona with indifference, because for him, marriage and even whether he loves her or not, “didn't really matter” (Camus 41). Although Meursault enjoys Marie’s company, he could easily do without her. Despite his honest response that he, “probably didn’t love her,” Marie remains close to him, claiming that his “peculiar[ity]. . .was probably why she loved” him (42). His romantic involvement with Marie juxtaposes against his mother and Thomas Perez’s romance where the caretaker described them as “inseparable” (13). It's transparent that Perez cared deeply for Meursault’s mother to force himself physically and emotionally to participate in the funereal procession. While practicalities seem to “bind” Meursault and Marie, love and emotional connection tied Meursault's mother and Perez. In comparison to Meursault’s mother and Perez’s relationship, the Meursault and Marie romance appears superficial and less “valid”. While society’s views superficial romantic relationships as less valid, Camus argues that Meursault’s shallow romance isn’t any less true. Both partners in this “shallow” relationship are content which is evident when Meursault is swimming with Marie: “Together again, Marie and I swam out a ways, and we felt a closeness as we moved in unison and were happy” (50). Based on Camus’s theme of absurdity, even if their relationship is less genuine, why does it matter if there’s no real meaning anyways? The dynamics of Raymond Sintes and his mistress, along with Salamano and his dog, portray volatile relationships that differ from the sweet tone between Perez and Madame Meursault. One could argue that even these toxic relationships are still more true than any of Meursault's apathetic ones. But Camus depicts majority of the relationships that society views as true in a negative fashion—Raymond loses his mistress, Salamano loses his dog. Yet, in Meursault’s passive relations with Marie and Raymond, they defend and remain loyal to Meursault when testifying in court. Camus makes a statement that supposed shallow relationships are not less genuine than ones with passion, and what ties people together ranges from practicality to emotional reliance. The debate on whether some relationships are more authentic than others is based on what defines a relationship as true. What makes a relationship true? Emotional reliance, mutual practicality, honesty in how one views the dynamic?
In the novel, The stranger, Albert Camus illustrates passivity as a way of rejecting society’s notion of justice.. This rejection is first evident when he says, “The hardest thing was that my thoughts were still those of a free man... But that only lasted a few months. Afterwards my only thoughts were those of a prisoner” (76-77). Here, Meursault is stating that he at first had a hard time living in prison but got used to it after some time. However, the goal of imprisoning a man is to punish a man for his crimes. Getting used to this punishment would give no meaning to the imprisonment itself, thereby rejecting the punishment given to him. Subsequently, even when he was given the sentence to death, Meursault was able to accept his death. His reserved personality gives him the conclusion that “life isn’t worth living” (114), stating that “Whether it was now or twenty years from now, I would still be the one dying” (114). It is notable to point out that if one accepts that life is meaningless, he/she is also accepting that anything one does (going to college, being wealthy, etc) has no point. Again, one of the purposes of execution is to punish the criminal by ending his life. However, Meursault believes that life is meaningless, meaning that it would make no difference for him to get executed than to be pardoned. Finally, although he shows an emotional side in regards to his inevitable death, his thoughts after were that of contentment, in which he states that “ I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again (123). Because Meursault is able to accept his death, he is able to at the same time reject the punishment under the name of justice that was placed upon him.
In the novel “The Stranger” by Albert Camus the main character actions are quite passive. Passivity is defined as not participating readily and allowing others to do anything they want to you. The nature of passivity is very nonchalant and the opposite of assertive. With this in mind the main character, Meursault exalts this passive lifestyle quite often. After Meursault’s first encounters with Raymond automatically he is seen following any commands given by Raymond and considering all of his “suggestions” made to Meursault. When Raymond is telling Meursault about this woman he wants to punish on page 32 it states, “...he didn’t think he could write the kind of letter it would take and that he’d thought of asking me to write it for him. Since I didn’t say anything, he asked if I’d mind doing it right hen and I said no”. However even after Meursault states no Raymond continues to clear space and grab materials for Meursault to write the letter. Meursault immediately begins to write the letter without any protest showing his passive side and his lack of assertiveness. In almost every encounter between Raymond and Meursault, Raymond is seen controlling Mesurant while he does little to fight back or hold his own ground. In a later scene Raymond tells Meursault, “I’d have to act as a witness for him. It didn’t matter to me, but I didn’t know what I was suppose to say. According to Raymond, all I had to do was to state that the girl had cheated on him” (37). Meursault doesn’t really take a stand on any thoughts of his own or beliefs, Instead he simply obeys whatever anyone else tells him to do like Raymond in these situations. Even though he knows that Raymond was not one hundred percent sure about this girl cheating on him Meursault still agrees to be a witness. The passive choices Meursault makes in life simplifies and takes away any issues in his life. At the same time passivity creates a meaningless to life if no beliefs or stances are ever taken. The passivity in this novel portrays the absurdity in living and the choices made.
Many similarities are present between the characters of Meursault and Sisyphus. Firstly, the two both deviate from their society’s norms. Meursault, who instead of acting in the accordance of what is expected by his society, acts according to what he himself believes. This act can be reflected in his reserved nature in response to his mother’s death or his acceptance of marrying Marie without actually loving her. Similarly, Sisyphus also breaks the laws of society by plotting to kill his brother. He even attempts to defy the gods’ punishment of his crimes by escaping the Underworld not once but two times. Unfortunately, however, they also both end up with an unhappy ending, in which Meursault is sentenced to execution while Sisyphus is given the punishment of rolling a rock up the top of a mountain forever. Subsequently, the significance of their punishment lies in their similar view regarding their own fate. In the Myth of Sisyphus, the author states that Sisyphus is “conscious” or aware of the absurdity of his punishment. Again, Sisyphus’ punishment is to roll a rock up a hill, only for it to roll back down, which means that he would have to repeat the process for eternity. What the author means by “absurdity” is that Sisyphus is aware of the fact that his punishment is unreasonable, giving him the conclusion that his fate or life itself is meaningless. This belief is also reflected in Meursault, in which he states that “life isn’t worth living” (114), because “Whether it was now or twenty years from now, I would still be the one dying” (114). Though his reasoning is a bit different from that of Sisyphus, Meursault also does not see any meaning to the execution and therefore life itself, because all human beings eventually die. Finally, they also have the same response against this absurd fate: acceptance and happiness. Indeed, after Meursault accepted his death, he says that “I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again” (123). Similarly, in the Myth of Sisyphus, it is said that acknowledgement of one’s own fate will get rid of the sorrow and grief of one’s life, thereby concluding that “one must imagine Sisyphus happy”. Thus, Meursault and Sisyphus are similar based on their belief that life is absurd and their acceptance to that fate.
In “The Stranger” by Albert Camus, he introduces to the audience an interesting deviation from standard relationships, especially those with Mersault. Camus describes the relationships between characters other than Mersault as more commonly structured friendships that readers especially from the United States can relate to. Every character in this book is connected in one way or another, there are no “stray” characters. The only two characters that are characterized in depth in the book with “friends” or “acquaintances” are Raymond and Mersault. Raymonds relationships are both healthy and unhealthy, seen most prominently through his relationship with Masson and his ex-mistress. Because Raymond’s mistress was accused of cheating on him, he often beat her, to the point where the whole apartment could hear them. Raymond was the cause of much of the violence in the book, he introduced Mersault to “his man”, which is who Mersault would end up shooting and spiraling his life downwards. Masson would be a much healthier and positive example of relationships in this group, more reminiscent of a common friendship. The relationships between Mersault portray a much more consistent tone of indifference and staleness, while he doesn’t beat any of his friends or even show much violence (until of course he shot the Arab), all of his friends seem more like acquaintances to the reader, less valid and more “fake”. He seems to take more interest into nature and the weather than he does into people, even displaying not a shred of emotion when the “love interest” asks him if he loved her or wanted to marry her, two things that are usually taken very seriously but “doesn’t matter” to him. Same situation occurred when he was asked to be the “pal” of Raymond. It’s almost tragic for the reader to see him acting this way towards others, paying so little attention to those who seemingly are very fond of him.
Sisyphus is a universal character because, well, he is just like us. Going through life day by day, doing exactly what he has been set to do. While he pushed the rock we wake up nearly every morning and go to school or work and live in the seemingly monotonous routine of life. Whether or not someone chooses to give meaning to that routine is up to them. Mersault is similar to all of us in that way. Doing exactly as life allows. Never trying to deviate or change that. But the similarity in the two characters is evident. While there is believably no meaning to life as both of them have accepted, they both choose to triumph in that. Choosing not to try and seek meaning where there is none, or some alternate way of living, or anything else. They bask in what is. They both choose not to dwell on what they cannot change. Sisyphus will be pushing the rock day after day. Mersault will go through life knowing he killed someone. While on the surface they are very different, in the face of existentialism and absurdism they are nearly the same. A rock is a rock. And as Camus writes, "one will always find ones burden again.". There is a large difference between the two on the surface level of any analysis. But when the audience chooses to dig deeper and refocus their lens with the ideas Camus presents, the two are not so different after all.
In Albert Camus’s “Myth of Sisyphus,” he relates the Greek myth of Sisyphus to absurdity. Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure because he embodies the struggle that humans share to find meaning in life when there is none. This struggle for meaning is represented in Sisyphus’s eternal task of rolling a stone to the top of a mountain only for it to fall back to the bottom to be pushed up again. Just like how Sisyphus’s punishment is futile, the struggle for meaning is fruitless according to Camus. Camus describes Sisyphus, “the absurd hero,” where, “his scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life,” depicts the character as rebelling against fate despite the certainty of matters like death. Sisyphus revolt resonates universally among people, and Camus’s philosophy on revolt.
Camus seemed to have based aspects of Meursault in the “The Stranger” from Sisyphus. Just like Sisyphus, Meursault displays “scorn of the gods” in that he refused to believe, or rely, in a higher deity. When the chaplain attempts to convince Meursault to learn about God, Meursault rejected saying he “had only a little time left” and “didn’t want to waste it on God” (Camus 120). Meursault also possesses Sisyphus’s “hatred of death” and “passion for life”. While Meursault remains indifferent to the events around his life, he contemplates why his mother had a “fiance” while near death and thinks “I felt ready to live it all again too” (Camus 122). In that moment, Meursault desires after life, like how Sisyphus refused to return back to the Underworld after experiencing life once again. Both Meursault and Sisyphus came to accept the absurd and in Camus’s view, reached happiness. Sisyphus in his acceptance, concludes that “all is well” similar to how Meursault opened himself “to the gentle indifference of the world” and felt “happy again” (Camus 122-123). Meursault’s rejection of God, desire for life, and acceptance of absurd relate back to the Sisyphus’s traits. What most connects these two figures though is their acceptance of the absurd leading to a state contentment; which is what Camus emphasizes in his philosophy.
Sisyphus is often compared to the everyday person. Most have daily routines they follow without any solid goal or end, much like Sisyphus’s task of perpetually rolling a boulder up a hill. His task is regarded as difficult, yet he may get used to it, growing stronger and the task then becoming easier. A lot of our lives are like this; daily tasks may seem hard, such as a new job, but with time we gain more experience and practice. However, this can make it more tedious.
Meursault talks about how he can get used to any situation. He describes a hypothetical situation of living in a tree, and how he would eventually learn to expect the daily occurrences that came with living in a tree and nothing else (77). He relates it to his time in prison, how eventually the time passes without him realizing. Prison is seen as a tedious punishment just like Sisyphus’s task. Camus also interprets Sisyphus as growing accustomed to his life of indefinite boulder-rolling, a parallel to how he writes Meursault and his attitude towards his situation.
I have conflicting feelings about Camus’ thesis of Sisyphus being happy. It is very optimistic and it makes sense that people grow used to tasks they do over and over again and enjoy the everyday struggle for what it is. However, I, personally, would always be caught up in what else I could be doing, thinking I’m wasting my time doing what I can’t escape from. Thankfully, school and jobs are generally worth it, with some sort of payoff despite their seeming perpetuity, while rolling a rock up a hill for eternity has no reward. Which sucks. (Don’t make me roll a boulder up a hill. I’m a noodle. It’d crush me.)
In “The Myth of Sisyphus”, we see an interesting take on an eternal tormenting punishment. This article well captures the essence of existentialist ideas, most prominently finding life in the small things, and living consciously in the present. What struck me as most interesting was the way Camus described Sisyphus’s walk back down the hill, after spending the entire day in agony pushing it up. He slowed things down when talking about the walk back down for Sisyphus, talking about it as though it was beautiful, and in that short period of rest he could think about all the beautiful aspects of his past life, and find peace and happiness through that. This describes one of the main problems I’ve noticed with existentialist ideals, seen very similarly with Mersault’s way of paying special attention to the “little” things in life. I think that while it sounds positive, it also seems very unrealistic. Human nature does not act in that way, and it would be very difficult for someone like Sisyphus to spent that short walk back down the hill doing anything but breathing hard, dragging, and dreading the push back up. Still, however, I do find a strong connection between Sisyphus and Mersault. Both of them could be, in the eyes of an existentialist like Camus, “absurd heroes”, as they both live very individually and disregard many of society’s standards. However, most importantly, both were punished heavily for doing so. One thing I noticed that was missing in Sisyphus’s attitudes was that act of total indifference, something that Mersault showcased constantly. He actually was married and seemingly was in love with her (he even decided to test the love she had for him), which is someone that Mersault seemed to be incapable of doing. I find this article an interesting example of the radically different perspective that existentialists such as Albert Camus take.
Albert Camus’ “The Myth of Sisyphus” highlights the absurd through the Sisyphus’ character. In Greek mythology Sisyphus was a mortal, but he was not an ordinary one. He defied the Gods and put Death in chains, which can be seen as an attempt to find meaning in life, and defy the absurd. Because of Sisyphus’ bold actions, however, Pluto, the God of the underworld, sent the god of war to liberate death. This retaliation against Sisyphus’ attempt to conquer the absurd illustrates how the absurd can never truly be conquered, and that it will always dominate over any attempts to defy it and find meaning in life. This is theme is seen again when Sisyphus attempts to escape the absurd fate of the underworld, but is eventually captured by the God’s and is forced to toil endlessly as his punishment, heaving a rock up and down a hill for all eternity. Once again, the fact that Sisyphus’ attempt to escape the underworld and go against the absurdity that is death was foiled reflects how it is impossible to defy the absurd. But in this example, Sisyphus is later able to find meaning in the absurd, rather than trying to find meaning by going against the absurd. Instead of longing for a sense of reason and logic in the world that he experiences, Sisyphus learns from his incessant labor that he should find meaning in the absurdity of his life, because that is reality. There are strong similarities between Sisyphus and Camus’ character Meursault from “The Stranger”. Both characters go against the standards of their society; this is seen when SIsyphus defies the gods and through Meursault’s refusal to denounce his atheism to avoid his execution. Together, Camus’ interpretation of Sisyphus and his creation of Meursault paint a well thought-out picture of the ideals of Existentialism.
Through Albert Camus’s “The Myth of Sisyphus”, Camus writes about the tragedy in being aware and conscious of your situation. Sisyphus’s punishment is to push up the same rock to the top of the mountain every single day only to have it roll back down. He repeats this same absurd procedure everyday. In this passage Camus capitalizes on how the pain of this task comes from the awareness of his chore. There is no hope that the rock will ever stay at the top of the mountain rather than rolling back down the hill. Camus’s life is the most tragic in the moments where he loses that hope. This is similar to the way Meursault starts to feel about the situation he is in after he becomes a murder in the book, “The Stranger”. When Meursault’s days became numbered as his execution gets closer, in his jail cell he states “What really counted was the possibility of escape, a leap to freedom, out of the implacable ritual, a wild run for it that would give whatever chance for hope there was” (109). He than later goes on to say that, “But when I really thought it through, nothing was going to allow me such a luxury” (109). In Meursault’s eyes having that sliver of hope for escape was a luxury. There is something more depressing and painful about knowing the reality of the situation. Both of these involvements of hope relates back to Camus’s view of absurdity. By holding on to hope that the rock will stay at the top of the mountain or that escape is a possibility, both characters momentarily ignore the absurdity of their tasks.
Having written the novel The Stranger and “The Myth of Sisyphus” around the same time, Camus has many parallels between the two. In The Stranger, the idea that is distinctive from everyday, earthly actions, for example the belief that there is a higher power, a God, that decides the fate of humans, is repudiated. One aspect of the “Myth of Sisyphus” that caught my eye, is at the end of the story when Camus writes, “ convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling”. Here, the parallel between the two works is highlighted in the sense that human control and earthly existence are the only explanations for existence. By writing “wholly human origin of all that is human”, Camus is referring to lonesome condition of humans on earth, without a God existing and them being on their own. The end sentence which writes, “ The rock is still rolling”, is very powerful in bringing back the reality of life in the discussion. In the “Myth of Sisyphus” the discussion about the gods and explanations and interpretations of morality are prevalent until this sentence. By writing this, Camus wants to refocus the attention on the actual state of life. In the case of Sisyphus, rolling the rock, that is his only purpose and action of existence, so by expressing that, “the rock is still rolling”, what is meant is that the daily actions of one’s life still go on and they are what give meaning to life. Similar to this condition, Camus has written the character of Meursault in The Stranger, in the way to show how his entire purpose to live the worldly life that leads. The similarities between the two characters is that both live for the everyday, necessary actions that life brings them, without thinking about anything outside of what they physically see as explanations for existence. This idea, however, is not a source of depression, as it is acceptance and something both characters know they are required to live with.
Throughout the novel "The Stranger" by Albert Camus, there are many instances of isolation for each character. This is not always by choice but has a lot to do with the ideals and beliefs of the characters. The most obvious demonstration of isolation in the novel, both by choice and law is in Mersault. This sense of isolation stems from the existentialist belief that we are all alone in the world. While Mersault really took this to heart, this ideal should not necessarily be taken at face value. This essentially means that we are all so unique that there is no real way to be in total sync with the rest of the world. Camus writes, "For now, it’s almost as if Maman weren’t dead. After the funeral, though, the case will be closed, and everything will have a more official feel to it.". This demonstrates how he has really always felt alone. The death of his mother did not change how he led his life therefore he felt as if it was just another day. He is really alone now even though he felt as if he already was. This idea for Mersault is only further driven into the mind of the audience when he goes into prison. The prison cell is the literal demonstration for the isolation and feelings of being alone in the world that Mersault feels. In the cell is where he can really articulate these feelings. Mersauult narrates, "In a way, they seemed to be arguing the case as if it had nothing to do with me. Everything was happening without my participation. My fate was being decided without anyone so much as asking my opinion.". This really demonstrates how removed Mersault felt in the world. As if the world was spinning around him and there was nothing he could do but sit back and watch. All choices have repercussions yet he feels as if he as no power to make any choices about his future. So due to this, isolation feel like a viable and valid option.
One thing that played a small but important role in “The Stranger”, by Albert Camus, was the religion and faith. Camus seemed to put the focus on natural imagery and relationships in part one of the novel, however after Mersault was taken into to the police station, the examining magistrate started to grill him on his faith. The introduction of faith in the book was well timed, considering it wasn’t spoken of until Mersault had committed a murder and was trying to get out of a trial without the death penalty or life in prison. Since it is a book that makes the reader think, adding faith into the book at this time allows the reader to start to ponder the role of religion deeply, with an emphasis on “forgiveness”. The fact that Mersault completely ignored all of the magistrates preaches and seemed to not give one care that he could possibly be “forgiven” for his sins if he were to accept God into his life said a lot about the values of Mersault and many existentialists, and it could have very well been a reason that the audience would start to dislike Mersault’s “cold” heart. This is seen most prominently in the first argument that Mersault and the magistrate had, where Mersault epitomizes the existentialist perspective, saying that, “and if he were to ever doubt it, his life would become meaningless. ‘Do you want my life to become meaningless?’ He shouted” (Camus 69). In this exchange Mersault starts to really fluster the magistrate, clearly he (among many others) is offended when he hears the “absurdity” of life. This is most likely a good representation of many arguments that existentialists such as Camus may have with people, and it poses a good “value check” for Mersault. It is interesting to see how he would react from the magistrates words, choosing whether to commit “philosophical suicide” and accept God and have his slate cleaned, or stay true to his own values and let his fate be.
As we have learned in class, absurdism is the philosophical view that daily actions are not meaningful and the search for meaning in life is in itself meaningless, since ethics are subjective to every person. The absurdism theme in the novel is definitely very prevalent as it is clear in the very first opening sentence when Camus writes, “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). Camus writes this in the very opening paragraph to introduce this idea of absurdism. As the maxim we learned in class states, “If you want the readers to know something, introduce it early”. This idea of absurdism that is highly explored in the novel has a great impact on the way I have been viewing my surroundings recently. This idea inspects that humans are in complete charge of their choices and, without the existence of a God, every single one of their actions are extremely important. From this, it is explored that rational thought is only considered rational when it is thinking about the reality of existence and the purpose of humans to be responsible for figuring out their own individual reason for living.
Religion and faith in “The Stranger” becomes a motif in the second half of the novel; it’s only after Meursault breaches one of the Ten Commandments does he encounter figures symbolizing religion. Camus includes these ideas into “The Stranger” because it’s an important aspect of his philosophy on absurdity. Describing three solutions to a meaningless universe, Camus writes that opting for religion to create meaning is essentially “philosophical suicide.” Camus depicts the religious solution as fraudulent because it avoids the absurdity of the world for a more “agreeable” one. Meursault reaches his epiphany of the absurdity of the world only after his rejection to the chaplain. The chaplain pressures and insists on how faith provides meaning after life and the strength to “face that terrible ordeal,” referring to death (Camus 117). A religious figure like the chaplain represents the desire to apply a deeper meaning to the world, so when Meursault rejects the chaplain, he rejects the “philosophical suicide” and concludes that the Chaplain, “wasn’t even sure he was alive, because he was living like a dead man.” (120). Camus creates a paradox here; a dead man doesn’t live. This heavy comparison of “living like a dead man” embodies how Camus views belief in religion as philosophically damning (120). Though physically alive, the chaplain has committed a “philosophical suicide” because the religion solution leads a life without truly living. In Meursault’s rejection of the chaplain’s God he contemplates that, “I was sure about me, about everything, surer than he could ever be, sure of my life and sure of my death I had waiting for me.” (120). Meursault demonstrates the clarity he feels, and Camus emphasizes how “sure” Meursault feels with the repetition. Religion and faith fits into “The Stranger” because Camus’s philosophy that in rejecting religious solution, one is assured from living disingenuously.
Religion and faith are major themes in the final chapter of the novel, in which Meursault is reflecting on and accepting his death sentence. Most existentialist perspectives reject religion, especially Camus, saying it was a “philosophical suicide” and finding purpose in religion is only a cowardly way out. Therefore, Meursault’s rejection of religion in the final chapter parallels his acceptance of the lack of meaning in life, as well as the fact that nothing comes after. The chaplain asks Meursault, “And do you really live with the thought that when you die, you die, and nothing remains?” to which Meursault replies with a simple “yes” (117). To some, religion may be their only source of comfort in the face of the inevitability of death, but for Meursault, it seems to be the opposite. He accepts that everyone dies eventually, and has made peace with the fact that nothing will come after. Like existentialism as a whole, it seems depressing at first, yet Meursault seems to find comfort in it, implied by his brief answer and lack of hesitation. Camus then writes, “[The chaplain] thought it was more than a man could bear. I didn’t feel anything except that he was beginning to annoy me” (117-118). The chaplain is portrayed as annoying, possibly even hopeless, when attempting to convince Meursault of the importance of religion. This is in line with Camus’ beliefs, likely part of the commentary he is trying to make on religion and the absurd; the chaplain is those who commit this “philosophical suicide,” while Meursault realizes that the lack of an afterlife is not a bad thing, because once you’re dead, you won’t exist to care. Ceasing to exist in such a way may be comforting for people, since once their lives are over with, they won’t be around to worry about anything. The topic of religion, and the revelations and portrayals of Meursault’s attitude towards them, come in at the end to signify the end of Meursault’s existentialist journey and finally accepting the absurd.
The absurdist philosophy is very prevalent in the novel and plays a central role in how Meursault interprets his surroundings and reacts to them. Absurdism is essentially the belief that all objects and concepts that humans try to assign meaning to in the world cannot be assigned meaning because they are inherently absurd and meaningless. Camus reflects the concept of absurdism in Meursault's character with his cold, analytical observations of his surroundings. One example of his distance and non-interaction with his surroundings is when he is keeping vigil over his deceased mother, when he thinks, “The woman kept on crying. It surprised me, because I didn’t know who she was. I wished I didn’t have to listen to her anymore” (10). This particular thought by Meursault showcases his insensitivity to the emotions of other people in his surroundings. Insensitivity to something like death is in line with the absurdist philosophy, since there is really no meaning in death according to absurdists. To them, death is just another physical event; there is no reason to show sensitivity to a physical event like that, because it is absurd and meaningless. Camus further emphasizes Meursault’s insensitivity to this when he writes, “the woman’s sighs and sobs were quieting down. She sniffled a lot. Then finally she shut up” (11). In this quote, Meursault shows insensitivity to his surroundings once again through the use of harsh diction in “shut up”. Also, the fact that Meursault simply reports the actions of his surroundings in his narration without any emotional attachment, like a scientist writing down observations, supports the absurdist ideal that the world is absurd and meaning cannot be assigned to it. Camus includes these examples of absurdism not to make readers depressed, but rather to show readers that even if the world is inherently meaningless, they can still carve their own meaning, as is reflected in the fact that Meursault is happy at the end of the book.
Albert Camus, the author of “The Stranger” provides insight into his beliefs in accordance to religion and faith. Camus views religion as a philosophical suicidal solution to the absurdity of the world. Although he believes it to be just as “fatal and self-destructive as physical suicide” he does acknowledge it’s presence and results of a more pleasant alternative after death. In his novel, Camus makes his main character have no religious beliefs.In fact religion is hardly mentioned until the end showing the low impact religion has on Camus’s beliefs. When Meursault's days became numbered and his execution date gets closer the Chaplain tries to push the beliefs of an afterlife and faith onto Meursault. Meursault’s view of religion seems to be a representation of Camus’s. He constantly refuses religion and finds that the world is absurd and that there is no afterlife following death. “Nothing, nothing mattered, and I knew why. So did he” (121). The Chaplin is the foil to Meursault's religious beliefs. Unlike Meursault, the chaplain goes through life preaching and converting people into believers of God. When Meursault describes him he states, “He wasn’t even sure he was alive, because he was living like a dead man (120)”. For a character like the Chaplain he isn’t able to embrace and accept the absurdity of the world so he turns to religion. By being swept up in a religious based life and believing there is an afterlife the chaplain isn’t truly living, thus relating back to Camus’s view of religion as a philosophical suicide. With Meursault’s inability to find faith in God it adds some doubt to the Chaplin’s beliefs, “Almost as if it wasn’t me he was talking to, he remarked that sometimes we think we’re sure when in fact we’re not” (116). This quote although directed at Meursault and his lack of religious faith it also seems to be relevant to the Chaplain. It’s possible the Chaplain himself has his own doubts in his religious beliefs. Camus used “The Stranger” to share his beliefs in regard to religion and afterlife.
In the novel The Stranger, having faith in a religion clashes with the existentialist view that life is absurd or meaningless. This view is exemplified very clearly in the conversation between Meursault and the Chaplain. When he asks why he refused to see him, Meursault replies that he “didn’t believe in God” (116). Here, Meursault is clearly rejecting the faith in the existence of God. What the chaplain is trying to convey to Meursault is that only divine justice exists and society’s punishment does not matter, which means that Meursault can be forgiven from his crime if he has faith in God. However, again, Meursault refuses to do so. This is because accepting the Chaplain's conversion to the religion is the same as attempting to escape one’s own faith, which is something that should not be done according to his absurd outlook on life. As said by Meursault, “life isn’t worth living”, because “since “we're all going to die, it’s obvious that when and how don’t matter” (114). However, accepting this fate of one’s life allows one to be free from this “crushing truth” and sorrow, in which this view is reflected in the Myth of Sisyphus. Indeed, once Meursault accepts his fate of being executed, he says that “I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again” (123). However, if Meursault were to convert to the religion that the chaplain suggested, he would be seeking to escape his fate and reach happiness outside of that fate. Doing so would mean that people can only achieve happiness by escaping one’s fate. Meursault refuses to have faith in religion in order to defend the belief that accepting one’s fate can lead to happiness. Thus, religion and faith plays the role of conveying the importance of accepting one’s faith.
Throughout the novel "The Stranger", by Albert Camus, there are many different demonstrations of how people interact with each other. Meursalt typically has the most detached interactions, or lack there of. Camus writes, "It was then that I realized they were all sitting across from me, nodding their heads, grouped around the caretaker." This is a true demonstration of how Mersualt acts about and with those around him. He is very ignorant and detached to the world around him. He doesn't feel the need to find meaning in the relationships or even the people around him. This is a true embodiment of the existentialist ideals, especially when it comes to absurdism. The people around him are all seeking meaning where there is none. Later int he novel, he develops the ability to consider what other people think. Mersault narrates, " 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.". This is the last line in the novel, right before his execution. At this point he has spent a very long in prison, alone with his thoughts, he learns that his actions do have repercussions. He also learns that he effects the way other people think about him. Yet, he still does not truly care about what these people think about him. He is faced with death and he is accepting that. The two passages show how he develops the ability to see that he does have an effect on the world. He does not do what many would do with this knwoledge, but the ability to recognize this shows his growth as a character
In the passage I used in part 1, Mersault is asked by Marie “if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to to. The 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” (Camus 41). His clear indifference to the topic made it obvious to the audience of his “cold-heartedness”, he didn’t care one way or another about committing to spend the rest of his life with someone else, something that is usually taken very seriously. This sets an depressing tone for the reader that hears an answer like that, because it’s easy to put yourself in the position of Marie hearing someone else talk like that. It seems as though Mersault is actually just incapable of feeling love (or many emotions), making him hard to relate to. In part 2 of “The Stranger”, after the chaplain is done talking to Mersault about religion and his attitudes, he finally starts to give up on him. Blown away by his tragic indifference, he “looked at me with a kind of sadness… ‘Do you really love this earth as much as all that?’ He murmured. I didn’t answer” (119). In this passage right at the end of the book the reader is once again reminded of Mersault’s true values in life. Rather than spend his life worrying about the emotional aspects of life, like love, and religion/afterlives, he takes more to the natural world and the earth, pay attention to the physical things. This actually saddened the chaplain, whom like many others, was unable to imagine someone could act like this. Although it is a peaceful point of view, it is radically different from the morals and attitude of most, which is a big reason why he was rejected so harshly.
One technique that is used by Camus in his novel The Stranger, is the aim to make the readers feel uncomfortable, and through that explore the idea of existentialism. While reading the novel, the readers constantly ponder about the truth behind this constant apathy that is surrounded by the main character of the novel, Meursault. To examine this, I chose the very first opening passage of the book and the very last passage of the book to look at closely. The opening paragraph introduced the narrator's lack of emotion towards the death of his mother. Here, this is used at the beginning not only to begin the concept of existentialism, but mostly to characterize the character as apathetic, or someone who views daily life as meaningless. From the first paragraph, the readers characterize this person as someone who is dull, and cold and lacks the ability to see sentiment, beauty or emotion in his surroundings. The last paragraph of the novel, a perfect contrast of this thought. In this paragraph, Camus used a range of nature imagery by saying, “ Sounds of the countryside were drifting in. Smells of night, earth and salt air were cooling my temples. The wondrous piece of that sleeping summer flowed through me like a tide” (Camus 122). The fact that this nature symbolism is used here is used to show character growth in a subtle manner. In the same passage, Camus writes,” They were announcing departures for a world that now and forever meant nothing to me” (Camus 122). This existentialist motif returns here to connect with the first paragraph of the novel but it also is used to add to the subtlety of the symbolism in showing the change in the character. I found this interesting because while reading the book, I constantly was overwhelmed by the thought that a person could be so detached from this world and their emotions and was ever-hopeful in trying to see if the character has gained some insight about meaning in this world. The first and last paragraphs are a juxtaposition of each other, linked by the mention of the “Maman” in both passages, but examination of the character is varied.The last passage of this book, satisfied my thoughts by using nature symbolism to show the growth in Meursault as he begins to notice the world more in color rather than the black and white view he seemed to give off in the beginning of the story.
Part One: “The sky changed again. Above the rooftops the sky had taken on a reddish glow, and with evening coming on the streets came to life. People were straggling back from their walks. I recognized the distinguished little man among the others. Children were either crying or lagging behind.” (Camus 23)
Part Two: “As I was leaving the courthouse on my way back to the van, I recognized for a brief moment the smell and color of the summer evening. . .The cries of the newspaper vendors in the already languid air, the last few birds in the square, the shouts of the sandwich sellers, the screech of the streetcars turning sharply through the upper town, and that hum in the sky before night engulfs the port. . .And yet something had changed, since it was back to my cell that I went to wait for the next day . . . as if familiar paths traced in summer skies could lead as easily to prison as to the sleep of the innocent.” (97)
In Part One of “The Stranger” Camus uses short and simple syntax, and visual imagery creating a factual tone to convey the indifference of Meursault. The Part One passage is from a chapter where Meursault spends a Sunday observing people on the street from his balcony. Camus uses only simplistic, visual imagery in describing the sky as “reddish” and the people “straggling back” (23). By using only visual imagery, Camus depicts Meursault’s point of view as very simple and passive. Meursault’s thoughts consist of observations like how the sky was “reddish”—there’s little insight of his emotions, other than physical ones like his hunger or exhaustion. There’s also a scarcity of the pronoun “I” throughout the first passage which reflects the disconnection Meursault feels to the world. Relatively short sentences that don’t vary in length create a choppy read that results in a matter of fact tone. These sentences are also mostly simple sentences with only one independent clauses, leaving a dryness to the reader which helps reflect Meursault’s indifference.
(Continued) Contrasting with Part One, in Part Two, Camus utilizes complex syntax, alliteration, and imagery that appeals to multiple senses; he forms a more emotional tone to portray the development of Meursault from a state of indifference to one of true acceptance. At this point Meursault has not completely accepted the absurdity of existence: that comes in the last pages before the final line. However, Meursault is a growing character, and his development is revealed in Camus’s almost imperceptible transition in writing technique. In doing this, he subliminally changes the tone for the reader. Camus’s writes Meursault’s inner monologue with a diverse syntax where sentence length vary and different types of structure are used. He also uses alliteration of “s” sounds: “sandwich sellers,” “screech,” “streetcars,” and “summer skies” (97). Both the use of complex syntax and alliteration creates a fluid tone, a more romantic mood that starkly contrasts with the factual tone of the passage in Part One. In growing to accept absurdity, Meursault’s thoughts become more involved and instead of just thinking life has no meaning so why try, his attitude is becoming more like Camus’s absurdity that life consists of no meaning so accept it but don’t live in indifference. Also, unlike the first passage, Camus utilizes the “I” pronoun, and Meursault thinks about his emotions ruminating about the “town I loved” and of when he “used to feel happy” (97). These techniques create a longing and emotional tone, demonstrating Meursault’s active interaction compared to his passiveness at the beginning of the novel. The rich imagery from the “screech of the streetcars” to visual addition of “the last few birds” reveals almost a passion Meursault feels towards the mundane, contrasting his indifference earlier (97). The last line of the passage: “as if familiar paths traced in summer skies could lead as easily to prison as to the sleep of the innocent” depicts Meursault’s understanding that though his actions lead him “easily to prison” he could’ve also easily lead to the “innocent” meaning that his actions are impactful (97). This is a part of Camus’s existentialism as a whole: the concept of free will. Meursault was never fated to anything; and he understands that it in this passage representing his evolution.
“Then there was the church and the villagers on the sidewalks, the red geraniums on the graves in the cemetery, Perez fainting (he crumpled like a rag doll), the blood-red earth spilling over Maman’s casket, the white flesh of the roots mixed in with it, more people, voices, the village, waiting in front of a cafe, the incessant drone of the motor, and my joy when the bus entered the nest of lights that was Algiers and I knew I was going to go to bed and sleep for twelve hours” (18). “I would remember every piece of furniture; and on every piece of furniture, every object; and of every object, all the details; and of the details themselves-a flake, a crack, or a chipped edge-the color and the texture. At the same time I would try not to lose the thread of my inventory, to make a complete list, so that after a few weeks I could spend hours just enumerating the things that were in my room” (79). The biggest change between parts one and two is the amount of detail in the narrative. Camus uses sensory imagery with varying amounts of detail to illustrate both consistencies in Meursault’s character as well as how he changes. The passage selected from part one is one long sentence, condensing the end of the funeral and Meursault’s journey home. The only time he describes any emotion is towards the end, when he finally boards the bus and looks forward to sleeping, ending a day that most would dwell on instead of dismissing it. Camus condenses the events to portray Meursault’s lack of care for his mother’s funeral and death, and instead his focus on returning to his normal, day-to-day life. He does, however, interrupt the sentence to throw in a simile regarding Perez’s faint. He pays no concern, only describing him as a “rag doll;” the combination of the rag doll comparison and the dismissive description of people in the village implies Meursault only sees them as inconveniences, fitting with the theme that relationships don’t matter to Meursault. The usage of “incessant drone of the motor” drives the feeling of inconvenience and annoyance into the reader, and the entire passage signifies how Meursault takes such details for granted. In the second passage, taken from part two, Meursault describes how he now goes back to all the details he used to gloss over, savoring them now that he doesn’t have them. Throughout the entirety of part two, Meursault continues to describe events in much more detail. However, he still only summarizes exactly what he is thinking in a somewhat robotic way. Like his life before, such thoughts are a routine he has fallen into, in line with his belief that he can get used to anything with enough time. Both passages also use sensory imagery instead of describing emotions or events. Instead of describing his mother’s burial, he describes the color and motion of the dirt falling over her casket; instead of describing how he feels about his memories and the specific objects in his room, he talks about recalling details such as flakes and cracks. The focus on sensory details fits with the existentialist focus on tangible reality, what people see instead of intangible thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. Over the course of the novel, Meursault begins to pay more attention to his actions and the details of day to day life, but still retains an objective attitude and a focus on what he can see.
The attitude that Meursault has towards the world and his surroundings changes drastically from Part 1 to Part 2 of “The Stranger”. In Part 1, Meursault goes through the motions of his life without assigning meaning to anything, and thinking that nothing really matters. This sentiment that Meursault demonstrates in Part 1 is most prominently demonstrated when Meursault thinks, “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” (24). In this sentence, Camus juxtaposes the heavy statement of “Maman was buried now” with the apathetic, neutral thought that “nothing had changed”. This juxtaposition of Meursault’s mother’s death, an event that usually has a lot of gravity for normal people, with the statement that her death holds no significance in his daily life highlights Meursault’s inability to assign meaning to anything that he experiences in his life. Also, Camus structures the sentence like a list, using lots of commas, to further emphasize how boring and mundane his life is, despite the fact that his mother just passed away. In Part 2 of the book, however, Meursault adopts a more positive outlook on life, and finds much more meaning even though he still thinks that the world around him is meaningless. Camus writes, “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” (122-123). Camus personifies the indifference of the world as “gentle” to show that even though Meursault accepts that the world is inherently meaningless, he is able to create his own meaning. Using personification helps communicate this because doing so conveys significance and emotion in something a phrase that would have been rather simple and emotionless without personification. Looking at the types of literary devices used in just these two excerpts from parts 1 and 2, it is clear that Meursault changes radically over the course of the book to become more satisfied with the meaninglessness of life.
In the novel The Stranger, the character Meursault goes through a change throughout the story, which can be seen in the difference in attitude he has in part 1 and 2. In the first passage, Meursault encounters an arab and fatally shoots him with Raymond’s gun. He attempts to explain his actions by blaming it on the extremely humid weather, saying that “this burning, which in couldn’t stand anymore, that made me move forward” (58). Furthermore, the author visually illustrates the weather, stating, “the sun was starting to burn my cheeks, and I could feel drops of sweat gathering in my eyebrows” (pg 58). Here, the image of Meursault sweating portrays in the reader's mind the hotness that he is feeling, which makes his statement of blaming the weather seem more plausible. Although Meursault is passive from the start of the novel, the portrayal of the weather and his statement of blaming the weather creates a somewhat evasive tone, which allows the readers to understand that he has not yet accepted his fate that awaits him. In contrast, the passage in part 2 portrays Meursault that has undergone a small but significant change in his attitude. After he is told of his death sentence, he ponders about his chance of being appealed. Howevers, he does hope for the best and states that “life isn’t worth living”. The significance of this passage is that unlike in part 1, where he subtly makes excuses in what he does, he accepts his execution and therefore accepts his fate. Meursault rejects his appeal in a calm manner, which helps to convince the readers that what he says are not lies but are merely what he believes. Thus, the comparison of the two passages illustrates the dynamic change in Meursault and his attitude towards his fate.
Meursault, the main character of the novel, “The Stranger” by Albert Camus is a very dynamic character throughout the book.He especially changes from part one of “the Stranger”, to part two. In the first part of the novel Meursault is a very laid back character and never expresses any opinions when asked to make a decision. He is quite often indifferent and seems to not care about the decisions being made in his life. In a passage from part 1, Maria tries to figure out the extent of her and Meursault's relationship. When asking if he wants to marry her and if he loves her he replies by saying, “I explained to her that it didn’t really matter and that if she wanted to, we could get married. Besides, she was the one doing the asking and all I was saying was yes” Meursault later goes on stating, “I didn’t say anything, because I didn’t have anything to add, so she took my arm with a smile and said she wanted to marry me. I said we could do it whenever she wanted”(41-42). Meursault holds no stance on the matter, instead he simply agrees to every suggestion she makes. Camus uses Meursault’s Character to show the absurdity in the world. With everybody who Meursault interacts with in Part one, he agrees and follows their orders and never speaks up or makes his own decision. By not holding an opinion it shows he doesn’t care or have any passion in his life and his indifference reads as boredom and unhappiness. However, this changes and transforms from part 1 to part 2. Although Meursault seems to accept the absurdity in life, as the possibility of death seems to draw closer he also starts to question and take stances on his beliefs. Although existentialist beliefs is that the world is absurd many philosophers also believe that making decisions is very important. Meursault seems to start to understand this concept more and more as part 2 progresses. The first time Meursault starts to show this change is in the courtroom, “In a way they seemed to be arguing the case as if it had nothing to do with me. Everything was happening without my participation. My fate was being decided without anyone so much as asking my opinion” (98). After this moment Meursault actually states his beliefs even if it’s contradictory to what others are telling him to do. Meursault develops and understands to a better extent about the absurdity of the world and how to react to it in order to be happy.
In the novel, The Stranger, Albert Camus presents the last passage to reflect Meursault’s acceptance of life as meaningless and absurd. Before this passage, the chaplain attempts to convert him to religion, which causes him to be in a “blind rage”. However, this as a result washed him “clean” and rid him of “hope”, meaning he has accepted life as absurd and therefore his inevitable fate of death without having the slightest hope of changing that fate. As said in the previous blog, accepting the conversion to the religion would mean that he is attempting to escape his own fate, which would mean that happiness can only be attained through escaping one’s fate. He instead comes to the conclusion that acceptance of the sorrow fate will make the grief disappear and make one happy, which is why he says that “I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again” (123). This acceptance of the “gentle indifference of the world” caused him to feel a connection with society itself and see it as a “brother”, because he himself is also indifferent to the things that occur in society. Subsequently, his acceptance also allowed him to understand a little more about his mother. In the beginning of the novel, Meursault states that “it’s almost as if Maman weren’t dead” (3), meaning that he believes that he does not feel anything about the death because he thought he hasn't completely grasped the reality of his mother’s death. However, that assumption turns out to be false, in which the reason is that her mother was “ready to live it all again”, and therefore” nobody had the right to cry over her” (122). Meursault also understands that her mom taking a “fiance” is a way of her to accept her death and attempt to live her life once again. In the case of Meursault, he accepts his fate as inevitable and desires to not be alone, which explains why he wishes for an angry crowd to witness his execution.
The last line of "The Stranger" stands to be very prominent within the story as a whole. It reads, "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.". This stands as a true embodiment of how Mersault has developed throughout the novel. In this line the reader can find two essential pillars of existentialism. All lives are equivalent in value, therefore no one is higher than anyone else. The reader can also find that death is one's most authentic self, according to existentialism. Mersault shows both of these very evidently throughout the whole novel but this is the most prominent moment where this can be seen. The meaning he has found in life is the value of people greeting him with cries of hatred. For others, this might be a terrible, awful thing. But this is what he has found value in. While this not be exactly what the existentialist founders were talking about when founding this philosophy, this is what at the ground level they hoped people would do. They hoped they would find their own meaning in their lives instead of searching for another source for meaning such as a religion.
“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). A main theme of existentialism is that the universe is hostile. Meursault realizes this at the end of his life, accepting that whether people love him or hate him, it’s all the same; he also seeks a sense of finality, of an official ending, with the word “consummated.” The word is traditionally used in reference to marriage or other generally positive contexts, and the juxtaposition of the word with Meursault’s impending death and desire for hate, further enforcing the fact that positive and negative are irrelevant, especially at the end of one’s life. The biggest thing that stands out the me, though, is why it puts emphasis on hate. In various media, as well as occasional real-life relationships, I have witnessed an interesting dynamic: someone wants the attention of the other, someone they might have loved in the past, but they no longer care in a positive way. So, to maintain their attention, they make the person hate them instead of love them. At that point for the person, it is all the time, it is still attention from the people they want. Maybe, like Meursault, it helps them feel less alone. Death, as Camus says, is our most authentic moment. It makes sense that someone facing their death would want people to see; because they believe nothing will come after this, that these are their last moments, they want to feel less alone in a hostile universe, and Meursault may even believe that this is now the meaning he has found for himself.
The last sentence in “The Stranger”, by Albert Camus, an off-putting or unsettling quote is used to complete the book. After having a long argument with the religious chaplain and accepting the sentence he was given, Meursault says that he, “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” (Camus 123). This quote at surface level sets a dark and almost evil tone for the reader, as though he does not give one care that he shot and killed a man, or that he didn’t cry at his mother’s funeral. Everyone else could scorn and resent as much as they wanted, that would only make him happier. It sounds as though that is a quote from a sadistic serial killer. In a way that interpretation is true, he did state that he felt no remorse for killing the Arab and did not feel guilt for his mother’s death. However, Meursault was not trying to be or sound evil, and many people jumping to that conclusion is a good representation of how other people view existentialists, immediately saying that they are cold and hopeless souls without looking deeper. In reality, I find that Meursault simply embodies the existentialist outlook in this quote, because he explains 1) that he felt no regrets in any of his choices in his life and 2) any of the “hereafters” in life do not concern him, and he believes that they shouldn’t concern anyone else. Just like Camus preaches, Meursault lived his life in complete freedom, and he enjoyed almost every aspect of the natural life (perhaps while missing the emotional side), so when his time came he was at peace with his decisions. He also wasn’t worried with the opinions of ANYONE, so of course jeers at his death would not be a problem for him, he welcomes it with open arms.
“The Stranger” by Albert Camus includes many themes including a discussion on capital punishment. Camus wrote an essay “Reflections on the Guillotine” adamantly protesting the death penalty, describing it as more premeditated and methodical than any other homicide. Because Meursault seems to accept his punishment at the end of the novel, it may be interpreted as Camus supporting the use of the death penalty. However, other subtleties by Camus implicitly suggests to readers to his position of the abolition of capital punishment. Just like how Camus describes the death penalty as the “most premeditated of murders”, Meursault is imprisoned for months before his hearing, only to be imprisoned again not knowing when his death will come. He anxiously spends all night thinking about “the dawn” and how he “might just as easily have heard footsteps and my heart could have burst” (Camus 113). Meursault reflects upon his sentence, thinking, “Despite my willingness to understand, I just couldn’t accept such arrogant certainty.” (109). Reflecting upon his sentence to a beheading, Meursault questions the certainty around his sentence. To him, the decision to take his life was not without a doubt. This argues against death penalty, depicting the sentence as an “arrogant certainty” (109). He continues to reflect upon his sentence, going into detail about the guillotine, how it “was an open-and-shut case, a fixed arrangement, a tacit agreement that there was no question of going back on.” (111). By describing it as a finality, Camus suggests that the punishment is cruel in that it offers no hope.
In the last passage of “The Stranger”, Camus sums up many of the concepts of existentialism, such as the hostility of the universe, the meaningless of the world, and the assigning of one’s own meaning to life in one coherent sentence. The last sentence of the book reads, “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). The first phrase of this long, comprehensive sentence highlights the inherent meaningless of the world, and Meursault’s acceptance of it. Meursault rejoices over the fact that everything has passed without affecting meaningfully. Camus uses marital diction in the word “consummated” to further emphasize Meursault’s acceptance of the meaningless passing of time. The word “consummate” often comes with connotations of love and fulfillment, since its literal definition relates to marriage. Camus takes advantage of this connotation to show Meursault’s almost affectionate acceptance of the meaningless world around him. The second half of the sentence summarizes the natural hostility of the world, but also shows that happiness can be found despite the hostility. Camus juxtaposes the pleasant diction of “greet me” with the harsh diction of “cries of hate” to illustrate how even when one expects the world to be benign and pleasant, the reality is that they will be met with negativity. Camus structured the sentence so that the positive diction came before the negative diction to show how people naturally believe that the world is benign, and it is not until they experience the harsh reality of the world that they realize the world is hostile. Camus demonstrates that happiness can be found in the negativity by writing that Meursault “wishes” for there to be hostility shown toward him.
In the last line of “the Stranger” by Albert Camus, Camus concludes the ideas and beliefs of the existentialist viewpoint as well as capitalizes on the absurdity in life, “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” (Camus 123). Meursault is aware of the absurdity of life and has no belief in an afterlife. He instead believes that everyone is eventually going to meet their death and so it shouldn’t matter when the time come, “‘But if you don’t die today, you’ll die tomorrow, or the next day” (117). However, Camus’s beliefs configure around maintaining the control in reactions to undesirable situations, making the most and finding the good in every setting. Due to the fact that Meursault is aware of the absurdity in life, he wants to make his moment of death the most authentic moment of his life. Another part of the existentialist belief is that a person’s most authentic moment is when they die. Meursault wants to exit the world in a dramatic way. By having people present at his execution and crying out hateful remarks, Meursault knows his death will receive special attention. Also, his own death will have been significantly different from his mother’s death that took place at the beginning of the book. He will die young , forcefully, painfully, and surrounded by people who hate him. Meursault’s mother in contrary died at an older age, peacefully and surrounded by people who cared about her dearly. Both characters have extremely different deaths, but Camus shows both characters being happy and at peace with their life in the end. After Camus shows that Meursault understands the absurdity of life, Meursault chooses to control his reactions and make his moment of death significant.
Question: Why does time pass more quickly on earth than it does in hell?
Time is a concept defined by the Merriam webster dictionary as, “ the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues “. This man made concept is used as a tool to assign a period to actions in our daily lives. Time is all around us, and has meaning and effect into the life of every single person. In the play, “No Exit”, Jean-Paul Sartre, creates an instances where in the setting of the story, which takes place in hell, time passes far slower than it does on earth. From an existentialist viewpoint, time can be defined as a man-made concept, created to provide meaning to life. A person’s life is almost dependent on when and what time and by what age they complete certain actions. What Sartre is saying about the concept of time in the story is that human life is way too dependent on time, and because of this, humans often forget to live life thoroughly, constantly being tied up in getting things done in time. At the same time, in this story,the characters, who are dead and have been placed in hell, have an ability to see earth and the people they interacted with and see what those people are doing in that exact moment. This inclusion in the book is really interesting because it is Sartre's way of explaining how certain moments in life should be stretched out longer and not quickly overlooked. This aspect alongside the fact that time passes much slower in the setting of the book is a thought-provoking method to describe the concept of time as way a to give meaning to one’s life, but often causes people to be too caught up in it.
Why does Estelle need to look at herself in a mirror? There were not many characters in “No Exit”, by Jean-Paul Sartre, so the reader gets to know each one intimately, even though it was only 40 pages. One of my favorite characters that was ridiculed greatly in this play was Estelle. Estelle stood out to me because she was a great reflection of people in our modern day society, very self-absorbed and materialistic. Estelle was much more worried about self-image than anyone else in the hotel room, and this was expressed most prominently through her symbol of the mirror. The fact that there was no mirror in the room ate away at Estelle because something that was most important to her was taken away (her image). Just by taking away all the mirrors in the room it was actually a more effective “torture” method than anything chainsaws and knives could do. Who are the protagonists and antagonists? It’s difficult to say that there are any protagonists at all in this play, because it is set in hell, so every character was cruel and did something awful to get there. Estelle killed a baby, Inez was just a cruel woman, and Garcin defied his government. However, when you look at each character and they way Sartre portrayed them, Garcin could be considered the closest thing to a protagonist. Garcin was the most assertive at the beginning of the play trying to keep everyone from tearing each other up, and actually tried to keep everyone from talking to each other completely. He knew what the plan of the “hell” was and why they were put in the hotel together, so he devised his plan of complete silence in order to stop it. Also when you consider the reason why they were put in hell, Garcin actually was defending his own values by opposing the war with his newspaper. When you consider the other characters in the room with him, he had definitely the most morally positive reason for being put in hell.
Q6: The main conflict of the play is everyone denying the reasons they may be in hell, and their torment of each other. Therefore, there is no definitive protagonist or antagonist of the story. Each of the three main characters are their own protagonists, and the antagonist to the other two. The valet, and the rest of hell, could be considered the antagonist; however, I would disagree with such an assumption. The valet is only doing his job, introducing the characters to their new environment, a small yet crucial role in the play. However, he does not torment them, and instead leaves them to torment themselves and each other. Q7: Sartre may be less critical of Inez because she admits her wrongdoings. She makes no secret of what she did during her life and why she believes she is in hell; despite her torment of Estelle and Garcin, she has come to terms with her existence, an obvious main theme in the play. Meanwhile, Estelle is in denial of her heinous acts toward her baby, her vanity, and her pride in causing someone’s suicide. Despite her actions, she tells herself she has no idea why she is in hell, and tries her hardest to deny the nature of her existence and what she had done.
Looking up more on Sartre’s philosophy on existentialism, he wrote about “bad faith” describing where a person caves to social pressure and deceives himself into societal values, and essentially, acts inauthentically. In “No Exit”, self-deception in the characters reveals the human tendency to deceive oneself in order to protect one's sense of identity. Ultimately, Sartre suggests that self-deception really does more harm than good. Once everyone has been escorted to their room by Valet, no one is willing to admit to what they did to get into hell. Estelle even recoils at the truth that they’re dead, insisting that they call themselves “absentees” and never seems to accept it to the point where at the end of the play she attempts to kill Inez, forgetting that they already are dead (12). Inez, however, isn’t afraid to admit to the crimes she’s done, and upon her first interaction with Garcin refers to herself as a torturer. She’s the one to point out the other two’s delusions, stating “Yes, we are criminals-murderers-all three of us.” (16). Sartre uses sarcasm through Inez, calling Estelle a “plaster saint” and Garcin a “noble pacifist” pointing out to viewers of their distorted self-image (17). At first Garcin denies any crime, but is the first to reveal his complete sins to the other two. So if he could deceive himself in the beginning, why couldn’t he deceive himself that he was not a coward to absolve his “hell”? Because to him, by relying on himself to define whether he’s a coward or not, is in fact cowardly. His obsession to “being a real man” or being brave can only be affirmed by how others view him and Garcin realizes this in his decision to convince Inez of how he’s not a coward (43).
I think Sartre is definitely less critical of Inez than Estelle. Estelle and Inez are far opposites in that Inez holds a sense of self, while Estelle needs to be in other’s eyes to feel she exists. Estelle searching for a mirror remarks that “When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist” and that using a mirror “kept me alert, seeing myself as the others saw me” (19). Without a view of how others see her, she has no identity. For Estelle, she needs the validation from others, or more specifically be the desire of men (as evident by her insistence of Garcin’s attention and extreme jealousy of Olga with Peter). Unlike Inez who openly calls herself “‘a damned bitch’”, Estelle doesn’t seem to comprehend the atrocity of her infanticide, or maybe deceives herself that it doesn’t matter as long as her husband never knows (25). Inez comments on Estelle's’ lack of awareness saying, “You’re lucky. I’m always conscious of myself-in my mind. Painfully conscious” (19). For Sartre, avoiding self-deception is part of his philosophy on existentialism, and Inez fulfills that much more than Estelle.
3. Time passes quicker on earth than it does in hell. This occurs because they are no longer "living" therefore there is no need to have any perception of time. This also allows the author to take away any sort of escape for the characters. With there being no need to sleep, and no one does, the characters can no longer get away from what they have done. Ultimately forcing them to face what they have done. Also forcing them to evaluate themselves, which can be good or bad. But they have to finally own up to why they are in hell, thus ridding them of all ignorance or naivety to why they are there.
7. Sartre is less critical of Inez for several reasons. Yet, the most obvious and blunt is that Inez is very straight forward about owning up to what she has done. She takes full responsibility for what has happened. Despite these actions for death not being executed by herself, she realizes that the way she lived was ultimately the cause of her demise. Estelle does not even attempt to do this in any way. In fact, Garcin and Inez have to force out of her why she is even in hell. Her ignorance and childish denial causes Sartre and Garcin to have more respect for Inez in that way.
Why won’t any of the characters admit to their crimes in hell?
None of the characters will admit their crimes because denial is a way for them to convince themselves to believe a different truth. They don’t want to accept the horrificity of the crimes they committed. By admitting their crimes they become pertinent and real. This is related to the idea of self deception and denying one’s elevance. Especially in the case of Estelle she tries to convince herself that her existence in Hell is a mistake. When asked by the others her reasoning for being in Hell she replies, “[quickly] That’s just it I haven’t a notion, not the foggiest. In fact I’m wondering if there hasn’t been some ghastly mistake” (15). The stage direction indicates that she is trying to cover up and deny the truth. As time goes on she is the most reluctant to tell her story to both Inez and Garcin. Estelle tries to deny the truth about her crimes and tries to ignore the horrific things she did. She used to have a reputation on earth for being a very sweet, perfect girl . she is even referred to by an admirer as, “His glancing stream, his crystal. Well, the crystal’s now shattered” (33). She tries to maintain this image, even though she is no longer that girl. By believing a different truth she can pretend to ignore the monstrous things she did to her own baby.
How does this play address the concept of man’s cruelty to man?
It addresses this concept because in the play, all the characters are each other’s torturer. Each character has the power to hurt another in the room and all of them at some point in this play intentionally act in cruel manners towards the others. For example, Garcin refuses to leave even when the door that has locked them in their room finally opens. He needs to stay because he needs the approval of Inez that he is not a coward in order to move on from his past. With this knowledge Inez almost taunts Garcin and holds this power over him, “Ah wasn’t I right when I said you were vulnerable ? Now you’re going to pay the price, and what a price! You're a coward, Garcin, because I wish it. I wish it-do you hear?-I wish it” (44). This shows the cruelty that humans are capable of inflicting on one another. Also, all of the crimes each character committed were extremely cruel in relation to their victims they harmed. Inez even refers to herself as cruel, she states, “When I say I’m cruel, I mean I can’t get on without making people suffer. Like a live coal. A live coal in other’s hearts. When I’m alone I flicker out” (26). Inez, like most people feels the need to harm others. Hurting other humans is part of her life and adds to her cruel nature.
Why does Estelle try to kill Inez? Is her attempt an example of self-deception or the absurdity of her situation? What is the paper knife used to stab Inez a symbol of? Estelle attempts to kill Inez because she became a burden in her process of coping with the situation in hell. She feels the need to have a man and therefore attempts to seduce Garcin. However, Inex, who is secually attracted to women, finds Estelle very attractive and attempts to seduce her. When Garcin focus his attention to Inez, Estelle attempts to kill her with a paper knife. Her act and the paper knife represents the absurdity of the her situation and the futility in trying to escape that situation. Attempting to kill Inex will do nothing, since they are already dead, forever leaving Inez with Estelle.
Compare the three main characters. Why are each of theses characters in hell? All three characters have done something during their lives that made them arrive in hell. Firstly, Garcin has treated her wife very badly and he his belief as a pacifist resulted in his death during a war. Secondly, Estelle has had an affair with his husband, and she even went to the point of drowning her baby. Finally, Inez states herself that the reason she is in hell is that she tried to seduce a wife of a friend. Subsequently, the three characters were not just randomly put together, in which “each of us will act as torture of the two others” (17). Garcin executes this act because he rejects Estelle's seduction, while he also takes all the attention of Estelle away from Inez. Estelle acts as a torturer because she makes Inez forever cope with a situation where one is hated by their beloved person. Finally, Inez tortures Estelle by taking Garcin’s attention away from her. In the case of Garcin, he desires to have someone accept that he is not a coward, and in order to make Inez even consider to acknowledge him, he is forced to prove that he is not a coward by not leaving hell when he had the chance to. Thus, the three characters were in hell for their sins and to act as the “hell” for the other two characters.
Question: Why does time pass more quickly on earth than it does in hell?
Jean Paul Sartre structures time in hell to pass slower to emphasize the eternal suffering that is hell. A common theme in No Exit is that suffering can take place in many shapes and forms, and is not only physical. Sartre shows this point through the fact that all of the characters, Garcin, Inez, and Estelle, all expect there to be torture devices that the valet will eventually escort them to. They are surprised, however, when they realize that there are no torture devices; it is torture enough having to spend eternity in the same room together. SInce their punishment in staying in the same room, the fact that time passes slower in hell just adds to their suffering.
Who are the protagonists and antagonists of this play? What is the conflict? Explain.
The line between protagonist and antagonist in this play is highly blurred, all the characters have both crippling flaws and redeeming qualities. The fact that the characters have been banished to hell suggests that perhaps there are no protagonists in the play, since people who go to hell are deemed “bad” people. However, authors can have “bad” protagonists, so long as they structure the story around that character. In No Exit, however, the story is structured around the three characters: Garcin, Inez, and Estelle. All of their conflicts and goals embody into one conflict simply because of the fact that they are stuck in a room together for eternity. They all share the same fate. While the characters go against each other and have differing agendas at first, they are ultimately bound to the same fate of eternal suffering and therefore their conflict is shared. For this reason, I would argue that there is no clear protagonist, but instead, the three characters fit into the role of one protagonist.
One largely recognizable ideal in the novel "The Stranger", as well as in existentialism itself, is an idea of passivity. This is the idea that you will let anyone or anything happen without any interference or real care for what is occurring. This beyond prevalent when it comes to the main character of the novel, Meursault. Camus writes, "At that time, I often thought that if I had had to live in the trunk of a dead tree, with nothing to do but look up at the sky flowing overhead, little by little I would have gotten used to it.". This demonstrates the true ideals of Meursault. He does not recognize any difference between living in a house, or in a tree trunk, to him it is all the same. This is the true meaning behind life for him. He follows the model of passivity to a tee. He lives his life, going along with whatever happens. There is no rhyme or reason to it. This causes a very large lack of emotion. This lack of emotional value to his life allows him to live passively with the existentialist ideals. While these ideals may not be relatable for many audience members. It is important to recognize passivity to further understand humans. There are so many contradicting religions and philosophies, yet this one can almost universally contradict each and every one. With this knowledge, passivity allows us to understand why humans need a certain higher power or belief that gives purpose to life, and as a matter a fact why humans seek a meaning in their life. Meursalt and each other character can be examined side by side to further this understanding. While each person in the novel has their flaws, they each allow us to see a different meaning in living.
ReplyDeletePassivity is defined as a state of inactivity. It holds the meaning of not having input into doings in one’s life. In the novel, The Stranger, by Albert Camus, pasitivity is not defined as a state of not thinking, but the state of believing nothing is meant to be thought about. Camus brings into light his view of humanity and reality in the character Meursault, whom seems to take nothing in life as a thought process, or with emotional attachment. His appearance seems to be to only satisfy that which is necessary for physical, human existence. In this novel, passivity is portrayed to display the sense of not having goals and only being in the exact moment of life. Here, the main character refuses to believe or want anything more than what he has. Examples of this lack of interest in traditionally “fulfilling and desired” ideas in a person’s life are seen when Meursault shows apathy towards a new job offered to him. In chapter 5, page 41, this passivity of Meursault is expressed by his boss, Camus writing, “ He looked upset and told me that I never gave him a straight answer, that I had no ambition, and that was disastrous in business.” (Camus 41). Here, when offered a promotion, Meursault replies by saying that it is the same to him whether he gets the promotion or not. A non-passive person would take this as a great opportunity and be thankful for the most part, but Meursault doesn’t believe in the meaningfulness that this promotion may bring to his life, seeing it as indifferent to the reality of living. Here, Camus is trying to contradict traditional ideas of success by numbing the expression and meaning that opportunities bring into one’s life. Another example of this is found on the same page, when Marie and Meursault discuss marriage. Camus writes on page 41, “ Then she asked me 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”(Camus 42). Here, the meaning and joy derived from marriage is taken out and emptied. By saying he would have married any other woman whom offered to marry him, he is implying that he doesn’t particularly love Marie more than anyone else, therefore, marriage to her would be the same as marriage to someone else. This is very much the opposite of what a marriage should be, therefore, by doing this, Camus is attempting to disregard the meaning in the traditions performed by people.
ReplyDeleteIn the novel, The Stranger, the idea of passivity is used to contradict and give meaninglessness to traditional ideas of success and joy.
I don't agree with any of these interpretations. Did you guys even read the book? Looks awfully similar to SparksNotes...
ReplyDeleteya got me
DeleteNima, what are you doing?! I'm sure you have something else to work on...
DeleteMs. Ballard
Mrs. Ballard, your students are like parrots repeating the same thing. No body thinks for themselves here.
Deletesup boi
DeletePassivity is, ironically, a driving theme in the novel. The consequences of Meursault’s passivity throughout the novel all come together in the end. In the beginning, he attends his mother’s funeral out of obligation, but plays no part in the planning of it or any other details. The iconic first sentences of the novel say, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know” (3). He does not seem to care at all for his mother’s death, and does not seem surprised in the least. The lack of surprise implies he knew it was going to happen, which makes sense, considering she was old and was likely to die soon anyway. However, most people would make the most of the remaining time with their loved ones, whereas Meursault is shown to have had little to no interaction with ehr after putting her in a home. He let it happen, did nothing to make the situation any better for anyone, and such a character trait is illustrated in the very first lines of the novel. Therefore, the reader knows passivity is a significant part of his character and the book’s themes as a whole. At the end of the novel, the prosecutor in the trial says, “the man who is seated in the dock is also guilty of the murder to be tried in this court tomorrow” (102) in reference to the following trial of parricide. Meursault’s passivity towards his mother is later seen as the equivalent of killing her, due to the actions previously described. Such an accusation is eventually what gets him condemned to his own death. He also fails to take any action in court to defend himself for the first part of it, simply letting it happen, spacing out and not caring what happens to him. The passivity he displays causes him to dissociate himself from the issue. However, he later contemplates why he can’t take any action, why he is there yet not a part of the decision of his fate at all, which is one of the first in a series of many revelations about his life, though that can be an entirely different topic of analysis. In the end, Meursault also uses his passivity as a way to cope with his impending death when he says, “Since we’re all going to die, it’s obvious that when and how don’t matter” (114). He decides to just let his death happen, too, because he fills his mind with pleasant thoughts of the inevitability and inescapability of mortality, trying his best to justify what has already been decided. Meursault’s passive nature both caused the events that led up to the murder and the verdict in the trial itself and helped him deal with such consequences, both ends on the chain of cause and effect.
ReplyDeleteAlbert Camus in “The Stranger” juxtaposes Meursault’s relationships and the relationships among supporting characters. This contrasts the main character’s indifference with other characters’ volatile bonds. Camus portrays two types of relations: bonds without genuine emotion (Meursault) and emotional relationships that are often viewed by society as the norm. Meursault’s views his relationship with Marie Cardona with indifference, because for him, marriage and even whether he loves her or not, “didn't really matter” (Camus 41). Although Meursault enjoys Marie’s company, he could easily do without her. Despite his honest response that he, “probably didn’t love her,” Marie remains close to him, claiming that his “peculiar[ity]. . .was probably why she loved” him (42). His romantic involvement with Marie juxtaposes against his mother and Thomas Perez’s romance where the caretaker described them as “inseparable” (13). It's transparent that Perez cared deeply for Meursault’s mother to force himself physically and emotionally to participate in the funereal procession. While practicalities seem to “bind” Meursault and Marie, love and emotional connection tied Meursault's mother and Perez. In comparison to Meursault’s mother and Perez’s relationship, the Meursault and Marie romance appears superficial and less “valid”. While society’s views superficial romantic relationships as less valid, Camus argues that Meursault’s shallow romance isn’t any less true. Both partners in this “shallow” relationship are content which is evident when Meursault is swimming with Marie: “Together again, Marie and I swam out a ways, and we felt a closeness as we moved in unison and were happy” (50). Based on Camus’s theme of absurdity, even if their relationship is less genuine, why does it matter if there’s no real meaning anyways? The dynamics of Raymond Sintes and his mistress, along with Salamano and his dog, portray volatile relationships that differ from the sweet tone between Perez and Madame Meursault. One could argue that even these toxic relationships are still more true than any of Meursault's apathetic ones. But Camus depicts majority of the relationships that society views as true in a negative fashion—Raymond loses his mistress, Salamano loses his dog. Yet, in Meursault’s passive relations with Marie and Raymond, they defend and remain loyal to Meursault when testifying in court. Camus makes a statement that supposed shallow relationships are not less genuine than ones with passion, and what ties people together ranges from practicality to emotional reliance. The debate on whether some relationships are more authentic than others is based on what defines a relationship as true. What makes a relationship true? Emotional reliance, mutual practicality, honesty in how one views the dynamic?
ReplyDeleteIn the novel, The stranger, Albert Camus illustrates passivity as a way of rejecting society’s notion of justice.. This rejection is first evident when he says, “The hardest thing was that my thoughts were still those of a free man... But that only lasted a few months. Afterwards my only thoughts were those of a prisoner” (76-77). Here, Meursault is stating that he at first had a hard time living in prison but got used to it after some time. However, the goal of imprisoning a man is to punish a man for his crimes. Getting used to this punishment would give no meaning to the imprisonment itself, thereby rejecting the punishment given to him. Subsequently, even when he was given the sentence to death, Meursault was able to accept his death. His reserved personality gives him the conclusion that “life isn’t worth living” (114), stating that “Whether it was now or twenty years from now, I would still be the one dying” (114). It is notable to point out that if one accepts that life is meaningless, he/she is also accepting that anything one does (going to college, being wealthy, etc) has no point. Again, one of the purposes of execution is to punish the criminal by ending his life. However, Meursault believes that life is meaningless, meaning that it would make no difference for him to get executed than to be pardoned. Finally, although he shows an emotional side in regards to his inevitable death, his thoughts after were that of contentment, in which he states that “ I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again (123). Because Meursault is able to accept his death, he is able to at the same time reject the punishment under the name of justice that was placed upon him.
ReplyDeleteIn the novel “The Stranger” by Albert Camus the main character actions are quite passive. Passivity is defined as not participating readily and allowing others to do anything they want to you. The nature of passivity is very nonchalant and the opposite of assertive. With this in mind the main character, Meursault exalts this passive lifestyle quite often. After Meursault’s first encounters with Raymond automatically he is seen following any commands given by Raymond and considering all of his “suggestions” made to Meursault. When Raymond is telling Meursault about this woman he wants to punish on page 32 it states, “...he didn’t think he could write the kind of letter it would take and that he’d thought of asking me to write it for him. Since I didn’t say anything, he asked if I’d mind doing it right hen and I said no”. However even after Meursault states no Raymond continues to clear space and grab materials for Meursault to write the letter. Meursault immediately begins to write the letter without any protest showing his passive side and his lack of assertiveness. In almost every encounter between Raymond and Meursault, Raymond is seen controlling Mesurant while he does little to fight back or hold his own ground. In a later scene Raymond tells Meursault, “I’d have to act as a witness for him. It didn’t matter to me, but I didn’t know what I was suppose to say. According to Raymond, all I had to do was to state that the girl had cheated on him” (37). Meursault doesn’t really take a stand on any thoughts of his own or beliefs, Instead he simply obeys whatever anyone else tells him to do like Raymond in these situations. Even though he knows that Raymond was not one hundred percent sure about this girl cheating on him Meursault still agrees to be a witness. The passive choices Meursault makes in life simplifies and takes away any issues in his life. At the same time passivity creates a meaningless to life if no beliefs or stances are ever taken. The passivity in this novel portrays the absurdity in living and the choices made.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMany similarities are present between the characters of Meursault and Sisyphus. Firstly, the two both deviate from their society’s norms. Meursault, who instead of acting in the accordance of what is expected by his society, acts according to what he himself believes. This act can be reflected in his reserved nature in response to his mother’s death or his acceptance of marrying Marie without actually loving her. Similarly, Sisyphus also breaks the laws of society by plotting to kill his brother. He even attempts to defy the gods’ punishment of his crimes by escaping the Underworld not once but two times. Unfortunately, however, they also both end up with an unhappy ending, in which Meursault is sentenced to execution while Sisyphus is given the punishment of rolling a rock up the top of a mountain forever. Subsequently, the significance of their punishment lies in their similar view regarding their own fate. In the Myth of Sisyphus, the author states that Sisyphus is “conscious” or aware of the absurdity of his punishment. Again, Sisyphus’ punishment is to roll a rock up a hill, only for it to roll back down, which means that he would have to repeat the process for eternity. What the author means by “absurdity” is that Sisyphus is aware of the fact that his punishment is unreasonable, giving him the conclusion that his fate or life itself is meaningless. This belief is also reflected in Meursault, in which he states that “life isn’t worth living” (114), because “Whether it was now or twenty years from now, I would still be the one dying” (114). Though his reasoning is a bit different from that of Sisyphus, Meursault also does not see any meaning to the execution and therefore life itself, because all human beings eventually die. Finally, they also have the same response against this absurd fate: acceptance and happiness. Indeed, after Meursault accepted his death, he says that “I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again” (123). Similarly, in the Myth of Sisyphus, it is said that acknowledgement of one’s own fate will get rid of the sorrow and grief of one’s life, thereby concluding that “one must imagine Sisyphus happy”. Thus, Meursault and Sisyphus are similar based on their belief that life is absurd and their acceptance to that fate.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Stranger” by Albert Camus, he introduces to the audience an interesting deviation from standard relationships, especially those with Mersault. Camus describes the relationships between characters other than Mersault as more commonly structured friendships that readers especially from the United States can relate to. Every character in this book is connected in one way or another, there are no “stray” characters. The only two characters that are characterized in depth in the book with “friends” or “acquaintances” are Raymond and Mersault. Raymonds relationships are both healthy and unhealthy, seen most prominently through his relationship with Masson and his ex-mistress. Because Raymond’s mistress was accused of cheating on him, he often beat her, to the point where the whole apartment could hear them. Raymond was the cause of much of the violence in the book, he introduced Mersault to “his man”, which is who Mersault would end up shooting and spiraling his life downwards. Masson would be a much healthier and positive example of relationships in this group, more reminiscent of a common friendship. The relationships between Mersault portray a much more consistent tone of indifference and staleness, while he doesn’t beat any of his friends or even show much violence (until of course he shot the Arab), all of his friends seem more like acquaintances to the reader, less valid and more “fake”. He seems to take more interest into nature and the weather than he does into people, even displaying not a shred of emotion when the “love interest” asks him if he loved her or wanted to marry her, two things that are usually taken very seriously but “doesn’t matter” to him. Same situation occurred when he was asked to be the “pal” of Raymond. It’s almost tragic for the reader to see him acting this way towards others, paying so little attention to those who seemingly are very fond of him.
ReplyDeleteSisyphus is a universal character because, well, he is just like us. Going through life day by day, doing exactly what he has been set to do. While he pushed the rock we wake up nearly every morning and go to school or work and live in the seemingly monotonous routine of life. Whether or not someone chooses to give meaning to that routine is up to them. Mersault is similar to all of us in that way. Doing exactly as life allows. Never trying to deviate or change that. But the similarity in the two characters is evident. While there is believably no meaning to life as both of them have accepted, they both choose to triumph in that. Choosing not to try and seek meaning where there is none, or some alternate way of living, or anything else. They bask in what is. They both choose not to dwell on what they cannot change. Sisyphus will be pushing the rock day after day. Mersault will go through life knowing he killed someone. While on the surface they are very different, in the face of existentialism and absurdism they are nearly the same. A rock is a rock. And as Camus writes, "one will always find ones burden again.". There is a large difference between the two on the surface level of any analysis. But when the audience chooses to dig deeper and refocus their lens with the ideas Camus presents, the two are not so different after all.
ReplyDeleteIn Albert Camus’s “Myth of Sisyphus,” he relates the Greek myth of Sisyphus to absurdity. Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure because he embodies the struggle that humans share to find meaning in life when there is none. This struggle for meaning is represented in Sisyphus’s eternal task of rolling a stone to the top of a mountain only for it to fall back to the bottom to be pushed up again. Just like how Sisyphus’s punishment is futile, the struggle for meaning is fruitless according to Camus. Camus describes Sisyphus, “the absurd hero,” where, “his scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life,” depicts the character as rebelling against fate despite the certainty of matters like death. Sisyphus revolt resonates universally among people, and Camus’s philosophy on revolt.
ReplyDeleteCamus seemed to have based aspects of Meursault in the “The Stranger” from Sisyphus. Just like Sisyphus, Meursault displays “scorn of the gods” in that he refused to believe, or rely, in a higher deity. When the chaplain attempts to convince Meursault to learn about God, Meursault rejected saying he “had only a little time left” and “didn’t want to waste it on God” (Camus 120). Meursault also possesses Sisyphus’s “hatred of death” and “passion for life”. While Meursault remains indifferent to the events around his life, he contemplates why his mother had a “fiance” while near death and thinks “I felt ready to live it all again too” (Camus 122). In that moment, Meursault desires after life, like how Sisyphus refused to return back to the Underworld after experiencing life once again. Both Meursault and Sisyphus came to accept the absurd and in Camus’s view, reached happiness. Sisyphus in his acceptance, concludes that “all is well” similar to how Meursault opened himself “to the gentle indifference of the world” and felt “happy again” (Camus 122-123). Meursault’s rejection of God, desire for life, and acceptance of absurd relate back to the Sisyphus’s traits. What most connects these two figures though is their acceptance of the absurd leading to a state contentment; which is what Camus emphasizes in his philosophy.
Sisyphus is often compared to the everyday person. Most have daily routines they follow without any solid goal or end, much like Sisyphus’s task of perpetually rolling a boulder up a hill. His task is regarded as difficult, yet he may get used to it, growing stronger and the task then becoming easier. A lot of our lives are like this; daily tasks may seem hard, such as a new job, but with time we gain more experience and practice. However, this can make it more tedious.
ReplyDeleteMeursault talks about how he can get used to any situation. He describes a hypothetical situation of living in a tree, and how he would eventually learn to expect the daily occurrences that came with living in a tree and nothing else (77). He relates it to his time in prison, how eventually the time passes without him realizing. Prison is seen as a tedious punishment just like Sisyphus’s task. Camus also interprets Sisyphus as growing accustomed to his life of indefinite boulder-rolling, a parallel to how he writes Meursault and his attitude towards his situation.
I have conflicting feelings about Camus’ thesis of Sisyphus being happy. It is very optimistic and it makes sense that people grow used to tasks they do over and over again and enjoy the everyday struggle for what it is. However, I, personally, would always be caught up in what else I could be doing, thinking I’m wasting my time doing what I can’t escape from. Thankfully, school and jobs are generally worth it, with some sort of payoff despite their seeming perpetuity, while rolling a rock up a hill for eternity has no reward. Which sucks. (Don’t make me roll a boulder up a hill. I’m a noodle. It’d crush me.)
In “The Myth of Sisyphus”, we see an interesting take on an eternal tormenting punishment. This article well captures the essence of existentialist ideas, most prominently finding life in the small things, and living consciously in the present. What struck me as most interesting was the way Camus described Sisyphus’s walk back down the hill, after spending the entire day in agony pushing it up. He slowed things down when talking about the walk back down for Sisyphus, talking about it as though it was beautiful, and in that short period of rest he could think about all the beautiful aspects of his past life, and find peace and happiness through that. This describes one of the main problems I’ve noticed with existentialist ideals, seen very similarly with Mersault’s way of paying special attention to the “little” things in life. I think that while it sounds positive, it also seems very unrealistic. Human nature does not act in that way, and it would be very difficult for someone like Sisyphus to spent that short walk back down the hill doing anything but breathing hard, dragging, and dreading the push back up. Still, however, I do find a strong connection between Sisyphus and Mersault. Both of them could be, in the eyes of an existentialist like Camus, “absurd heroes”, as they both live very individually and disregard many of society’s standards. However, most importantly, both were punished heavily for doing so. One thing I noticed that was missing in Sisyphus’s attitudes was that act of total indifference, something that Mersault showcased constantly. He actually was married and seemingly was in love with her (he even decided to test the love she had for him), which is someone that Mersault seemed to be incapable of doing. I find this article an interesting example of the radically different perspective that existentialists such as Albert Camus take.
ReplyDeleteAlbert Camus’ “The Myth of Sisyphus” highlights the absurd through the Sisyphus’ character. In Greek mythology Sisyphus was a mortal, but he was not an ordinary one. He defied the Gods and put Death in chains, which can be seen as an attempt to find meaning in life, and defy the absurd. Because of Sisyphus’ bold actions, however, Pluto, the God of the underworld, sent the god of war to liberate death. This retaliation against Sisyphus’ attempt to conquer the absurd illustrates how the absurd can never truly be conquered, and that it will always dominate over any attempts to defy it and find meaning in life. This is theme is seen again when Sisyphus attempts to escape the absurd fate of the underworld, but is eventually captured by the God’s and is forced to toil endlessly as his punishment, heaving a rock up and down a hill for all eternity. Once again, the fact that Sisyphus’ attempt to escape the underworld and go against the absurdity that is death was foiled reflects how it is impossible to defy the absurd. But in this example, Sisyphus is later able to find meaning in the absurd, rather than trying to find meaning by going against the absurd. Instead of longing for a sense of reason and logic in the world that he experiences, Sisyphus learns from his incessant labor that he should find meaning in the absurdity of his life, because that is reality. There are strong similarities between Sisyphus and Camus’ character Meursault from “The Stranger”. Both characters go against the standards of their society; this is seen when SIsyphus defies the gods and through Meursault’s refusal to denounce his atheism to avoid his execution. Together, Camus’ interpretation of Sisyphus and his creation of Meursault paint a well thought-out picture of the ideals of Existentialism.
ReplyDeleteThrough Albert Camus’s “The Myth of Sisyphus”, Camus writes about the tragedy in being aware and conscious of your situation. Sisyphus’s punishment is to push up the same rock to the top of the mountain every single day only to have it roll back down. He repeats this same absurd procedure everyday. In this passage Camus capitalizes on how the pain of this task comes from the awareness of his chore. There is no hope that the rock will ever stay at the top of the mountain rather than rolling back down the hill. Camus’s life is the most tragic in the moments where he loses that hope. This is similar to the way Meursault starts to feel about the situation he is in after he becomes a murder in the book, “The Stranger”. When Meursault’s days became numbered as his execution gets closer, in his jail cell he states “What really counted was the possibility of escape, a leap to freedom, out of the implacable ritual, a wild run for it that would give whatever chance for hope there was” (109). He than later goes on to say that, “But when I really thought it through, nothing was going to allow me such a luxury” (109). In Meursault’s eyes having that sliver of hope for escape was a luxury. There is something more depressing and painful about knowing the reality of the situation. Both of these involvements of hope relates back to Camus’s view of absurdity. By holding on to hope that the rock will stay at the top of the mountain or that escape is a possibility, both characters momentarily ignore the absurdity of their tasks.
ReplyDeleteHaving written the novel The Stranger and “The Myth of Sisyphus” around the same time, Camus has many parallels between the two. In The Stranger, the idea that is distinctive from everyday, earthly actions, for example the belief that there is a higher power, a God, that decides the fate of humans, is repudiated. One aspect of the “Myth of Sisyphus” that caught my eye, is at the end of the story when Camus writes, “ convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling”. Here, the parallel between the two works is highlighted in the sense that human control and earthly existence are the only explanations for existence. By writing “wholly human origin of all that is human”, Camus is referring to lonesome condition of humans on earth, without a God existing and them being on their own. The end sentence which writes, “ The rock is still rolling”, is very powerful in bringing back the reality of life in the discussion. In the “Myth of Sisyphus” the discussion about the gods and explanations and interpretations of morality are prevalent until this sentence. By writing this, Camus wants to refocus the attention on the actual state of life. In the case of Sisyphus, rolling the rock, that is his only purpose and action of existence, so by expressing that, “the rock is still rolling”, what is meant is that the daily actions of one’s life still go on and they are what give meaning to life. Similar to this condition, Camus has written the character of Meursault in The Stranger, in the way to show how his entire purpose to live the worldly life that leads. The similarities between the two characters is that both live for the everyday, necessary actions that life brings them, without thinking about anything outside of what they physically see as explanations for existence. This idea, however, is not a source of depression, as it is acceptance and something both characters know they are required to live with.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the novel "The Stranger" by Albert Camus, there are many instances of isolation for each character. This is not always by choice but has a lot to do with the ideals and beliefs of the characters. The most obvious demonstration of isolation in the novel, both by choice and law is in Mersault. This sense of isolation stems from the existentialist belief that we are all alone in the world. While Mersault really took this to heart, this ideal should not necessarily be taken at face value. This essentially means that we are all so unique that there is no real way to be in total sync with the rest of the world. Camus writes, "For now, it’s almost as if Maman weren’t dead. After the funeral, though, the case will be closed, and everything will have a more official feel to it.". This demonstrates how he has really always felt alone. The death of his mother did not change how he led his life therefore he felt as if it was just another day. He is really alone now even though he felt as if he already was. This idea for Mersault is only further driven into the mind of the audience when he goes into prison. The prison cell is the literal demonstration for the isolation and feelings of being alone in the world that Mersault feels. In the cell is where he can really articulate these feelings. Mersauult narrates, "In a way, they seemed to be arguing the case as if it had nothing to do with me. Everything was happening without my participation. My fate was being decided without anyone so much as asking my opinion.". This really demonstrates how removed Mersault felt in the world. As if the world was spinning around him and there was nothing he could do but sit back and watch. All choices have repercussions yet he feels as if he as no power to make any choices about his future. So due to this, isolation feel like a viable and valid option.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that played a small but important role in “The Stranger”, by Albert Camus, was the religion and faith. Camus seemed to put the focus on natural imagery and relationships in part one of the novel, however after Mersault was taken into to the police station, the examining magistrate started to grill him on his faith. The introduction of faith in the book was well timed, considering it wasn’t spoken of until Mersault had committed a murder and was trying to get out of a trial without the death penalty or life in prison. Since it is a book that makes the reader think, adding faith into the book at this time allows the reader to start to ponder the role of religion deeply, with an emphasis on “forgiveness”. The fact that Mersault completely ignored all of the magistrates preaches and seemed to not give one care that he could possibly be “forgiven” for his sins if he were to accept God into his life said a lot about the values of Mersault and many existentialists, and it could have very well been a reason that the audience would start to dislike Mersault’s “cold” heart. This is seen most prominently in the first argument that Mersault and the magistrate had, where Mersault epitomizes the existentialist perspective, saying that, “and if he were to ever doubt it, his life would become meaningless. ‘Do you want my life to become meaningless?’ He shouted” (Camus 69). In this exchange Mersault starts to really fluster the magistrate, clearly he (among many others) is offended when he hears the “absurdity” of life. This is most likely a good representation of many arguments that existentialists such as Camus may have with people, and it poses a good “value check” for Mersault. It is interesting to see how he would react from the magistrates words, choosing whether to commit “philosophical suicide” and accept God and have his slate cleaned, or stay true to his own values and let his fate be.
ReplyDeleteAs we have learned in class, absurdism is the philosophical view that daily actions are not meaningful and the search for meaning in life is in itself meaningless, since ethics are subjective to every person. The absurdism theme in the novel is definitely very prevalent as it is clear in the very first opening sentence when Camus writes, “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). Camus writes this in the very opening paragraph to introduce this idea of absurdism. As the maxim we learned in class states, “If you want the readers to know something, introduce it early”. This idea of absurdism that is highly explored in the novel has a great impact on the way I have been viewing my surroundings recently. This idea inspects that humans are in complete charge of their choices and, without the existence of a God, every single one of their actions are extremely important. From this, it is explored that rational thought is only considered rational when it is thinking about the reality of existence and the purpose of humans to be responsible for figuring out their own individual reason for living.
ReplyDeleteReligion and faith in “The Stranger” becomes a motif in the second half of the novel; it’s only after Meursault breaches one of the Ten Commandments does he encounter figures symbolizing religion. Camus includes these ideas into “The Stranger” because it’s an important aspect of his philosophy on absurdity. Describing three solutions to a meaningless universe, Camus writes that opting for religion to create meaning is essentially “philosophical suicide.” Camus depicts the religious solution as fraudulent because it avoids the absurdity of the world for a more “agreeable” one. Meursault reaches his epiphany of the absurdity of the world only after his rejection to the chaplain. The chaplain pressures and insists on how faith provides meaning after life and the strength to “face that terrible ordeal,” referring to death (Camus 117). A religious figure like the chaplain represents the desire to apply a deeper meaning to the world, so when Meursault rejects the chaplain, he rejects the “philosophical suicide” and concludes that the Chaplain, “wasn’t even sure he was alive, because he was living like a dead man.” (120). Camus creates a paradox here; a dead man doesn’t live. This heavy comparison of “living like a dead man” embodies how Camus views belief in religion as philosophically damning (120). Though physically alive, the chaplain has committed a “philosophical suicide” because the religion solution leads a life without truly living. In Meursault’s rejection of the chaplain’s God he contemplates that, “I was sure about me, about everything, surer than he could ever be, sure of my life and sure of my death I had waiting for me.” (120). Meursault demonstrates the clarity he feels, and Camus emphasizes how “sure” Meursault feels with the repetition. Religion and faith fits into “The Stranger” because Camus’s philosophy that in rejecting religious solution, one is assured from living disingenuously.
ReplyDeleteReligion and faith are major themes in the final chapter of the novel, in which Meursault is reflecting on and accepting his death sentence. Most existentialist perspectives reject religion, especially Camus, saying it was a “philosophical suicide” and finding purpose in religion is only a cowardly way out. Therefore, Meursault’s rejection of religion in the final chapter parallels his acceptance of the lack of meaning in life, as well as the fact that nothing comes after. The chaplain asks Meursault, “And do you really live with the thought that when you die, you die, and nothing remains?” to which Meursault replies with a simple “yes” (117). To some, religion may be their only source of comfort in the face of the inevitability of death, but for Meursault, it seems to be the opposite. He accepts that everyone dies eventually, and has made peace with the fact that nothing will come after. Like existentialism as a whole, it seems depressing at first, yet Meursault seems to find comfort in it, implied by his brief answer and lack of hesitation. Camus then writes, “[The chaplain] thought it was more than a man could bear. I didn’t feel anything except that he was beginning to annoy me” (117-118). The chaplain is portrayed as annoying, possibly even hopeless, when attempting to convince Meursault of the importance of religion. This is in line with Camus’ beliefs, likely part of the commentary he is trying to make on religion and the absurd; the chaplain is those who commit this “philosophical suicide,” while Meursault realizes that the lack of an afterlife is not a bad thing, because once you’re dead, you won’t exist to care. Ceasing to exist in such a way may be comforting for people, since once their lives are over with, they won’t be around to worry about anything. The topic of religion, and the revelations and portrayals of Meursault’s attitude towards them, come in at the end to signify the end of Meursault’s existentialist journey and finally accepting the absurd.
ReplyDeleteThe absurdist philosophy is very prevalent in the novel and plays a central role in how Meursault interprets his surroundings and reacts to them. Absurdism is essentially the belief that all objects and concepts that humans try to assign meaning to in the world cannot be assigned meaning because they are inherently absurd and meaningless. Camus reflects the concept of absurdism in Meursault's character with his cold, analytical observations of his surroundings. One example of his distance and non-interaction with his surroundings is when he is keeping vigil over his deceased mother, when he thinks, “The woman kept on crying. It surprised me, because I didn’t know who she was. I wished I didn’t have to listen to her anymore” (10). This particular thought by Meursault showcases his insensitivity to the emotions of other people in his surroundings. Insensitivity to something like death is in line with the absurdist philosophy, since there is really no meaning in death according to absurdists. To them, death is just another physical event; there is no reason to show sensitivity to a physical event like that, because it is absurd and meaningless. Camus further emphasizes Meursault’s insensitivity to this when he writes, “the woman’s sighs and sobs were quieting down. She sniffled a lot. Then finally she shut up” (11). In this quote, Meursault shows insensitivity to his surroundings once again through the use of harsh diction in “shut up”. Also, the fact that Meursault simply reports the actions of his surroundings in his narration without any emotional attachment, like a scientist writing down observations, supports the absurdist ideal that the world is absurd and meaning cannot be assigned to it. Camus includes these examples of absurdism not to make readers depressed, but rather to show readers that even if the world is inherently meaningless, they can still carve their own meaning, as is reflected in the fact that Meursault is happy at the end of the book.
ReplyDeleteAlbert Camus, the author of “The Stranger” provides insight into his beliefs in accordance to religion and faith. Camus views religion as a philosophical suicidal solution to the absurdity of the world. Although he believes it to be just as “fatal and self-destructive as physical suicide” he does acknowledge it’s presence and results of a more pleasant alternative after death. In his novel, Camus makes his main character have no religious beliefs.In fact religion is hardly mentioned until the end showing the low impact religion has on Camus’s beliefs. When Meursault's days became numbered and his execution date gets closer the Chaplain tries to push the beliefs of an afterlife and faith onto Meursault. Meursault’s view of religion seems to be a representation of Camus’s. He constantly refuses religion and finds that the world is absurd and that there is no afterlife following death. “Nothing, nothing mattered, and I knew why. So did he” (121). The Chaplin is the foil to Meursault's religious beliefs. Unlike Meursault, the chaplain goes through life preaching and converting people into believers of God. When Meursault describes him he states, “He wasn’t even sure he was alive, because he was living like a dead man (120)”. For a character like the Chaplain he isn’t able to embrace and accept the absurdity of the world so he turns to religion. By being swept up in a religious based life and believing there is an afterlife the chaplain isn’t truly living, thus relating back to Camus’s view of religion as a philosophical suicide. With Meursault’s inability to find faith in God it adds some doubt to the Chaplin’s beliefs, “Almost as if it wasn’t me he was talking to, he remarked that sometimes we think we’re sure when in fact we’re not” (116). This quote although directed at Meursault and his lack of religious faith it also seems to be relevant to the Chaplain. It’s possible the Chaplain himself has his own doubts in his religious beliefs. Camus used “The Stranger” to share his beliefs in regard to religion and afterlife.
ReplyDeleteIn the novel The Stranger, having faith in a religion clashes with the existentialist view that life is absurd or meaningless. This view is exemplified very clearly in the conversation between Meursault and the Chaplain. When he asks why he refused to see him, Meursault replies that he “didn’t believe in God” (116). Here, Meursault is clearly rejecting the faith in the existence of God. What the chaplain is trying to convey to Meursault is that only divine justice exists and society’s punishment does not matter, which means that Meursault can be forgiven from his crime if he has faith in God. However, again, Meursault refuses to do so. This is because accepting the Chaplain's conversion to the religion is the same as attempting to escape one’s own faith, which is something that should not be done according to his absurd outlook on life. As said by Meursault, “life isn’t worth living”, because “since “we're all going to die, it’s obvious that when and how don’t matter” (114). However, accepting this fate of one’s life allows one to be free from this “crushing truth” and sorrow, in which this view is reflected in the Myth of Sisyphus. Indeed, once Meursault accepts his fate of being executed, he says that “I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again” (123). However, if Meursault were to convert to the religion that the chaplain suggested, he would be seeking to escape his fate and reach happiness outside of that fate. Doing so would mean that people can only achieve happiness by escaping one’s fate. Meursault refuses to have faith in religion in order to defend the belief that accepting one’s fate can lead to happiness. Thus, religion and faith plays the role of conveying the importance of accepting one’s faith.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the novel "The Stranger", by Albert Camus, there are many different demonstrations of how people interact with each other. Meursalt typically has the most detached interactions, or lack there of. Camus writes, "It was then that I realized they were all sitting across from me, nodding their heads, grouped around the caretaker." This is a true demonstration of how Mersualt acts about and with those around him. He is very ignorant and detached to the world around him. He doesn't feel the need to find meaning in the relationships or even the people around him. This is a true embodiment of the existentialist ideals, especially when it comes to absurdism. The people around him are all seeking meaning where there is none. Later int he novel, he develops the ability to consider what other people think. Mersault narrates, " 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.". This is the last line in the novel, right before his execution. At this point he has spent a very long in prison, alone with his thoughts, he learns that his actions do have repercussions. He also learns that he effects the way other people think about him. Yet, he still does not truly care about what these people think about him. He is faced with death and he is accepting that. The two passages show how he develops the ability to see that he does have an effect on the world. He does not do what many would do with this knwoledge, but the ability to recognize this shows his growth as a character
ReplyDeleteIn the passage I used in part 1, Mersault is asked by Marie “if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to to. The 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” (Camus 41). His clear indifference to the topic made it obvious to the audience of his “cold-heartedness”, he didn’t care one way or another about committing to spend the rest of his life with someone else, something that is usually taken very seriously. This sets an depressing tone for the reader that hears an answer like that, because it’s easy to put yourself in the position of Marie hearing someone else talk like that. It seems as though Mersault is actually just incapable of feeling love (or many emotions), making him hard to relate to. In part 2 of “The Stranger”, after the chaplain is done talking to Mersault about religion and his attitudes, he finally starts to give up on him. Blown away by his tragic indifference, he “looked at me with a kind of sadness… ‘Do you really love this earth as much as all that?’ He murmured. I didn’t answer” (119). In this passage right at the end of the book the reader is once again reminded of Mersault’s true values in life. Rather than spend his life worrying about the emotional aspects of life, like love, and religion/afterlives, he takes more to the natural world and the earth, pay attention to the physical things. This actually saddened the chaplain, whom like many others, was unable to imagine someone could act like this. Although it is a peaceful point of view, it is radically different from the morals and attitude of most, which is a big reason why he was rejected so harshly.
ReplyDeleteOne technique that is used by Camus in his novel The Stranger, is the aim to make the readers feel uncomfortable, and through that explore the idea of existentialism. While reading the novel, the readers constantly ponder about the truth behind this constant apathy that is surrounded by the main character of the novel, Meursault. To examine this, I chose the very first opening passage of the book and the very last passage of the book to look at closely. The opening paragraph introduced the narrator's lack of emotion towards the death of his mother. Here, this is used at the beginning not only to begin the concept of existentialism, but mostly to characterize the character as apathetic, or someone who views daily life as meaningless. From the first paragraph, the readers characterize this person as someone who is dull, and cold and lacks the ability to see sentiment, beauty or emotion in his surroundings. The last paragraph of the novel, a perfect contrast of this thought. In this paragraph, Camus used a range of nature imagery by saying, “ Sounds of the countryside were drifting in. Smells of night, earth and salt air were cooling my temples. The wondrous piece of that sleeping summer flowed through me like a tide” (Camus 122). The fact that this nature symbolism is used here is used to show character growth in a subtle manner. In the same passage, Camus writes,” They were announcing departures for a world that now and forever meant nothing to me” (Camus 122). This existentialist motif returns here to connect with the first paragraph of the novel but it also is used to add to the subtlety of the symbolism in showing the change in the character. I found this interesting because while reading the book, I constantly was overwhelmed by the thought that a person could be so detached from this world and their emotions and was ever-hopeful in trying to see if the character has gained some insight about meaning in this world. The first and last paragraphs are a juxtaposition of each other, linked by the mention of the “Maman” in both passages, but examination of the character is varied.The last passage of this book, satisfied my thoughts by using nature symbolism to show the growth in Meursault as he begins to notice the world more in color rather than the black and white view he seemed to give off in the beginning of the story.
ReplyDeletePart One: “The sky changed again. Above the rooftops the sky had taken on a reddish glow, and with evening coming on the streets came to life. People were straggling back from their walks. I recognized the distinguished little man among the others. Children were either crying or lagging behind.” (Camus 23)
ReplyDeletePart Two: “As I was leaving the courthouse on my way back to the van, I recognized for a brief moment the smell and color of the summer evening. . .The cries of the newspaper vendors in the already languid air, the last few birds in the square, the shouts of the sandwich sellers, the screech of the streetcars turning sharply through the upper town, and that hum in the sky before night engulfs the port. . .And yet something had changed, since it was back to my cell that I went to wait for the next day . . . as if familiar paths traced in summer skies could lead as easily to prison as to the sleep of the innocent.” (97)
In Part One of “The Stranger” Camus uses short and simple syntax, and visual imagery creating a factual tone to convey the indifference of Meursault. The Part One passage is from a chapter where Meursault spends a Sunday observing people on the street from his balcony. Camus uses only simplistic, visual imagery in describing the sky as “reddish” and the people “straggling back” (23). By using only visual imagery, Camus depicts Meursault’s point of view as very simple and passive. Meursault’s thoughts consist of observations like how the sky was “reddish”—there’s little insight of his emotions, other than physical ones like his hunger or exhaustion. There’s also a scarcity of the pronoun “I” throughout the first passage which reflects the disconnection Meursault feels to the world. Relatively short sentences that don’t vary in length create a choppy read that results in a matter of fact tone. These sentences are also mostly simple sentences with only one independent clauses, leaving a dryness to the reader which helps reflect Meursault’s indifference.
(Continued)
DeleteContrasting with Part One, in Part Two, Camus utilizes complex syntax, alliteration, and imagery that appeals to multiple senses; he forms a more emotional tone to portray the development of Meursault from a state of indifference to one of true acceptance. At this point Meursault has not completely accepted the absurdity of existence: that comes in the last pages before the final line. However, Meursault is a growing character, and his development is revealed in Camus’s almost imperceptible transition in writing technique. In doing this, he subliminally changes the tone for the reader. Camus’s writes Meursault’s inner monologue with a diverse syntax where sentence length vary and different types of structure are used. He also uses alliteration of “s” sounds: “sandwich sellers,” “screech,” “streetcars,” and “summer skies” (97). Both the use of complex syntax and alliteration creates a fluid tone, a more romantic mood that starkly contrasts with the factual tone of the passage in Part One. In growing to accept absurdity, Meursault’s thoughts become more involved and instead of just thinking life has no meaning so why try, his attitude is becoming more like Camus’s absurdity that life consists of no meaning so accept it but don’t live in indifference. Also, unlike the first passage, Camus utilizes the “I” pronoun, and Meursault thinks about his emotions ruminating about the “town I loved” and of when he “used to feel happy” (97). These techniques create a longing and emotional tone, demonstrating Meursault’s active interaction compared to his passiveness at the beginning of the novel. The rich imagery from the “screech of the streetcars” to visual addition of “the last few birds” reveals almost a passion Meursault feels towards the mundane, contrasting his indifference earlier (97). The last line of the passage: “as if familiar paths traced in summer skies could lead as easily to prison as to the sleep of the innocent” depicts Meursault’s understanding that though his actions lead him “easily to prison” he could’ve also easily lead to the “innocent” meaning that his actions are impactful (97). This is a part of Camus’s existentialism as a whole: the concept of free will. Meursault was never fated to anything; and he understands that it in this passage representing his evolution.
“Then there was the church and the villagers on the sidewalks, the red geraniums on the graves in the cemetery, Perez fainting (he crumpled like a rag doll), the blood-red earth spilling over Maman’s casket, the white flesh of the roots mixed in with it, more people, voices, the village, waiting in front of a cafe, the incessant drone of the motor, and my joy when the bus entered the nest of lights that was Algiers and I knew I was going to go to bed and sleep for twelve hours” (18).
ReplyDelete“I would remember every piece of furniture; and on every piece of furniture, every object; and of every object, all the details; and of the details themselves-a flake, a crack, or a chipped edge-the color and the texture. At the same time I would try not to lose the thread of my inventory, to make a complete list, so that after a few weeks I could spend hours just enumerating the things that were in my room” (79).
The biggest change between parts one and two is the amount of detail in the narrative. Camus uses sensory imagery with varying amounts of detail to illustrate both consistencies in Meursault’s character as well as how he changes. The passage selected from part one is one long sentence, condensing the end of the funeral and Meursault’s journey home. The only time he describes any emotion is towards the end, when he finally boards the bus and looks forward to sleeping, ending a day that most would dwell on instead of dismissing it. Camus condenses the events to portray Meursault’s lack of care for his mother’s funeral and death, and instead his focus on returning to his normal, day-to-day life. He does, however, interrupt the sentence to throw in a simile regarding Perez’s faint. He pays no concern, only describing him as a “rag doll;” the combination of the rag doll comparison and the dismissive description of people in the village implies Meursault only sees them as inconveniences, fitting with the theme that relationships don’t matter to Meursault. The usage of “incessant drone of the motor” drives the feeling of inconvenience and annoyance into the reader, and the entire passage signifies how Meursault takes such details for granted. In the second passage, taken from part two, Meursault describes how he now goes back to all the details he used to gloss over, savoring them now that he doesn’t have them. Throughout the entirety of part two, Meursault continues to describe events in much more detail. However, he still only summarizes exactly what he is thinking in a somewhat robotic way. Like his life before, such thoughts are a routine he has fallen into, in line with his belief that he can get used to anything with enough time. Both passages also use sensory imagery instead of describing emotions or events. Instead of describing his mother’s burial, he describes the color and motion of the dirt falling over her casket; instead of describing how he feels about his memories and the specific objects in his room, he talks about recalling details such as flakes and cracks. The focus on sensory details fits with the existentialist focus on tangible reality, what people see instead of intangible thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. Over the course of the novel, Meursault begins to pay more attention to his actions and the details of day to day life, but still retains an objective attitude and a focus on what he can see.
The attitude that Meursault has towards the world and his surroundings changes drastically from Part 1 to Part 2 of “The Stranger”. In Part 1, Meursault goes through the motions of his life without assigning meaning to anything, and thinking that nothing really matters. This sentiment that Meursault demonstrates in Part 1 is most prominently demonstrated when Meursault thinks, “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” (24). In this sentence, Camus juxtaposes the heavy statement of “Maman was buried now” with the apathetic, neutral thought that “nothing had changed”. This juxtaposition of Meursault’s mother’s death, an event that usually has a lot of gravity for normal people, with the statement that her death holds no significance in his daily life highlights Meursault’s inability to assign meaning to anything that he experiences in his life. Also, Camus structures the sentence like a list, using lots of commas, to further emphasize how boring and mundane his life is, despite the fact that his mother just passed away. In Part 2 of the book, however, Meursault adopts a more positive outlook on life, and finds much more meaning even though he still thinks that the world around him is meaningless. Camus writes, “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” (122-123). Camus personifies the indifference of the world as “gentle” to show that even though Meursault accepts that the world is inherently meaningless, he is able to create his own meaning. Using personification helps communicate this because doing so conveys significance and emotion in something a phrase that would have been rather simple and emotionless without personification. Looking at the types of literary devices used in just these two excerpts from parts 1 and 2, it is clear that Meursault changes radically over the course of the book to become more satisfied with the meaninglessness of life.
ReplyDeleteIn the novel The Stranger, the character Meursault goes through a change throughout the story, which can be seen in the difference in attitude he has in part 1 and 2. In the first passage, Meursault encounters an arab and fatally shoots him with Raymond’s gun. He attempts to explain his actions by blaming it on the extremely humid weather, saying that “this burning, which in couldn’t stand anymore, that made me move forward” (58). Furthermore, the author visually illustrates the weather, stating, “the sun was starting to burn my cheeks, and I could feel drops of sweat gathering in my eyebrows” (pg 58). Here, the image of Meursault sweating portrays in the reader's mind the hotness that he is feeling, which makes his statement of blaming the weather seem more plausible. Although Meursault is passive from the start of the novel, the portrayal of the weather and his statement of blaming the weather creates a somewhat evasive tone, which allows the readers to understand that he has not yet accepted his fate that awaits him. In contrast, the passage in part 2 portrays Meursault that has undergone a small but significant change in his attitude. After he is told of his death sentence, he ponders about his chance of being appealed. Howevers, he does hope for the best and states that “life isn’t worth living”. The significance of this passage is that unlike in part 1, where he subtly makes excuses in what he does, he accepts his execution and therefore accepts his fate. Meursault rejects his appeal in a calm manner, which helps to convince the readers that what he says are not lies but are merely what he believes. Thus, the comparison of the two passages illustrates the dynamic change in Meursault and his attitude towards his fate.
ReplyDeleteMeursault, the main character of the novel, “The Stranger” by Albert Camus is a very dynamic character throughout the book.He especially changes from part one of “the Stranger”, to part two. In the first part of the novel Meursault is a very laid back character and never expresses any opinions when asked to make a decision. He is quite often indifferent and seems to not care about the decisions being made in his life. In a passage from part 1, Maria tries to figure out the extent of her and Meursault's relationship. When asking if he wants to marry her and if he loves her he replies by saying, “I explained to her that it didn’t really matter and that if she wanted to, we could get married. Besides, she was the one doing the asking and all I was saying was yes” Meursault later goes on stating, “I didn’t say anything, because I didn’t have anything to add, so she took my arm with a smile and said she wanted to marry me. I said we could do it whenever she wanted”(41-42). Meursault holds no stance on the matter, instead he simply agrees to every suggestion she makes. Camus uses Meursault’s Character to show the absurdity in the world. With everybody who Meursault interacts with in Part one, he agrees and follows their orders and never speaks up or makes his own decision. By not holding an opinion it shows he doesn’t care or have any passion in his life and his indifference reads as boredom and unhappiness. However, this changes and transforms from part 1 to part 2. Although Meursault seems to accept the absurdity in life, as the possibility of death seems to draw closer he also starts to question and take stances on his beliefs. Although existentialist beliefs is that the world is absurd many philosophers also believe that making decisions is very important. Meursault seems to start to understand this concept more and more as part 2 progresses. The first time Meursault starts to show this change is in the courtroom, “In a way they seemed to be arguing the case as if it had nothing to do with me. Everything was happening without my participation. My fate was being decided without anyone so much as asking my opinion” (98). After this moment Meursault actually states his beliefs even if it’s contradictory to what others are telling him to do. Meursault develops and understands to a better extent about the absurdity of the world and how to react to it in order to be happy.
ReplyDeleteIn the novel, The Stranger, Albert Camus presents the last passage to reflect Meursault’s acceptance of life as meaningless and absurd. Before this passage, the chaplain attempts to convert him to religion, which causes him to be in a “blind rage”. However, this as a result washed him “clean” and rid him of “hope”, meaning he has accepted life as absurd and therefore his inevitable fate of death without having the slightest hope of changing that fate. As said in the previous blog, accepting the conversion to the religion would mean that he is attempting to escape his own fate, which would mean that happiness can only be attained through escaping one’s fate. He instead comes to the conclusion that acceptance of the sorrow fate will make the grief disappear and make one happy, which is why he says that “I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again” (123). This acceptance of the “gentle indifference of the world” caused him to feel a connection with society itself and see it as a “brother”, because he himself is also indifferent to the things that occur in society. Subsequently, his acceptance also allowed him to understand a little more about his mother. In the beginning of the novel, Meursault states that “it’s almost as if Maman weren’t dead” (3), meaning that he believes that he does not feel anything about the death because he thought he hasn't completely grasped the reality of his mother’s death. However, that assumption turns out to be false, in which the reason is that her mother was “ready to live it all again”, and therefore” nobody had the right to cry over her” (122). Meursault also understands that her mom taking a “fiance” is a way of her to accept her death and attempt to live her life once again. In the case of Meursault, he accepts his fate as inevitable and desires to not be alone, which explains why he wishes for an angry crowd to witness his execution.
ReplyDeleteThe last line of "The Stranger" stands to be very prominent within the story as a whole. It reads, "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.". This stands as a true embodiment of how Mersault has developed throughout the novel. In this line the reader can find two essential pillars of existentialism. All lives are equivalent in value, therefore no one is higher than anyone else. The reader can also find that death is one's most authentic self, according to existentialism. Mersault shows both of these very evidently throughout the whole novel but this is the most prominent moment where this can be seen. The meaning he has found in life is the value of people greeting him with cries of hatred. For others, this might be a terrible, awful thing. But this is what he has found value in. While this not be exactly what the existentialist founders were talking about when founding this philosophy, this is what at the ground level they hoped people would do. They hoped they would find their own meaning in their lives instead of searching for another source for meaning such as a religion.
ReplyDelete“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). A main theme of existentialism is that the universe is hostile. Meursault realizes this at the end of his life, accepting that whether people love him or hate him, it’s all the same; he also seeks a sense of finality, of an official ending, with the word “consummated.” The word is traditionally used in reference to marriage or other generally positive contexts, and the juxtaposition of the word with Meursault’s impending death and desire for hate, further enforcing the fact that positive and negative are irrelevant, especially at the end of one’s life. The biggest thing that stands out the me, though, is why it puts emphasis on hate. In various media, as well as occasional real-life relationships, I have witnessed an interesting dynamic: someone wants the attention of the other, someone they might have loved in the past, but they no longer care in a positive way. So, to maintain their attention, they make the person hate them instead of love them. At that point for the person, it is all the time, it is still attention from the people they want. Maybe, like Meursault, it helps them feel less alone. Death, as Camus says, is our most authentic moment. It makes sense that someone facing their death would want people to see; because they believe nothing will come after this, that these are their last moments, they want to feel less alone in a hostile universe, and Meursault may even believe that this is now the meaning he has found for himself.
ReplyDeleteThe last sentence in “The Stranger”, by Albert Camus, an off-putting or unsettling quote is used to complete the book. After having a long argument with the religious chaplain and accepting the sentence he was given, Meursault says that he, “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” (Camus 123). This quote at surface level sets a dark and almost evil tone for the reader, as though he does not give one care that he shot and killed a man, or that he didn’t cry at his mother’s funeral. Everyone else could scorn and resent as much as they wanted, that would only make him happier. It sounds as though that is a quote from a sadistic serial killer. In a way that interpretation is true, he did state that he felt no remorse for killing the Arab and did not feel guilt for his mother’s death. However, Meursault was not trying to be or sound evil, and many people jumping to that conclusion is a good representation of how other people view existentialists, immediately saying that they are cold and hopeless souls without looking deeper. In reality, I find that Meursault simply embodies the existentialist outlook in this quote, because he explains 1) that he felt no regrets in any of his choices in his life and 2) any of the “hereafters” in life do not concern him, and he believes that they shouldn’t concern anyone else. Just like Camus preaches, Meursault lived his life in complete freedom, and he enjoyed almost every aspect of the natural life (perhaps while missing the emotional side), so when his time came he was at peace with his decisions. He also wasn’t worried with the opinions of ANYONE, so of course jeers at his death would not be a problem for him, he welcomes it with open arms.
ReplyDelete“The Stranger” by Albert Camus includes many themes including a discussion on capital punishment. Camus wrote an essay “Reflections on the Guillotine” adamantly protesting the death penalty, describing it as more premeditated and methodical than any other homicide. Because Meursault seems to accept his punishment at the end of the novel, it may be interpreted as Camus supporting the use of the death penalty. However, other subtleties by Camus implicitly suggests to readers to his position of the abolition of capital punishment. Just like how Camus describes the death penalty as the “most premeditated of murders”, Meursault is imprisoned for months before his hearing, only to be imprisoned again not knowing when his death will come. He anxiously spends all night thinking about “the dawn” and how he “might just as easily have heard footsteps and my heart could have burst” (Camus 113). Meursault reflects upon his sentence, thinking, “Despite my willingness to understand, I just couldn’t accept such arrogant certainty.” (109). Reflecting upon his sentence to a beheading, Meursault questions the certainty around his sentence. To him, the decision to take his life was not without a doubt. This argues against death penalty, depicting the sentence as an “arrogant certainty” (109). He continues to reflect upon his sentence, going into detail about the guillotine, how it “was an open-and-shut case, a fixed arrangement, a tacit agreement that there was no question of going back on.” (111). By describing it as a finality, Camus suggests that the punishment is cruel in that it offers no hope.
ReplyDeleteIn the last passage of “The Stranger”, Camus sums up many of the concepts of existentialism, such as the hostility of the universe, the meaningless of the world, and the assigning of one’s own meaning to life in one coherent sentence. The last sentence of the book reads, “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). The first phrase of this long, comprehensive sentence highlights the inherent meaningless of the world, and Meursault’s acceptance of it. Meursault rejoices over the fact that everything has passed without affecting meaningfully. Camus uses marital diction in the word “consummated” to further emphasize Meursault’s acceptance of the meaningless passing of time. The word “consummate” often comes with connotations of love and fulfillment, since its literal definition relates to marriage. Camus takes advantage of this connotation to show Meursault’s almost affectionate acceptance of the meaningless world around him. The second half of the sentence summarizes the natural hostility of the world, but also shows that happiness can be found despite the hostility. Camus juxtaposes the pleasant diction of “greet me” with the harsh diction of “cries of hate” to illustrate how even when one expects the world to be benign and pleasant, the reality is that they will be met with negativity. Camus structured the sentence so that the positive diction came before the negative diction to show how people naturally believe that the world is benign, and it is not until they experience the harsh reality of the world that they realize the world is hostile. Camus demonstrates that happiness can be found in the negativity by writing that Meursault “wishes” for there to be hostility shown toward him.
ReplyDeleteIn the last line of “the Stranger” by Albert Camus, Camus concludes the ideas and beliefs of the existentialist viewpoint as well as capitalizes on the absurdity in life, “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” (Camus 123). Meursault is aware of the absurdity of life and has no belief in an afterlife. He instead believes that everyone is eventually going to meet their death and so it shouldn’t matter when the time come, “‘But if you don’t die today, you’ll die tomorrow, or the next day” (117). However, Camus’s beliefs configure around maintaining the control in reactions to undesirable situations, making the most and finding the good in every setting. Due to the fact that Meursault is aware of the absurdity in life, he wants to make his moment of death the most authentic moment of his life. Another part of the existentialist belief is that a person’s most authentic moment is when they die. Meursault wants to exit the world in a dramatic way. By having people present at his execution and crying out hateful remarks, Meursault knows his death will receive special attention. Also, his own death will have been significantly different from his mother’s death that took place at the beginning of the book. He will die young , forcefully, painfully, and surrounded by people who hate him. Meursault’s mother in contrary died at an older age, peacefully and surrounded by people who cared about her dearly. Both characters have extremely different deaths, but Camus shows both characters being happy and at peace with their life in the end. After Camus shows that Meursault understands the absurdity of life, Meursault chooses to control his reactions and make his moment of death significant.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Why does time pass more quickly on earth than it does in hell?
ReplyDeleteTime is a concept defined by the Merriam webster dictionary as, “ the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues “. This man made concept is used as a tool to assign a period to actions in our daily lives. Time is all around us, and has meaning and effect into the life of every single person. In the play, “No Exit”, Jean-Paul Sartre, creates an instances where in the setting of the story, which takes place in hell, time passes far slower than it does on earth. From an existentialist viewpoint, time can be defined as a man-made concept, created to provide meaning to life. A person’s life is almost dependent on when and what time and by what age they complete certain actions. What Sartre is saying about the concept of time in the story is that human life is way too dependent on time, and because of this, humans often forget to live life thoroughly, constantly being tied up in getting things done in time. At the same time, in this story,the characters, who are dead and have been placed in hell, have an ability to see earth and the people they interacted with and see what those people are doing in that exact moment. This inclusion in the book is really interesting because it is Sartre's way of explaining how certain moments in life should be stretched out longer and not quickly overlooked. This aspect alongside the fact that time passes much slower in the setting of the book is a thought-provoking method to describe the concept of time as way a to give meaning to one’s life, but often causes people to be too caught up in it.
Why does Estelle need to look at herself in a mirror?
ReplyDeleteThere were not many characters in “No Exit”, by Jean-Paul Sartre, so the reader gets to know each one intimately, even though it was only 40 pages. One of my favorite characters that was ridiculed greatly in this play was Estelle. Estelle stood out to me because she was a great reflection of people in our modern day society, very self-absorbed and materialistic. Estelle was much more worried about self-image than anyone else in the hotel room, and this was expressed most prominently through her symbol of the mirror. The fact that there was no mirror in the room ate away at Estelle because something that was most important to her was taken away (her image). Just by taking away all the mirrors in the room it was actually a more effective “torture” method than anything chainsaws and knives could do.
Who are the protagonists and antagonists?
It’s difficult to say that there are any protagonists at all in this play, because it is set in hell, so every character was cruel and did something awful to get there. Estelle killed a baby, Inez was just a cruel woman, and Garcin defied his government. However, when you look at each character and they way Sartre portrayed them, Garcin could be considered the closest thing to a protagonist. Garcin was the most assertive at the beginning of the play trying to keep everyone from tearing each other up, and actually tried to keep everyone from talking to each other completely. He knew what the plan of the “hell” was and why they were put in the hotel together, so he devised his plan of complete silence in order to stop it. Also when you consider the reason why they were put in hell, Garcin actually was defending his own values by opposing the war with his newspaper. When you consider the other characters in the room with him, he had definitely the most morally positive reason for being put in hell.
Q6: The main conflict of the play is everyone denying the reasons they may be in hell, and their torment of each other. Therefore, there is no definitive protagonist or antagonist of the story. Each of the three main characters are their own protagonists, and the antagonist to the other two. The valet, and the rest of hell, could be considered the antagonist; however, I would disagree with such an assumption. The valet is only doing his job, introducing the characters to their new environment, a small yet crucial role in the play. However, he does not torment them, and instead leaves them to torment themselves and each other.
ReplyDeleteQ7: Sartre may be less critical of Inez because she admits her wrongdoings. She makes no secret of what she did during her life and why she believes she is in hell; despite her torment of Estelle and Garcin, she has come to terms with her existence, an obvious main theme in the play. Meanwhile, Estelle is in denial of her heinous acts toward her baby, her vanity, and her pride in causing someone’s suicide. Despite her actions, she tells herself she has no idea why she is in hell, and tries her hardest to deny the nature of her existence and what she had done.
Q4 and Q7
ReplyDeleteLooking up more on Sartre’s philosophy on existentialism, he wrote about “bad faith” describing where a person caves to social pressure and deceives himself into societal values, and essentially, acts inauthentically. In “No Exit”, self-deception in the characters reveals the human tendency to deceive oneself in order to protect one's sense of identity. Ultimately, Sartre suggests that self-deception really does more harm than good. Once everyone has been escorted to their room by Valet, no one is willing to admit to what they did to get into hell. Estelle even recoils at the truth that they’re dead, insisting that they call themselves “absentees” and never seems to accept it to the point where at the end of the play she attempts to kill Inez, forgetting that they already are dead (12). Inez, however, isn’t afraid to admit to the crimes she’s done, and upon her first interaction with Garcin refers to herself as a torturer. She’s the one to point out the other two’s delusions, stating “Yes, we are criminals-murderers-all three of us.” (16). Sartre uses sarcasm through Inez, calling Estelle a “plaster saint” and Garcin a “noble pacifist” pointing out to viewers of their distorted self-image (17). At first Garcin denies any crime, but is the first to reveal his complete sins to the other two. So if he could deceive himself in the beginning, why couldn’t he deceive himself that he was not a coward to absolve his “hell”? Because to him, by relying on himself to define whether he’s a coward or not, is in fact cowardly. His obsession to “being a real man” or being brave can only be affirmed by how others view him and Garcin realizes this in his decision to convince Inez of how he’s not a coward (43).
I think Sartre is definitely less critical of Inez than Estelle. Estelle and Inez are far opposites in that Inez holds a sense of self, while Estelle needs to be in other’s eyes to feel she exists. Estelle searching for a mirror remarks that “When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist” and that using a mirror “kept me alert, seeing myself as the others saw me” (19). Without a view of how others see her, she has no identity. For Estelle, she needs the validation from others, or more specifically be the desire of men (as evident by her insistence of Garcin’s attention and extreme jealousy of Olga with Peter). Unlike Inez who openly calls herself “‘a damned bitch’”, Estelle doesn’t seem to comprehend the atrocity of her infanticide, or maybe deceives herself that it doesn’t matter as long as her husband never knows (25). Inez comments on Estelle's’ lack of awareness saying, “You’re lucky. I’m always conscious of myself-in my mind. Painfully conscious” (19). For Sartre, avoiding self-deception is part of his philosophy on existentialism, and Inez fulfills that much more than Estelle.
3. Time passes quicker on earth than it does in hell. This occurs because they are no longer "living" therefore there is no need to have any perception of time. This also allows the author to take away any sort of escape for the characters. With there being no need to sleep, and no one does, the characters can no longer get away from what they have done. Ultimately forcing them to face what they have done. Also forcing them to evaluate themselves, which can be good or bad. But they have to finally own up to why they are in hell, thus ridding them of all ignorance or naivety to why they are there.
ReplyDelete7. Sartre is less critical of Inez for several reasons. Yet, the most obvious and blunt is that Inez is very straight forward about owning up to what she has done. She takes full responsibility for what has happened. Despite these actions for death not being executed by herself, she realizes that the way she lived was ultimately the cause of her demise. Estelle does not even attempt to do this in any way. In fact, Garcin and Inez have to force out of her why she is even in hell. Her ignorance and childish denial causes Sartre and Garcin to have more respect for Inez in that way.
Why won’t any of the characters admit to their crimes in hell?
ReplyDeleteNone of the characters will admit their crimes because denial is a way for them to convince themselves to believe a different truth. They don’t want to accept the horrificity of the crimes they committed. By admitting their crimes they become pertinent and real. This is related to the idea of self deception and denying one’s elevance. Especially in the case of Estelle she tries to convince herself that her existence in Hell is a mistake. When asked by the others her reasoning for being in Hell she replies, “[quickly] That’s just it I haven’t a notion, not the foggiest. In fact I’m wondering if there hasn’t been some ghastly mistake” (15). The stage direction indicates that she is trying to cover up and deny the truth. As time goes on she is the most reluctant to tell her story to both Inez and Garcin. Estelle tries to deny the truth about her crimes and tries to ignore the horrific things she did. She used to have a reputation on earth for being a very sweet, perfect girl . she is even referred to by an admirer as, “His glancing stream, his crystal. Well, the crystal’s now shattered” (33). She tries to maintain this image, even though she is no longer that girl. By believing a different truth she can pretend to ignore the monstrous things she did to her own baby.
How does this play address the concept of man’s cruelty to man?
It addresses this concept because in the play, all the characters are each other’s torturer. Each character has the power to hurt another in the room and all of them at some point in this play intentionally act in cruel manners towards the others. For example, Garcin refuses to leave even when the door that has locked them in their room finally opens. He needs to stay because he needs the approval of Inez that he is not a coward in order to move on from his past. With this knowledge Inez almost taunts Garcin and holds this power over him, “Ah wasn’t I right when I said you were vulnerable ? Now you’re going to pay the price, and what a price! You're a coward, Garcin, because I wish it. I wish it-do you hear?-I wish it” (44). This shows the cruelty that humans are capable of inflicting on one another. Also, all of the crimes each character committed were extremely cruel in relation to their victims they harmed. Inez even refers to herself as cruel, she states, “When I say I’m cruel, I mean I can’t get on without making people suffer. Like a live coal. A live coal in other’s hearts. When I’m alone I flicker out” (26). Inez, like most people feels the need to harm others. Hurting other humans is part of her life and adds to her cruel nature.
Why does Estelle try to kill Inez? Is her attempt an example of self-deception or the absurdity of her situation? What is the paper knife used to stab Inez a symbol of?
ReplyDeleteEstelle attempts to kill Inez because she became a burden in her process of coping with the situation in hell. She feels the need to have a man and therefore attempts to seduce Garcin. However, Inex, who is secually attracted to women, finds Estelle very attractive and attempts to seduce her. When Garcin focus his attention to Inez, Estelle attempts to kill her with a paper knife. Her act and the paper knife represents the absurdity of the her situation and the futility in trying to escape that situation. Attempting to kill Inex will do nothing, since they are already dead, forever leaving Inez with Estelle.
Compare the three main characters. Why are each of theses characters in hell?
All three characters have done something during their lives that made them arrive in hell. Firstly, Garcin has treated her wife very badly and he his belief as a pacifist resulted in his death during a war. Secondly, Estelle has had an affair with his husband, and she even went to the point of drowning her baby. Finally, Inez states herself that the reason she is in hell is that she tried to seduce a wife of a friend. Subsequently, the three characters were not just randomly put together, in which “each of us will act as torture of the two others” (17). Garcin executes this act because he rejects Estelle's seduction, while he also takes all the attention of Estelle away from Inez. Estelle acts as a torturer because she makes Inez forever cope with a situation where one is hated by their beloved person. Finally, Inez tortures Estelle by taking Garcin’s attention away from her. In the case of Garcin, he desires to have someone accept that he is not a coward, and in order to make Inez even consider to acknowledge him, he is forced to prove that he is not a coward by not leaving hell when he had the chance to. Thus, the three characters were in hell for their sins and to act as the “hell” for the other two characters.
Question: Why does time pass more quickly on earth than it does in hell?
ReplyDeleteJean Paul Sartre structures time in hell to pass slower to emphasize the eternal suffering that is hell. A common theme in No Exit is that suffering can take place in many shapes and forms, and is not only physical. Sartre shows this point through the fact that all of the characters, Garcin, Inez, and Estelle, all expect there to be torture devices that the valet will eventually escort them to. They are surprised, however, when they realize that there are no torture devices; it is torture enough having to spend eternity in the same room together. SInce their punishment in staying in the same room, the fact that time passes slower in hell just adds to their suffering.
Who are the protagonists and antagonists of this play? What is the conflict? Explain.
The line between protagonist and antagonist in this play is highly blurred, all the characters have both crippling flaws and redeeming qualities. The fact that the characters have been banished to hell suggests that perhaps there are no protagonists in the play, since people who go to hell are deemed “bad” people. However, authors can have “bad” protagonists, so long as they structure the story around that character. In No Exit, however, the story is structured around the three characters: Garcin, Inez, and Estelle. All of their conflicts and goals embody into one conflict simply because of the fact that they are stuck in a room together for eternity. They all share the same fate. While the characters go against each other and have differing agendas at first, they are ultimately bound to the same fate of eternal suffering and therefore their conflict is shared. For this reason, I would argue that there is no clear protagonist, but instead, the three characters fit into the role of one protagonist.