Passivity plays a rather large role in this novel, mainly demonstrated by Meursault because of his view that the world is devoid of any purpose. He allows events to push him along in his life without resistance. His passivity is downright overwhelming and sometimes even infuriating. He demonstrates this because he does not see any reason to resist a majority of things. The first example of this is when Raymond Sintès asks Meursault if they can be pals. He simply reports: “I said it was fine with me”(Camus 29). This sounds a bit odd, most don’t just say it would be alright if they’re friends, they are usually pretty happy about it. Additionally he later on reports: “I didn’t mind being his pal, and he seemed set on it”(33). This second quote shows that Meursault doesn’t really care if they are friends or not but agrees simply because Raymond wants it. A second example of Meursault’s passivity is with Marie. When she asks if he wishes to marry her, he reports to have said: “I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to”(41). Meursault really could care less whether they marry. His relationship with Marie is really a game more than anything and he doesn’t have a goal in that game, it just goes wherever Marie wants. Both these examples are Meursault’s relationships which is where a large amount of his passivity is shown. His relationships are of little importance to him and are only sustained through him not caring about anything and just letting them go wherever the other person takes them.
In Camus’s novel The Stranger, the character of Mersault embodies the idea of passivity. His passivity is shown through the way in which he interacts with Marie: “That evening Marie came by to see me and asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to” (Camus 41). While most people would have a strong emotional reaction to a marriage proposal, Mersault has neither a positive nor a negative reaction to Marie’s query. In fact, he hardly even reacts at all. The fact that Mersault believes that marriage would have no impact on his life exemplifies his passivity. Mersault does not allow his relationship with Marie to affect the course he charts through life. The act of Marie proposing to Mersault further emphasizes Mersault’s passivity: “Besides, she was the one who was doing the asking and all I was saying was yes” (41-42). Marie is taking an active role in advancing their relationship while Mersault sits passively. Camus’s use of language throughout the novel also illustrates the idea of passivity. In the scene with Marie, he eschews descriptive, symbolic language that would have an emotional impact on the reader. Camus tells the reader what happens instead of showing him or her, causing the scene to lose immediacy and creating a passive tone. This is also seen in the lack of dialogue: Mersault summarizes his conversation with Marie instead of speaking them directly. Another use of language that creates a passive tone is Mersault’s use of repetition. After telling Marie that “it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to,” he replies to her repeated question with “it didn’t really matter and that if she wanted to, we could get married” (41). This repetition of nearly the same sentence shows Mersault’s static, passive position in life. Camus’s use of language to create a passive tone detaches the reader from the narrative and allows him or her to experience Mersault’s own detachment from his life. Mersault’s passivity is also closely connected to his role as an outsider and “stranger.” He is able to observe the outside world and his own actions from a very disconnected state of mind. When Marie asks him what Paris is like, he responds, “It’s dirty. Lots of pigeons and dark courtyards. Everybody’s pale” (42). Mersault is incapable of (or potentially just chooses not to) getting swept up in the beauty and emotion that is typically associated with Paris. He passively observes it from the outside, allowing neither his perception of the city to affect himself nor himself to affect his perception of the city.
In The Stranger, Albert Camus ties the multitude of characters together through their overwhelming selfishness while implementing passive narration and apathetic diction. Camus writes the interactions Meursault has with Marie using passive narration that inadvertently characterizes her as selfish. After Marie asks if he is in mourning, he writes, "She gave a little start but didn’t say anything…By that evening Marie had forgotten all about it" (Albert Camus 20). Marie shows no remorse or empathy for the death of Meursault’s mother, and instead encourages their flirtation. She does not care if he’s grieving or needs emotional support. The passive, simplistic writing technique emphasizes the self-centeredness of Marie; Meursault’s dreary narration makes the reader feel sorry for him. She is only interested in what makes her happy and satisfied. This can also be seen through her disregard towards his lack of enthusiasm for marriage, with Meursault narrating, “I didn’t say anything…so she took my arm with a smile and said she wanted to marry me” (42). She doesn’t care that he shows no true interest in marrying her, or that he would do the same with another woman. Her selfishness is shown through her ability to go through with a marriage even though Meursault is not exactly keen on it. She doesn’t care about what he wants; she wants to keep enjoying the advantages of being with him. Camus also demonstrates the selfishness of Raymond through passive narration. He first invites Meursault in for food but his real motives are shown when he asks him to write a letter that will hurt his former mistress, with Meursault responding “Since I didn’t say anything, he asked if I’d mind doing it right then and I said no” (32). Raymond coaxes him into his room for a cordial meal and asks him for a favor. Like Marie, he assumes his silence is a yes, and indirectly forces Meursault to write the letter. He uses him for his talent but shares no concern for the tragedy that has occurred in his life. Before he leaves, Raymond finally mentions Maman’s death but only after he’d received what he wanted from him; his potential grief is a side note. The passiveness of Meursault’s narration makes him subtly appear victimized and manipulated. Finally, Camus showcases the selfish nature of Meursalt through weary diction that he uses while surrounded by other patrons of his mother’s home. When attending his mother’s funeral, his thoughts concerning the crying members of the vigil are narrated, “She was crying softly…I thought she’d never stop…I wished I didn’t have to listen to her anymore” (10). Meursault’s selfish disposition is exhibited through his brusque, negative diction, which creates a complaining tone that demonstrates to the reader his apathy towards the people mourning the death of his mother. His criticism towards an act of grief reiterates that he is inconsiderate of other’s feelings and emotions; his ego dictates that his are more important. Overall, these three characters are linked together through their carelessness for others.
Passivity is defined as “the act of not reacting visibly to something that might be expected to produce manifestations of an emotion or feeling.” This seems to align quite well with the behavior that Meursault, the main character of The Stranger displayed. Meursault went through life without a care about one thing or the other. It was rare that he expressed opinions on the matter that he talked about, even though the book was written in the first person from his perspective. In most first person novels, the author gives their opinion, or how they felt along with the events they are describing to the reader. This was not the case in this book. Meursault barely gave his thoughts on anything to the audience, and when he did it was rather blatant. Something that most people expect to feel one way or the other about is the feeling of love. In this book, we see that Meursault doesn’t necessarily follow this path. His love interest in this book in Marie, and she clearly seems to love Meursault. He, on the other hand, seems very indifferent on the matter. We see this when Marie asks him if he wanted to marry her. He describes the moment saying: “I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to. Then she wanted to know if I loved her. I answered the same way I had last time…” (Camus 41). This is a good example of passivity, where in most cases, people would react or have strong feelings about something such as love or marriage, where we see the Meursault doesn’t. This may strike readers as being odd, or strange because it is not something that most people express in society. Going chronologically backwards in the novel, in the very opening sentence, we can see how Meursault feels about life and death, and really most things. He says, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know...Maybe it was yesterday,” (Camus 1). This doesn’t flat out say how Meursault had little feelings about the death of his mothers, which most people would be rather upset about, but it does paint a picture that he doesn’t care enough to know the day of his mother’s death. He talks about the death of his mother so bluntly, and immediately that it shocks readers. Personally, I had to reread this paragraph multiple times before I fully understood what the narrator was trying to get across. The passivity of the matter is not only the fact that he doesn’t know the date of his mother’s death, but he does not seem to have enough interest, or care enough to find out, and never bothers to ask when he is around people who would know the specifics. Passivity is seen in everyday life, but usually in smaller bits and pieces. The main character of The Stranger, Meursault shows passivity in a big way through his lack of concern regarding matters that most would find to be very significant.
Throughout his novel, The Stranger, Albert Camus reflects on the motif of passivity throughout the characterization of Meursault. Passivity is defined as accepting the acts of others without trying to change anything. This is shown through Meursault’s character, who is defined by his lack of sentiment in the emotions of others. The novel begins with the death of his mother. Even the first line of the story exemplifies Meursault’s insensitivity to life as a whole as he states, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday” (Campus 3). The author’s use of structure in this passage expounds on Meursault’s dull, non-sympathetic range of emotion. With an event as tragic as the death of his mother, his response seems unworldly. Passivity helps to define Meursault through his lack of care in significant events. The repeated structure of this passage typifies Meursault’s short thinking of the event. The sentences are very short, choppy, and repetitive. The anaphora of the phrase “Maybe it was yesterday,” illustrates the little knowledge Meursault obtains of his mother’s death. However, he just doesn’t care enough to discover her fate in this circumstance. Meursault’s insensitivity continues throughout the novel as the author creates a static personality within him. After months of not speaking to his former lover, Meursault reflects on his relationship with Marie, “...remembering MArie meant nothing to me. I wasn’t interested in her dead,” (Campus 115). As one can see, Marie’s love for Meursault, through her continuous relationship with him, exclamation of love, and proposal of marriage, is not reciprocated by Meursault. Rather, Meursault fails to reminisce on his former lover completely. The same girl who proclaimed her love to him in the most vulnerable fashion, Meursault considers worthless. The author uses irony throughout this situation through the insensibility of Meursault as he isn’t “interested in her dead”. Emotionally, Meursault's thoughts of her continue to stay the same despite their intimate relationship. Campus uses Meursault's lack of sentiment and care for the relationships in his life to develop a theme of static passivity throughout his work.
Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure because he does things like many of us. He rebelled against outside pressures and those outside pressures fought back. They scorned him for what he did, just as many real people have rebelled against society and sometimes their efforts have been snuffed out by their societies. But he doesn’t stop there, after those he rebelled against punish him he remains defiant, and this acts as encouragement for many to not simply submit to societal pressures. Meursault and Sisyphus are rather similar characters. Neither of them seem to fit in very well to their societies. Meursault simply is confused and just goes with the flow of things while Sisyphus actively scorns those around him. However, they both eventually commit a highly atrocious crime in the eyes of those higher in the societal food chain than themselves. They are both condemned, and they both scorn their condemnation. They accept it but will not accept what it is meant to accomplish. Both their punishments are supposed to show them the folly of their ways but both Meursault and Sisyphus ignore this lesson and stick to what they did, even in the face of the overwhelming contempt thrust upon them. Camus’ thesis about Sisyphus is an interesting one, that he is content even in his subjection to eternal pointless work. He claims that Sisyphus is not demoralized by this but indeed happy in this struggle. I do agree with this thesis due to the truly subjective nature of happiness - for one to be happy they merely need to think happy, and one can think happy in any situation, even Sisyphus’ situation.
The plights of both Sisyphus and Meursault share similar elements. Sisyphus and Meursault were both punished for committing crimes for which they felt very little remorse. The gods were unsuccessful in drawing Sisyphus back to the underworld after Pluto let him return to earth to reprimand his wife, as he becomes so caught up in “the curve of the gulf, the sparkling sea, and the smiles of earth.” Similarly, Meursault does not wish to confront the seriousness of the crime he has committed: “fumbling a little with my words and realizing how ridiculous I sounded, I blurted out that it was because of the sun” (Camus 103). At this point in the novel, Meursault sees himself very far removed from his actions. To me, however, the most interesting similarity between Sisyphus and Meursault is the way they act in situations of crushing monotony. About Sisyphus’s punishment, Camus writes: “crushing truths perish from being acknowledged.” Sisyphus’s torture is so cruel because he is aware that rolling the boulder up the hill is a futile task. However, because Sisyphus is conscious, he is able to confront his punishment, and his fate becomes a thing that belongs to him. The time that Meursault spends in jail is very similar to the time that Sisyphus spends pushing the rock uphill. Meursault states that he felt “that [his] life was coming to a standstill” while he was in prison (72). However, Meursault eventually finds a way to pass time by using his consciousness to his benefit: “…I would start at one corner and circle the room, mentally noting everything there was on the way. At first it didn’t take long. But every time I started over, it took a little longer. 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 texture” (79). Meursault, much like Sisyphus is using his consciousness to transcend and take control of his punishment. Sisyphus is not just similar to Meursault. The absurd hero is a universal figure because he expresses the way in which people have learned to cope with unrelenting monotony, physical pain, or emotional distress. Becoming so intensely aware of one’s plight makes it easier to encounter moments of happiness within that torture. I am reminded of a quote from David Foster Wallace’s novel Infinite Jest: “No single, individual moment is in and of itself unendurable” (Wallace 204). What he meant by this is very similar to Camus’s argument about the nature of the absurd hero: taking a time of trial breath by breath allows one to revel in it without being crushed by the weight of all the breaths that have come before and will come after. Camus writes, “the struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart,” and that, I think, is a beautiful thing.
Death is a part of human nature, everyone will eventually cease to exist physically and they will hopefully leave behind a legacy or memento of their stay on earth. In The Myth of Sisyphus, by Albert Camus, he demonstrates that Sisyphus – a man sentenced to a life of fruitless, brutal labor - is a universal figure through his lack of acceptance towards his death. To demonstrate why Sisyphus is greedy for more days on earth, Camus uses captivating imagery that conjures the essence of what living is all about: “But when he had seen again the face of this world, enjoyed water and sun, warm stones and the sea, he no longer wanted to go back to the infernal darkness” (Albert Camus). Sisyphus tries to avert death and is greedy for more time on earth, so much so that he had to be forced back into the underworld. The beauty of earth nurtured his gluttony for more time, thus leading him to a more dreadful punishment. This desire can be seen amongst all humans; often we try to defy the inevitable clutches of a conclusion- be it with a relationship, feeling, death itself. We yearn for another drop of what we are going to lose and do not accept that all things must pass. In many ways, Sisyphus is similar to Meursault, the main character in Camus’ novel The Stranger, a tale that describes a man who comes to grips with the absurdity and meaninglessness of life. While Meursault is waiting in prison for his trial, he finally accepts his looming fate, while remembering the words of a nurse at his mother’s funeral: “No, there was no way out” (Camus 81). In that moment, he understands and embraces the absurdity of life, much like Sisyphus does when he walks back down the hill to retrieve the rock controlling his existence. They both have realized that their situations are not going to change, but they can still have a satisfying life. Meursault begins to look forward to his execution. Camus paints both characters as caught up in nature and beauty of life. When Meursault is on the beach, he walks towards the spring near the Arab man who had been following him preveiously: “I was thinking of the cool spring…I wanted to hear the murmur of its water again, to escape the sun and the strain…and to find shade and rest again at last” (57). He is so entranced by this small crevice filled with water, similar to Sisyphus, who is captivated by the wonder of the “sparkling sea” on Earth. Mesmerized, both men are lead to their downfall by the enthralling qualities of water. They are both initially, covetous individuals. I agree with Camus, we must accept our own mortality and know that we will live and then die. To a certain extent, we must acknowledge our fate and the lack of meaning in it, in order to live a fulfilling life with our own individual meaning. Camus writes that as Sisyphus walks to the bottom of the hill to begin the work of rolling it back up, he is “superior to his fate” and has reached the “hour of consciousness” (Camus). He has finally understood his place and destiny, and through it, has accepted his demise. If we first realize this cyclical nature of life, then we can begin to craft our own version of happiness.
Camus writes about the Myth of Sisyphus to show contrast the way that he sees the universe, and the absurdity of life. Absurdism is the idea that humans have the tendency to seek meaning in life, yet are unable to find it. We can easily see this in the Myth of Sisyphus, as he is condemned to pushing a boulder up to side of a hill, where it then falls back to the bottom of the hill upon reaching the top. This exaggerates the idea of meaningless labor, as his work is destroyed after completion every time, yet he has no choice but to continue. Many philosophers including Camus, saw the world this way, believing that humans did pointless labor day after day, just to return and do the same tasks more repeatedly. Camus described the other life with great imagery of desirable nature, saying: “he had seen again the face of this world, enjoyed water and sun, warm stones and the seat, he no longer wanted to go back to the infernal darkness,” (Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus). This is exactly what made Sisyphus want to stay, rather than to return to his duty, which lead to him having to work even harder and more aimlessly, supporting the idea that you cannot find meaning in life, and that no one can life in beauty forever. Camus expressed this ideal of a meaningless life in The Stranger frequently as well. Meursault lives for the pleasures of life in the moment, and does not force himself to feel things that do not come naturally. “It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed (Camus, 14). This shows that although most people would be upset about the passing of their mother, and that Meursault knew that it was abnormal not to cry or feel sorrow about his mother’s death, he did not, and did not even pretend or try to feel this way, and felt nothing, even the same, as he would have if his mother had not died. This shows that he has already recognized that people spend their lives doing trivial things, that will likely not matter in the end. This character that Camus portrays embodies the myth of Sisyphus because he understands that the luxuries in life are not to be focused on, because they are not what life truly consists of. Meursault does not complain about his job much, and goes reluctantly but does so knowing that there is no way out. He does not try to search for meaning in life, because he believes that there is none, and when the chaplain says to him “‘I know that at one time or another you’ve wished for another life.’” Meursault comments “...of course I had, but it didn’t mean any more than wishing to be rich, to be able to swim faster, or to have a more nicely shaped mouth” (Camus, 119-120). This shows that he knows that no matter what he does or what he wants to be, his life will be stuck in the same cycle over and over again.
The character arc of both Meursault, in The Stranger, and Sisyphus, in the Myth of Sisyphus, are reflective of the idea of absurdity, or “the state of being wildly unreasonable”. In the Myth of Sisyphus, Sisyphus is sentenced to a life time of the “futile and hopeless labor” of endlessly rolling a rock up a hill, only to watch it roll back down (Camus, Myth of Sisyphus). This outset was condemned to him only after testing his wife’s love and being disapproved by the gods. Similarly, Meursault is sentenced to death by his indifference in the events of his mother’s death, his girlfriend’s love, and his witness of a murder. As both punishments seem unruly, Camus sees that both characters conclude that “all is well” (Camus, Myth of Sisyphus). Meursault’s conclusion is a coming peace he achieves in his acceptance of the indifference of the world. Similarly, Camus describes Sisyphus as a happy character when he defies his punishment by joyfully returning to the base of the hill, to once again strife to roll the rock back up it. Camus writes, “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart” (Camus, Myth of Sisyphus). In The Stranger, Meursault is pegged as a character wanting nothing to do with the world around him. He is indignant to the death of his mother and the confession of love by Marie, to which he replies, “I probably didn’t love her” (Camus 41). Yet in the conclusion, Meursault states, “I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world...I felt I had been happy and that I was happy again” (Camus 123). Only in the face of death does Meursault realize his true happiness. Not in the relationships he found, nor the love of Marie, did he receive joy, rather in his acceptance of indifference. In both Sisyphus and Meursault's character arcs, the men find themselves rejoicing in the face of their struggle, showing Camus’ belief in the struggle being enough to fill a man’s heart.
Religion/faith appears in The Stranger only a few times. One such appearance is when Meursault first meets with the judge for his trial. Meursault says he doesn’t believe in God and the judge says: “He said that was impossible; all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs on him. That was his belief, and if he were to ever doubt it, his life would become meaningless. ‘Do you want my life to be meaningless?’ he shouted. As far as I could see, it didn’t have anything to do with me, and I told him so” (Camus 69). This instance exists as an example of someone trying to use religion to give their life meaning. Religion, according to Camus, is philosophical suicide and so the absurd hero Meursault tells the judge that he does not believe in God. The judge tells him that believing that all people believe in God gives his life meaning, and the interesting thing is that Meursault replies simply by saying that the judge can believe what he wants and it makes no difference to Meursault. This somewhat reflects the idea that we can all find meaning in our own way, but it’s odd that Meursault doesn’t mind that the judge is committing philosophical suicide. It’s possible that Meursault is an absurd hero except that he cares little for others especially apparent because he is on trial for murder. Another indication that Camus believes religion is not the way is that since Meursault does not believe in God (AT ALL) then by the judge’s standards, the judges life is meaningless. This serves as a model to others, discouraging religious belief. Trying to create meaning through a god will get one no where.
Questions of religion and faith arise in The Stranger toward the end of the novel when the chaplain goes to see Meursault. Meursault does not feel it is necessary for him to see the chaplain because he doesn’t believe in God, so the chaplain’s visit startles him: “When I saw him I felt a little shudder go through me” (Camus 115). When the chaplain asks why Meursault refused to see him, Meursault’s response is very matter-of-fact: “I said that I didn’t believe in God” (116). Camus’s use of straightforward language and a lack of direct dialogue emphasizes that Meursault’s atheism is not up for debate or discussion. Throughout Meursault’s conversation with the chaplain, the chaplain’s words are presented as direct quotes, while Meursault’s responses are presented as a description of words he has already spoken. Camus is trying to make the point here that belief in God is completely irrelevant because humans have free will. He does this by portraying Meursault as certain and steadfast in his lack of belief while the chaplain asks him many questions, even “[throwing] up his hands in annoyance” (117). Meursault almost explicitly voices Camus’s belief during his “friendly visit” with the chaplain: “I said that I didn’t see any reason to ask myself that question: it seemed unimportant” (116). At one point in the conversation, the chaplain says, “Every man I have known in your position has turned to Him” (116-117). Meursault’s response is, once again, simple: “I acknowledged that that was their right” (117). Camus makes it clear that Meursault doesn’t hate religious people even though Camus viewed religion as philosophical suicide. Because humans have free will, they are able to choose to turn to religion, and Meursault acknowledges that this is their choice. Even though religious belief is not a part of Camus’ theory of existentialism, it is important to address it in The Stranger because it provides a framework for Meursault’s own beliefs. Meursault’s conversation with the chaplain is important characterization of Meursault because it portrays him as something other than merely passive. He simply recognizes that he is alone in a hostile universe and that it is unnecessary and uninteresting for him to believe in a God how does not care about him and will do nothing to save him.
Absurdist philosophy is abundant in The Stranger. Absurdism is described as the conflict between the human tendency to assign meaning to life, accompanied by the inability to find any. Camus, the author of the Stranger displays this idea frequently in his works. Specifically, in The Stranger, Camus writes about Meursault, a character who embodies this philosophy. From the beginning of the book, Meursault was painted as a character who had a lack of emotion or feelings when he reacted minimally to his mother’s death. Many saw him as cold, or heartless. Meursault knew that he was supposed to have a sad reaction, and even acknowledged this to the readers, but he was not the type to force himself to feel something he did not come to naturally. This is shown immediately at the start of the book, perhaps the most well-known quote, where Meursault states “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from home: ‘Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.’ That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday,” (Camus 3). This paragraph takes readers by surprise, as most would not expect one to talk about the death of their mother so emotionlessly, yet Meursault does not even care enough to figure out the date of his mother’s death. Personally, this line made me think about how people react in our society to death, especially the death of someone close to us. Meursault seems to think of death as something that is inevitable, which is true, but he does not see it as a big deal, and justifies this with reasoning that he had not spoken to his mother in a while, and she was pretty much removed from his life. In today’s society, we see that even if you have not made contact with someone in a long while, it is still upsetting to be informed of their death. A grieving process usually occurs, and funerals are typically very emotional. Meursault displays his unique outlook on life by defying these norms. The last line of the book also stuck out to me. Meursault is reflecting on his life during his final moments and comments to the reader “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,” (Camus 123). This is surprising due to the juxtaposition of happiness, and hate. Meursault says that he was finally happy, which is about as much emotion as he had expressed throughout the whole book. It is hard for us as readers to identify with him in this situation, because he is about to be executed, yet still remains happy. He says that he had been happy, which is confusing considering his lack of empathy and ability to show emotion or find joy in many things that others might. In this, Camus is saying that even in bad situations, or even in the day-to-day work of life, it is possible to find happiness, and that we should find this for ourselves. When Meursault goes to say that he wishes there was a large crowd of spectators to watch his execution, it signifies that he has finally realized that life is indifferent to human actions, and that he hopes his execution stands to represent him being above society due to his personal choice to choose happiness. I found this part strange, but I think that it was meant to be uplifting, saying that we can make the best of situations, no matter what other people do with their lives, our lives are to be lived independently. I do not think that I personally would be able to find happiness in this situation, but I think that based on Meursault’s ideas about life, it makes sense that he was able to find this, and then die at peace.
The philosophy of absurdity is known as the human desire to find meaning when there is none. Albert Camus, a main contributor to this idea, acknowledged that life had no significance, but advocated for accepting and embracing this absurdity. In the novel The Stranger, Meursault starts out as a young man who finds meaning in nothing and leads a passive life. Albert Camus illustrates the absurdist philosophy through the development of the main character; gradually he begins to understand the lack of meaning life has. When Meursault and the people mourning the death of his mother trek towards the village to bury his mother, the nurse speaks to him about the unbearable heat, “She said, ‘If you go slowly, you risk getting sunstroke. But if you go too fast, you work up a sweat and then catch a chill inside the church.’ She was right. There was no way out” (Albert Camus 17). Camus uses the scorching weather as a symbol of the meaninglessness of life. No matter what one does in that humidity, they will feel the fervor of the sun, much like how Meursault feels trapped in the pointlessness of life. The blatant pessimism of Meursault reflects his initial ideals; he does not see that embracing this obscurity can result in finding true happiness and meaning. Camus creates a nihilistic tone, where there is no hope or positivity in the main character, making the reader feel dejected. The transition from his passive lifestyle and countenance is displayed in part two of the novel. After the priest visits him in the prison, Meursault finally accepts obscurity: “I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much life myself – so like a brother, really – I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again” (122-3). He realizes that the world is apathetic towards his actions and that life lacks any real meaning. Happiness exudes from him like never before and he embodies Camus’s philosophy; he lacks hope yet looks forward toward his death, highlighting the idea that joy can always be found. His transformation from passive to accepting of mortality and hopelessness does not appear very optimistic and positive to the reader. Meursault’s eagerness to die creates an uncomfortable, confusing tone which ultimately causes them to question how happiness is derived and the significance of our lives. Personally, I can understand the beauty in absurdity and existentialism; developing as human beings is an individual path and we must make our own meaning and actively be present. Our satisfaction is dependent on our actions. I think that it is an intriguing thought that happiness can be found in any situation, todo depende on how you interpret it.
Passage #1: “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 3).
Passage #2: “Despite my willingness to understand, I just couldn’t accept such arrogant certainty. Because, after all, there really was something ridiculously out of proportion between the verdict such certainty was based on and the imperturbable march of events from the moment the verdict was announced. The fact that the sentence had been read at eight o’clock at night and not at five o’clock, the fact that it could have been an entirely different one, the fact that it had been decided by men who change their underwear, the fact that it had been handed down in the name of some vague notion called the French (or German, or Chinese) people—all of it seemed to detract from the seriousness of the decision. I was forced to admit, however, that from the moment it had been passed its consequences became as real and as serious as the wall against which I pressed the length of my body”(Camus 109-110).
These two passages demonstrate Meursault’s ideas regarding death at the beginning of the book and toward the end. The first passage is short and to the point, just as is Meursault’s belief. Meursault does not care if anyone dies including his own mother: “That doesn’t mean anything.” He sees death as a matter equally as trivial as anything else in life. Camus writes that Meursault does not even remember the day maman died to emphasize that he really doesn’t care that she’s dead. Camus repeats Meursault’s doubting at the end of the short passage again: “Maybe it was yesterday” to further bring this to attention. The second passage is much longer since it details Meursault’s new, much more complex and evolved belief about death. He tries to understand the purpose for the verdict of his court case and gets to: “I just couldn’t accept such arrogant certainty.” Meursault doesn’t understand how the law could possibly conclude it necessary that a criminal be executed. He is infuriated by the way things played out as he considers the recent events. The constant repetition of “the fact” as he does this was included by Camus to symbolize the constant, mechanical and unstoppable process Meursault is now going through. Meursault concludes that this process: “seemed to detract from the seriousness of the decision.” Meursault now takes death seriously and attributes importance to it. He even goes as far as to say that his execution verdict “became as real and as serious as the wall against which I pressed the length of my body.” This last detail is HUGE because it reveals that Meursault finds an abstract concept like death to be just as meaningful as a physical object, which normally is more meaningful and real in this world. This does make sense though, since existentialists believe that death is one’s most authentic moment. How and why do these passages differ? In the first passage Camus states everything simply while in the second one he becomes very elaborate about the details. This is to show how Meursault’s understanding has matured over time. He is no longer a naïve child character, but a full-fledged existentialist. Why does Meursault change like this? The reason is likely because his naïvité was eliminated. This was done through the court case and having to face his own death. His eyes were finally open and he understood that death is indeed an event filled with significance. With this in mind it makes perfect sense why Camus varied his style and detail from the first passage to the second much later: to bring the readers along on Meursault’s journey to communicate how death is an event more significant than anything else in anyone’s life.
Passage #1: “I wanted to smoke a cigarette at the window, but the air was getting colder and I felt a little chilled. I shut my windows, and as I was coming back I glanced at the mirror and saw a corner of my table with my alcohol lamp next to some pieces of bread. 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).
Passage #2: “Then, I don’t know why, but something inside me snapped. I started yelling at the top of my lungs, and I insulted him and told him not to waste his prayers on me. I grabbed him by the collar of his cassock. I was pouring out on him everything that was in my heart, cries of anger and cries of joy. He seemed so certain about everything, didn’t he? And yet none of his certainties was worth one hair of a woman’s head” (120).
In these two passages, Camus contrasts descriptive and emotional language to show a shift between the first and second parts of the novel in the way that Meursault perceives and interacts with the world around him. In the first passage, Camus focuses on describing that physical objects by which Meursault is surrounded: “I glanced at the mirror and saw a corner of my table with my alcohol lamp next to some pieces of bread” (24). In the first part of the novel, the physical world is much more important to Meursault than any sort of emotional or mental landscape because to him, there is no meaning outside of the physical world. Camus uses these declarative sentences to create a picture of the room in which Meursault finds himself without ascribing any meaning or significance to it. The table, alcohol lamp, and bread aren’t described beyond the simple statement of their existence. In this first passage, Camus uses tactile imagery to describe how the physical environment affects Meursault: “…the air was getting colder and I felt a little chilled” (24). The description of physical sensations is similar to the imagery that Camus employs when describing how Meursault kills the Arab. In that moment, physical sensation overpowered any sense of morality that Meursault could have possessed so that he had no other choice than to kill the man. At the end of the first passage, Meursault shows that he doesn’t have any strong feelings about his mother’s death, saying that “really, nothing had changed” (24). The second passage provides a direct contrast to the first one. While the first passage emphasizes the physical world and a lack of emotion, the second passage shows Meursault engaging with his emotions and the priest in a way that is more authentic than the way in which Meursault interacts with anyone else in the novel. Camus writes, “I was pouring out on him everything that was in my heart, cries of anger and cries of joy” (120). This is one of the first times that Meursault actually expresses emotion, and it represents Camus’s existentialist philosophy coming into direct conflict with religion. Meursault accuses the chaplain’s certainties of not even being “worth one hair of a woman’s head” (120). Meursault is seeing the chaplain’s religion the way Camus saw religion: as philosophical suicide. Religion causes the chaplain to feel certain about and life after death, which prevents him from creating meaning in his life. In the first part of the novel, Meursault passively floated through the world around him, noticing only the physical, but in the second part of the novel, he actively confronts philosophies that he sees as damaging to those who hold them, allowing him to engage his emotions in a way that didn’t happen in the first part of the novel.
Throughout Albert Camus’ The Stranger, the author uses techniques of repetition and absurd perspectives in order to exemplify the static character arc of Meursault. Meursault’s point of view on love is seen through a lens of absurdism. The philosophy of absurdism illustrates “that human beings exist in a purposeless world”. In Part One, Meursault exemplifies this belief when Marie asks him about his feelings for her: “A minute later she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but I didn’t think so” (Camus 35). Although Meursault continually confesses his “want” for Marie, all his feelings for her are derived from lust. His incapability of feeling love towards his partner shows his lack of care for the world around him. Meursault believes that humans must do as they please, yet only in service of themselves due to the lack of purpose in life. His apathy in his feelings not meaning anything reveal his indifference to the world around him, allowing him to detach both emotionally and physically from society with the novel resulting in his execution. The fact that he doesn’t love Marie, after all they have experienced, is hard to believe. Yet, his continuing feelings of apathy prove his lack of emotion. Similarly, in Part Two, Meursault reflects the same emotions, or lack of emotions, towards his loved ones. As the lawyer questions Meursault on his feelings of his mother’s death, Meursault states, “I probably did love Maman, but that didn’t mean anything. At one time or another all normal people have wished their loved ones were dead” (Camus 65). In this passage, the repetition of the phrase “that didn’t mean anything” is reflected from the passage in Part One. Meursault’s perpetual indifference in his feelings towards his loved ones is expressed through this repetition and the theme of absurdism throughout the novel. Although he felt a love towards his mother, his indifference in the meaning behind it displays the lack of purpose he sees in life. However, there is a change in his emotions as he admits his love for Maman, yet denies his feelings for Marie. Camus use of repetition and abounding absurdism beliefs throughout these passages symbolize Meursault’s apathetic outlook on life and the staticity of his character.
Passage #1: “He was planning to open an office in Paris which would handle his business directly with the big companies, on the spot, and he wanted to know how I felt about going there. I’d be able to live in Paris and travel around for part of the year as well. ‘You’re young, and it seems to me it’s the kind of life that would appeal to you.” I said yes but that really it was all the same to me,” (Camus 41).
Passage #2: “Then, I don’t know why, but something inside me snapped. I started yelling at the top of my lungs, and I insulted him and told him not to waste his prayers on me. I grabbed him by the collar of his cassock. I was pouring out on him everything that was in my heart,” (Camus 120).
In the first passage Camus writes about a job offer that Meursault gets to go live in Paris, normally people would either be very excited or apprehensive about and opportunity to move to a different country for work. This is not the case for Meursault. He even expresses specifically that it didn’t matter to him where he was living. The sentences from this passage in section one are rather simplistic and straight to the point. Comparing this to the passage from part 2 we can see that the sentences become slightly more complex and interesting, as well as less choppy. In the first passage Meursault openly expressed his passivity and lack of care towards certain - or all - subject matters. In the second passage Meursault is shown “pouring out on him everything that was in [his] heart,” (Camus 120). This is a major character shift, as Meursault’s main personality trait that readers could observe was the fact that we lacked much empathy, or emotion towards most matters. Camus shows Meursault at the end of the book displaying his feelings to show that Meursault has changed from who he was before, and rather than looking at the world as meaningless, and refusing to search further, that it is very important to search for meaning in the world, thus the idea of absurdism which is a consistent aspect of this book. There are many other separate examples from parts one and two which express these respective ideas, which only help to support the fact that Meursault had a complete character change from the beginning of the book, or part one, compared to the end of the book, or part two.
“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). At the end of The Stranger Meursault has one final wish so that he can end his life in a way he is satisfied with. In the final moments he feels alone in the world, even more so than previously. To cleanse him of loneliness he wants people to watch his execution and “greet me with cries of hate.” The first part of the request is logical: he wants people around him. But the second part: the cries of hate, why does he want that? To understand this one must understand the revelation Meursault has just gone through: “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). Meursault now fully recognizes an existentialist idea - that the world doesn’t care. It is always indifferent and often hostile. He can therefore not expect anything from his fellow human beings but hate. They are against him as much as the rest of the world is, and he realizes and embraces this idea. Just like Sisyphus Meursault finds happiness where no one else would - in the mere struggle against a hostile world. Meursault craves this hostility and though he cannot physically rebel against it he can refuse to submit to it. He will not despair, rather he will rejoice and find true and complete happiness in the overwhelming contempt thrust upon him.
“Seeing the rows of cypress trees leading up to the hills next to the sky, and the houses standing out here and there against that red and green earth, I was able to understand Maman better. Evenings in that part of the country must have been a kind of sad relief. But today, with the sun bearing down, making the whole landscape shimmer with heat, it was inhuman and oppressive” (Albert Camus 15) “I felt as if I understood why at the end of her life she had taken a ‘fiancé,’ why she had played at beginning again. Even there, in that home where lives were fading out, evening was a kind of wistful respite. So close to death, Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again” (122). In these passages from the novel The Stranger, Albert Camus illustrates the transformation of the main character, Meursault, from a cold, pessimistic man to someone who embraces life, through contrasting diction and repetition of the same language. The first quote from part one of the book contains descriptive imagery that paints a beautiful scenery: “rows of cypress trees…red and green earth”. The details reiterate Meursault’s emphasis on the physical world; he understands his mother because he can clearly see that the environment she lived in was peaceful and magnificent. In addition, the passage starts with “seeing”, highlighting sight as his most important sense (22). The negative diction – “inhuman and oppressive” - creates a cynical tone that contradicts the beauty formerly described (22). The reader feels dejected and confused by Meursault’s gloomy attitude and his overall apathy towards the death of his mother. Simplistic language is riddled throughout this piece symbolizing his outlook on life; life has no meaning other than what you see. In the second passage, Camus begins with “I felt” to signify that Meursault no longer solely relies on his sight to perceive and interpret his surrounding environment; he realizes there is more to life, like emotions (122). Instead of describing nature and its beauty, Meursault makes the realization that even though Maman is old and at the brink of death, she still made something of her life and found companionship. His understanding of his mother goes beyond the physical world, and into the emotional world, where he empathizes with her. His ability to feel and observe this demonstrates the change in his state of mind. He is able to live a satisfying life beyond its absurdity. Camus rephrases the sentence about evening found in the first passage: “in that home where lives were fading out, evening was a kind of wistful respite” (122). The direct comparison of “evening”in both parts of the novel showcases the increase in Meursault’s emotional intelligence; the diction is more complex and has more positive connotations. Although both sentences concerning evenings state the opposing feelings of regretful rest, in the second passage, it is followed by “Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again”, which exudes happiness and promotes the acceptance of obscurity (122). In this piece, Camus crafts a pleased tone that makes the reader feel optimistic.
The last line of The Stranger is as follows: “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). At this point in the novel, Meursault has accepted that he is going to die. He has accepted that everyone will die and that when and how do not matter: “throughout the whole absurd life I’d lived, a dark wind had been rising toward me from somewhere deep in my future, across years that were still to come, and as it passed, this wind leveled whatever was offered to me at the time, in years no more real than the ones I was living” (121). Meursault seems to have come to the conclusion that his death has been hanging over his head for his entire life and that the way he lived his life means nothing until the moment that he dies. The choices that Meursault made in his life were completely arbitrary and had no impact on the fact that he was condemned to die, just like everyone else. It is interesting, though, that at the very end of novel, Meursault finally decides that he wants to be less alone. Throughout the book, Camus cultivates the idea of the outsider who lives in a community without being of a community. Meursault is out of touch with the rest of the world, and his interaction with the robot woman is an effective metaphor for this. Meursault’s desire to be less alone is perhaps influenced by the way he chooses to think about his mother: I felt as if I understood why at the end of her life she had taken a “fiancé,” why she had played at beginning again” (122). Meursault realizes that this mother made a conscious choice to acknowledge her impending death and then to make something out of it. Camus writes, “So close to death, Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again” (122). These moments before Meursault’s mother’s death were her version of Sisyphus’s trip down the hill. Meursault realizes that she must have been happy and notes that “nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her” (122). Nobody had the right to cry over Maman because they weren’t crying for her: they were crying for themselves and the way that the death impacted them due to the meaning that they had assigned to Maman’s life. Maman felt free when she died, and so does Meursault: he feels “ready to live it all again too” (122). For this reason, Meursault doesn’t want anyone to cry for him. He doesn’t want anyone to feel pity for his fate because he has already accepted the meaninglessness of the time and means of his death. This is why Meursault wants to greeted with cries of hate. Those cries of hate will show him the hostility of the universe and give him the pride of knowing that he was able to die free and fully accepting of the inherent meaninglessness of his existence.
“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).
“The most authentic moment in life is death”: a statement by many existentialist philosophers referring to the vulnerability of a person as they reach their last moment upon earth. This belief is examined as a reflective statement on a person’s life, revealing who they truly have become as a person. In Albert Camus’ work, The Stranger, Meursault plays an important role as a dynamic character experiencing challenges on his outlook of life. However, the philosophy stated above appears to be the best explanation for the state of Meursault’s death. As he accepts his fate of being executed, the author creates a romantic tone through sexual diction with the word “consummated”. This lyric tends to allude to sexual means, however, Meursault sees his confrontation with death as a consummation, revealing his romantic outlook on the subject. This use of diction is a symbol of Meursault’s marriage, or forever commitment, to his fated death as he faces his execution. In this ceremony, Meursault also wishes for a crowd of people to witness his final moment. He explains his wish as helping him to “feel less alone”, yet he pleads his spectators to greet him with cries of hate. Camus’ use of irony in this statement exemplifies the contrast to Meursault’s deepest desires and the reactions of society. Meursault’s death was fated to him through his conviction of murder, causing his community to view him as a heartless criminal. Similar to the way Meursault believed that “nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her” when witnessing Maman’s funeral, he sees the crowds sympathy as a reflection of their pain, not the pain that Maman had to endure (122). However, Meursault’s desire for people to greet him with cries of hate show the pain they will endure in his presence, hating him for all he has done and the way he has negatively impacted them. Meursault’s selfish ambitions and desire for evil as he greets his death so boldly exemplify his true self through this philosophy: “The most authentic moment in life is death”.
The final line to the novel, The Stranger, by Albert Camus is: ”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). This ending quote exemplifies Meursault’s acceptance of absurdity and the lack of meaning in life. “Consummate” is used to mean ‘reinforce’; by dying, his philosophy and ideals are reiterated. He has finally come to terms with mortality and the obscurity of life and is now ready to die. His desire to “feel less alone” is satiated through his death, for a core value of absurdist philosophy is that death is one’s most authentic moment. Through the execution, Meursault becomes his utterly, true self, so much so that he will be consumed by the entirety of his being and finally be at peace with the trivialness of life. The “cries of hate” emitted by the spectators at his execution represent Meursault’s acknowledgement that no one understands or agrees with his perspective. The people around him see him as cold and apathetic, and they can’t fathom how someone could live such a seemingly detached and passive life. They also symbolize that Meursault has had an impact on the world around him. A core belief of existentialism states that everyone and everything affects everything. By having people who are passionate enough to yell obscenities means that he has affected the world in some way. By ending the novel in this style, Camus creates a lasting impression on the reader; a nebulous tone that makes us think hard about our interpretation of life.
Question #2 - Estelle tries to kill Inez in a quick, impulsive, desperate action. Garcin says he cannot love Estelle with Inez watching. Estelle has long begged Garcin and when she seems so close to finding a resolution to her currently miserable situation she strikes quickly without thinking. To this action Inez reacts: “Dead! Dead! Dead! Knives, poison, ropes—all useless. It has happened already, do you understand? Once and for all. So here we are, forever. [Laughs.]” (Camus 46). After this both Estelle and Garcin join in the laughter. This laughter is a surefire sign that Estelle’s attempt is an example of the absurdity of the situation. Much of the time there is treated by the the three as if they are still alive, they cannot possibly take it seriously, they refuse to take it seriously. The paper-knife Estelle uses is itself an absurd symbol. There appears to be no rhyme or reason for its presence, Garcin: “What’s this? valet: Can’t you see? An ordinary paper-knife. Garcin: Are there books here? valet: No. Garcin: Then what’s the use of this? [valet shrugs his shoulders.]” (7). There’s no reason for there to be a paper-knife and indeed even at the end it still serves no purpose as a weapon because they are all dead already.
Question #5 - The valet has no eyelids because no one in hell does. This is a source of Garcin’s distress: “No eyelids, no sleep; it follows, doesn’t it?” (6). Garcin comes to the conclusion that the lack of eyelids are to prevent anyone from sleeping and resting. This is indeed the case and no eyelids exist to torture those in hell by never giving them a break from their fellow prisoners. Additionally Garcin is bothered by specifically the valet’s lack of eyelids because: “there’s something so beastly, so damn bad-mannered, in the way you stare at me.” (5). This unending gaze adds to the valet’s mysteriousness and disconnection from the new arrivals to hell. The valet’s gaze simply seems odd as a whole. He does not look around and so makes no observations about the arrivals or his surroundings: he is disconnected. Inez, by contrast, is not. Not long after meeting Garcin Inez fixes her eyes upon him and criticizes how he twitches his mouth around. The valet is not bothered by these kinds of things. He placidly stares, without feeling.
Estelle’s attempt to kill Inez is both an example of self-deception and an example of the absurdity of the situation. Before trying to kill Inez, she says, “Right! In that case, I’ll stop her watching” (45). Her line makes it clear that she is trying to delude herself into thinking that she is able to control the situation and that she has the power to change Inez’s actions. However, because they are already dead, Estelle has no authority over Inez and can’t change her actions. Estelle thinks that she has free will and control over other people when in hell, she doesn’t. She appears to have complete freedom, yet she is trapped. She can’t change Inez, and that is her torture. Estelle’s attempt to kill Inez is also an example of the absurdity of her situation. She is trying to find conventional meaning in a meaningless place. In hell, weapons lose all of their meaning, as Inez points out: “Knives, poison, ropes—all useless. It has happened already, do you understand? Once and for all. So here we are, forever” (46). The paper knife can’t be used to kill any more than it can be used for its original purpose, which was to slit open the uncut pages of a book. There are no books in hell, and there is no life that could be taken away. The paper knife is a symbol of the inherent meaninglessness of the universe. Without paper to cut, the knife is worthless because its human-given meaning was taken away from it. Estelle attempts to give it a new meaning by trying to use it as a weapon, but it is equally worthless as such because everyone is already dead.
Time passes much more quickly on earth than in hell because on earth, people are living for the future. People make plans and tend to choose to take certain actions based on how these actions will affect them in the future, even if that future is only seconds later. The ultimate future, of course, is death, the future toward which all people march. They actively plan for death by adhering to religious or moral principles that will supposedly give them a life beyond death. Estelle first remakes on how quickly time passes when she says, “Olga’s undressing; it must be after midnight. How quickly time passes, on earth!” (13). When Estelle, Inez, and Garcin reach hell, they have crossed over to the other side of the ultimate future. They then have to experience every single moment because they have no future to look forward to that would distort their perception of time.
#3 In No Exit, Jean Paul Sartre depicts hell through the interactions of three, different people who constantly argue and irritate each other. In hell, time passes more slowly than on Earth because the characters are absorbed and overwhelmed by their thoughts and desires. After Garcin pleads for Inez and Estelle to be silent, Inez replies “Can you stop your thoughts? I hear them ticking away like a clock, tick-tock, tick-tock, and I'm certain you hear mine” (Jean Paul Sartre 13). Each of them is constantly thinking about life back on earth and wondering what is happening to the people they left behind. On earth, time passes faster because humans spend little time on the thoughts that plague the dead in this play – like ‘why am I here?’ and ‘how did I get here?’. They take for granted each moment of their lives and they speed on to the next part. This distinction in time creates a tone of separation in order to further contrast the lives of the dead and the living. The characters in the play feel isolated and are engrossed in their contemplations of life, while those that are alive trudge on without caring about the notions of existence. The reader is left feeling reflective and curious about actuality.
#7 In No Exit, Sartre criticizes Estelle more than Inez, for she embodies the opposite of existentialism. She denies any reason for her placement in Hell – much like those who avoid death and do not accept their mortality and the impacts of their decisions. Her involvement in the materialistic world is shown when Estelle expresses her need for a mirror and Inez offers herself as a looking glass while she applies lipstick: “When I can't see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist”(11). Her thirst to see her reflection demonstrates her dependency on the physical world and her emphasis on appearances. She wants to appear like she’s living a pleasant life, but she’s actually in denial and counters any suggestion as to why she’s in hell. Sartre characterizes Estelle as someone who exists for others, she wants to be seen and thought of as an object. She doesn’t live for herself but for the attention of other people, like Garcin. Through his treatment of Estelle’s character, Sartre is commenting on the superficial nature of humans and our desire to comply with the banality of life. Tellurians become distracted by the trivial aspects of life, the things that hold Estelle’s attention – like beauty and the male gaze. Sartre uses Estelle as a representation of non-existentialism; she is against everything he believes in as an authentic philosopher. She symbolizes the author’s perception of many people on Earth; they are infatuated with trite objects and let them define who they are. Inez is the opposite of Estelle, for she doesn’t care about the materialistic world and she holds herself accountable for her actions and accepts her sentence to hell.
The first and last lines of a book are usually very significant to the book, as they make the biggest impressions on the leader. The book The Stranger by Albert is no exception to this rule. The first line of the book starts the book off with us immediately casting Meursault as someone who does not feel the way most people do, when he says “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 3). Throughout the book we see a subtle shift in Meursault’s manner, as he becomes someone who does care more about the simple things in life, and looks for joy, understanding why people indulge in the pleasures that they did, before only participating in things indifferently. Meursault’s ideas on marriage are unlike most, and he says that he does not care either way, essentially he is saying that he does not see any real purpose in marriage, but is not against it. He says regarding the topic: “That evening Marie came by to see me and asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to,” (Meursault 41). In the final pages of the book, we see this dynamic element to Meursault’s character. He says in reference to his mother “I felt as if I understood why at the end of her life she had taken a ‘fiance,’ why she had played at beginning again,” (Meursault 122). This comment is a direct contrast to what his previous opinions about the subject were. He here is almost saying that he supports the idea of marriage. This can be tied with the very last sentence that the book leaves off on. The book ends: “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,” (Meursault 123). This is commentary on his previous behavior, where he did not care about having people by his side to share his life with, and was impartial to every matter. He says, that at his death, which he has at this point embraced, he wants many people to witness, and wants no one to feel indifferent towards the subject. The fact that he said hate just shows that he knows that he has lived his life wrongly, and recognizes that other people likely do not like him for it. This contrasts his first statement where he expresses his lack of care towards his mother’s death, and wants to make the point that death is actually a very important moment.
In the play No Exit, Sartre’s use of setting allows for the characters to survive in an existential world in which everything is uncertain. The lack of mirrors in the room provides for a detachment of the characters as they become dehumanized. Estelle beings to realize this when she states, “When I can't see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist,” (Sartre). The characters being to lose their sense of self as they become nothing but beings in the depths of hell. In this circumstance, Estelle must rely on Inez to determine her appearance. Her reliance on Inex symbolizes her bad faith as she refuses to accept the way she truly looks. Although she is still aware of her existence, she falls for Inez’s trick that she has a pimple, symbolizing her inability to look within herself. Sartre’s lack of mirrors in the setting of this play challenges the characters to discover their true sense of self, despite the lack of assurance of a mirror.
The contrast of the protagonist and antagonists in the play No Exit, is depicted through Sartre’s characterization of the three main characters. I think that Garcin is depicted as the protagonist due to his normality compared to the other characters. In the beginning of the play, the two females peg Garcin to be the “torturer”. However, he repeatedly claims, “I'm not the torturer, madam,” displaying his innocence in the matter. Also, Garcin is the only character out of the three who seems to be bothered by the others. Rather than chatting as Estelle and Inez do, he states, “ I'd rather be alone. I want to think things out, you know; to set my life in order, and one does that better by oneself,” (Sartre). In this way, Garcin also sets up the conflict of the story, which he later reveals to be: “Hell is other people,” (Sartre). Through the characterization of Garcin, Sartre establishes a tense mood to his play as the reader discovers the true conflict being the characters themselves.
Question #2: Estelle wants the attention and affection that Garcin could give to her, yet when Garcin gives his attention to Inez, who is attracted to women, Estelle tries killing her. This attempt was unsuccessful, as they were already dead, and in hell. This shows Estelle’s self-deception, in that she refuses to believe that she, along with the others, are all already dead, and doesn’t want to believe that she will have to spend the rest of eternity in the situation that she is in. When her attempt to kill Inez with the paper knife was unsuccessful, she came to more of a realization that this was how it was going to be. The paper knife likely symbolized a philosophy that Sartre believed in, which was “existence precedes essence.” This means that the idea, or function of something was thought of before the actual material item. This is shown at the beginning of the book where Garcin first notices the paper knife “Garcin:...[He goes to the mantelpiece and picks up a paper-knife.] What’s this? Valet: Can’t you see? An ordinary paper knife. Garcin: Are there books here? Valet: No.” (Sartre 7). This is to explain that although the knife has no immediate use, since its purpose is to be used for books, that humans are not the same way, and have no predestined purpose or plan in their life. This means that humans will never have nothing to exist for, because they were not specifically created for something in the first place.
Question #7: In my opinion, Sartre is far less critical of Inez than Estelle. This is due to the fact that Inez is more honest, and tells the truth immediately, and is very straightforward when explaining her sins to the others. This is unlike Estelle, who tries to skirt around the truth of the situation. This is Sartre’s way of putting a negative light on self-denial which is a recurring theme in the play. All three of the main characters are, in turn, guilty of trying to shield the others, along with themselves, from the truth. Sartre portrays Inez in a more positive light than Estelle, because she is the least guilty of this, not because she is free of it.
Passivity plays a rather large role in this novel, mainly demonstrated by Meursault because of his view that the world is devoid of any purpose. He allows events to push him along in his life without resistance. His passivity is downright overwhelming and sometimes even infuriating. He demonstrates this because he does not see any reason to resist a majority of things. The first example of this is when Raymond Sintès asks Meursault if they can be pals. He simply reports: “I said it was fine with me”(Camus 29). This sounds a bit odd, most don’t just say it would be alright if they’re friends, they are usually pretty happy about it. Additionally he later on reports: “I didn’t mind being his pal, and he seemed set on it”(33). This second quote shows that Meursault doesn’t really care if they are friends or not but agrees simply because Raymond wants it. A second example of Meursault’s passivity is with Marie. When she asks if he wishes to marry her, he reports to have said: “I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to”(41). Meursault really could care less whether they marry. His relationship with Marie is really a game more than anything and he doesn’t have a goal in that game, it just goes wherever Marie wants. Both these examples are Meursault’s relationships which is where a large amount of his passivity is shown. His relationships are of little importance to him and are only sustained through him not caring about anything and just letting them go wherever the other person takes them.
ReplyDeleteIn Camus’s novel The Stranger, the character of Mersault embodies the idea of passivity. His passivity is shown through the way in which he interacts with Marie: “That evening Marie came by to see me and asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to” (Camus 41). While most people would have a strong emotional reaction to a marriage proposal, Mersault has neither a positive nor a negative reaction to Marie’s query. In fact, he hardly even reacts at all. The fact that Mersault believes that marriage would have no impact on his life exemplifies his passivity. Mersault does not allow his relationship with Marie to affect the course he charts through life. The act of Marie proposing to Mersault further emphasizes Mersault’s passivity: “Besides, she was the one who was doing the asking and all I was saying was yes” (41-42). Marie is taking an active role in advancing their relationship while Mersault sits passively. Camus’s use of language throughout the novel also illustrates the idea of passivity. In the scene with Marie, he eschews descriptive, symbolic language that would have an emotional impact on the reader. Camus tells the reader what happens instead of showing him or her, causing the scene to lose immediacy and creating a passive tone. This is also seen in the lack of dialogue: Mersault summarizes his conversation with Marie instead of speaking them directly. Another use of language that creates a passive tone is Mersault’s use of repetition. After telling Marie that “it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to,” he replies to her repeated question with “it didn’t really matter and that if she wanted to, we could get married” (41). This repetition of nearly the same sentence shows Mersault’s static, passive position in life. Camus’s use of language to create a passive tone detaches the reader from the narrative and allows him or her to experience Mersault’s own detachment from his life. Mersault’s passivity is also closely connected to his role as an outsider and “stranger.” He is able to observe the outside world and his own actions from a very disconnected state of mind. When Marie asks him what Paris is like, he responds, “It’s dirty. Lots of pigeons and dark courtyards. Everybody’s pale” (42). Mersault is incapable of (or potentially just chooses not to) getting swept up in the beauty and emotion that is typically associated with Paris. He passively observes it from the outside, allowing neither his perception of the city to affect himself nor himself to affect his perception of the city.
ReplyDeleteIn The Stranger, Albert Camus ties the multitude of characters together through their overwhelming selfishness while implementing passive narration and apathetic diction.
ReplyDeleteCamus writes the interactions Meursault has with Marie using passive narration that inadvertently characterizes her as selfish. After Marie asks if he is in mourning, he writes, "She gave a little start but didn’t say anything…By that evening Marie had forgotten all about it" (Albert Camus 20). Marie shows no remorse or empathy for the death of Meursault’s mother, and instead encourages their flirtation. She does not care if he’s grieving or needs emotional support. The passive, simplistic writing technique emphasizes the self-centeredness of Marie; Meursault’s dreary narration makes the reader feel sorry for him. She is only interested in what makes her happy and satisfied. This can also be seen through her disregard towards his lack of enthusiasm for marriage, with Meursault narrating, “I didn’t say anything…so she took my arm with a smile and said she wanted to marry me” (42). She doesn’t care that he shows no true interest in marrying her, or that he would do the same with another woman. Her selfishness is shown through her ability to go through with a marriage even though Meursault is not exactly keen on it. She doesn’t care about what he wants; she wants to keep enjoying the advantages of being with him.
Camus also demonstrates the selfishness of Raymond through passive narration. He first invites Meursault in for food but his real motives are shown when he asks him to write a letter that will hurt his former mistress, with Meursault responding “Since I didn’t say anything, he asked if I’d mind doing it right then and I said no” (32). Raymond coaxes him into his room for a cordial meal and asks him for a favor. Like Marie, he assumes his silence is a yes, and indirectly forces Meursault to write the letter. He uses him for his talent but shares no concern for the tragedy that has occurred in his life. Before he leaves, Raymond finally mentions Maman’s death but only after he’d received what he wanted from him; his potential grief is a side note. The passiveness of Meursault’s narration makes him subtly appear victimized and manipulated.
Finally, Camus showcases the selfish nature of Meursalt through weary diction that he uses while surrounded by other patrons of his mother’s home. When attending his mother’s funeral, his thoughts concerning the crying members of the vigil are narrated, “She was crying softly…I thought she’d never stop…I wished I didn’t have to listen to her anymore” (10). Meursault’s selfish disposition is exhibited through his brusque, negative diction, which creates a complaining tone that demonstrates to the reader his apathy towards the people mourning the death of his mother. His criticism towards an act of grief reiterates that he is inconsiderate of other’s feelings and emotions; his ego dictates that his are more important.
Overall, these three characters are linked together through their carelessness for others.
Passivity is defined as “the act of not reacting visibly to something that might be expected to produce manifestations of an emotion or feeling.” This seems to align quite well with the behavior that Meursault, the main character of The Stranger displayed. Meursault went through life without a care about one thing or the other. It was rare that he expressed opinions on the matter that he talked about, even though the book was written in the first person from his perspective. In most first person novels, the author gives their opinion, or how they felt along with the events they are describing to the reader. This was not the case in this book. Meursault barely gave his thoughts on anything to the audience, and when he did it was rather blatant.
ReplyDeleteSomething that most people expect to feel one way or the other about is the feeling of love. In this book, we see that Meursault doesn’t necessarily follow this path. His love interest in this book in Marie, and she clearly seems to love Meursault. He, on the other hand, seems very indifferent on the matter. We see this when Marie asks him if he wanted to marry her. He describes the moment saying: “I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to. Then she wanted to know if I loved her. I answered the same way I had last time…” (Camus 41). This is a good example of passivity, where in most cases, people would react or have strong feelings about something such as love or marriage, where we see the Meursault doesn’t. This may strike readers as being odd, or strange because it is not something that most people express in society.
Going chronologically backwards in the novel, in the very opening sentence, we can see how Meursault feels about life and death, and really most things. He says, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know...Maybe it was yesterday,” (Camus 1). This doesn’t flat out say how Meursault had little feelings about the death of his mothers, which most people would be rather upset about, but it does paint a picture that he doesn’t care enough to know the day of his mother’s death. He talks about the death of his mother so bluntly, and immediately that it shocks readers. Personally, I had to reread this paragraph multiple times before I fully understood what the narrator was trying to get across. The passivity of the matter is not only the fact that he doesn’t know the date of his mother’s death, but he does not seem to have enough interest, or care enough to find out, and never bothers to ask when he is around people who would know the specifics.
Passivity is seen in everyday life, but usually in smaller bits and pieces. The main character of The Stranger, Meursault shows passivity in a big way through his lack of concern regarding matters that most would find to be very significant.
Throughout his novel, The Stranger, Albert Camus reflects on the motif of passivity throughout the characterization of Meursault. Passivity is defined as accepting the acts of others without trying to change anything. This is shown through Meursault’s character, who is defined by his lack of sentiment in the emotions of others. The novel begins with the death of his mother. Even the first line of the story exemplifies Meursault’s insensitivity to life as a whole as he states, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday” (Campus 3). The author’s use of structure in this passage expounds on Meursault’s dull, non-sympathetic range of emotion. With an event as tragic as the death of his mother, his response seems unworldly. Passivity helps to define Meursault through his lack of care in significant events. The repeated structure of this passage typifies Meursault’s short thinking of the event. The sentences are very short, choppy, and repetitive. The anaphora of the phrase “Maybe it was yesterday,” illustrates the little knowledge Meursault obtains of his mother’s death. However, he just doesn’t care enough to discover her fate in this circumstance. Meursault’s insensitivity continues throughout the novel as the author creates a static personality within him. After months of not speaking to his former lover, Meursault reflects on his relationship with Marie, “...remembering MArie meant nothing to me. I wasn’t interested in her dead,” (Campus 115). As one can see, Marie’s love for Meursault, through her continuous relationship with him, exclamation of love, and proposal of marriage, is not reciprocated by Meursault. Rather, Meursault fails to reminisce on his former lover completely. The same girl who proclaimed her love to him in the most vulnerable fashion, Meursault considers worthless. The author uses irony throughout this situation through the insensibility of Meursault as he isn’t “interested in her dead”. Emotionally, Meursault's thoughts of her continue to stay the same despite their intimate relationship. Campus uses Meursault's lack of sentiment and care for the relationships in his life to develop a theme of static passivity throughout his work.
ReplyDeleteSisyphus can be seen as a universal figure because he does things like many of us. He rebelled against outside pressures and those outside pressures fought back. They scorned him for what he did, just as many real people have rebelled against society and sometimes their efforts have been snuffed out by their societies. But he doesn’t stop there, after those he rebelled against punish him he remains defiant, and this acts as encouragement for many to not simply submit to societal pressures. Meursault and Sisyphus are rather similar characters. Neither of them seem to fit in very well to their societies. Meursault simply is confused and just goes with the flow of things while Sisyphus actively scorns those around him. However, they both eventually commit a highly atrocious crime in the eyes of those higher in the societal food chain than themselves. They are both condemned, and they both scorn their condemnation. They accept it but will not accept what it is meant to accomplish. Both their punishments are supposed to show them the folly of their ways but both Meursault and Sisyphus ignore this lesson and stick to what they did, even in the face of the overwhelming contempt thrust upon them. Camus’ thesis about Sisyphus is an interesting one, that he is content even in his subjection to eternal pointless work. He claims that Sisyphus is not demoralized by this but indeed happy in this struggle. I do agree with this thesis due to the truly subjective nature of happiness - for one to be happy they merely need to think happy, and one can think happy in any situation, even Sisyphus’ situation.
ReplyDeleteThe plights of both Sisyphus and Meursault share similar elements. Sisyphus and Meursault were both punished for committing crimes for which they felt very little remorse. The gods were unsuccessful in drawing Sisyphus back to the underworld after Pluto let him return to earth to reprimand his wife, as he becomes so caught up in “the curve of the gulf, the sparkling sea, and the smiles of earth.” Similarly, Meursault does not wish to confront the seriousness of the crime he has committed: “fumbling a little with my words and realizing how ridiculous I sounded, I blurted out that it was because of the sun” (Camus 103). At this point in the novel, Meursault sees himself very far removed from his actions. To me, however, the most interesting similarity between Sisyphus and Meursault is the way they act in situations of crushing monotony. About Sisyphus’s punishment, Camus writes: “crushing truths perish from being acknowledged.” Sisyphus’s torture is so cruel because he is aware that rolling the boulder up the hill is a futile task. However, because Sisyphus is conscious, he is able to confront his punishment, and his fate becomes a thing that belongs to him. The time that Meursault spends in jail is very similar to the time that Sisyphus spends pushing the rock uphill. Meursault states that he felt “that [his] life was coming to a standstill” while he was in prison (72). However, Meursault eventually finds a way to pass time by using his consciousness to his benefit: “…I would start at one corner and circle the room, mentally noting everything there was on the way. At first it didn’t take long. But every time I started over, it took a little longer. 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 texture” (79). Meursault, much like Sisyphus is using his consciousness to transcend and take control of his punishment. Sisyphus is not just similar to Meursault. The absurd hero is a universal figure because he expresses the way in which people have learned to cope with unrelenting monotony, physical pain, or emotional distress. Becoming so intensely aware of one’s plight makes it easier to encounter moments of happiness within that torture. I am reminded of a quote from David Foster Wallace’s novel Infinite Jest: “No single, individual moment is in and of itself unendurable” (Wallace 204). What he meant by this is very similar to Camus’s argument about the nature of the absurd hero: taking a time of trial breath by breath allows one to revel in it without being crushed by the weight of all the breaths that have come before and will come after. Camus writes, “the struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart,” and that, I think, is a beautiful thing.
ReplyDeleteDeath is a part of human nature, everyone will eventually cease to exist physically and they will hopefully leave behind a legacy or memento of their stay on earth. In The Myth of Sisyphus, by Albert Camus, he demonstrates that Sisyphus – a man sentenced to a life of fruitless, brutal labor - is a universal figure through his lack of acceptance towards his death. To demonstrate why Sisyphus is greedy for more days on earth, Camus uses captivating imagery that conjures the essence of what living is all about: “But when he had seen again the face of this world, enjoyed water and sun, warm stones and the sea, he no longer wanted to go back to the infernal darkness” (Albert Camus). Sisyphus tries to avert death and is greedy for more time on earth, so much so that he had to be forced back into the underworld. The beauty of earth nurtured his gluttony for more time, thus leading him to a more dreadful punishment. This desire can be seen amongst all humans; often we try to defy the inevitable clutches of a conclusion- be it with a relationship, feeling, death itself. We yearn for another drop of what we are going to lose and do not accept that all things must pass.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, Sisyphus is similar to Meursault, the main character in Camus’ novel The Stranger, a tale that describes a man who comes to grips with the absurdity and meaninglessness of life. While Meursault is waiting in prison for his trial, he finally accepts his looming fate, while remembering the words of a nurse at his mother’s funeral: “No, there was no way out” (Camus 81). In that moment, he understands and embraces the absurdity of life, much like Sisyphus does when he walks back down the hill to retrieve the rock controlling his existence. They both have realized that their situations are not going to change, but they can still have a satisfying life. Meursault begins to look forward to his execution. Camus paints both characters as caught up in nature and beauty of life. When Meursault is on the beach, he walks towards the spring near the Arab man who had been following him preveiously: “I was thinking of the cool spring…I wanted to hear the murmur of its water again, to escape the sun and the strain…and to find shade and rest again at last” (57). He is so entranced by this small crevice filled with water, similar to Sisyphus, who is captivated by the wonder of the “sparkling sea” on Earth. Mesmerized, both men are lead to their downfall by the enthralling qualities of water. They are both initially, covetous individuals.
I agree with Camus, we must accept our own mortality and know that we will live and then die. To a certain extent, we must acknowledge our fate and the lack of meaning in it, in order to live a fulfilling life with our own individual meaning. Camus writes that as Sisyphus walks to the bottom of the hill to begin the work of rolling it back up, he is “superior to his fate” and has reached the “hour of consciousness” (Camus). He has finally understood his place and destiny, and through it, has accepted his demise. If we first realize this cyclical nature of life, then we can begin to craft our own version of happiness.
Camus writes about the Myth of Sisyphus to show contrast the way that he sees the universe, and the absurdity of life. Absurdism is the idea that humans have the tendency to seek meaning in life, yet are unable to find it. We can easily see this in the Myth of Sisyphus, as he is condemned to pushing a boulder up to side of a hill, where it then falls back to the bottom of the hill upon reaching the top. This exaggerates the idea of meaningless labor, as his work is destroyed after completion every time, yet he has no choice but to continue. Many philosophers including Camus, saw the world this way, believing that humans did pointless labor day after day, just to return and do the same tasks more repeatedly. Camus described the other life with great imagery of desirable nature, saying: “he had seen again the face of this world, enjoyed water and sun, warm stones and the seat, he no longer wanted to go back to the infernal darkness,” (Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus). This is exactly what made Sisyphus want to stay, rather than to return to his duty, which lead to him having to work even harder and more aimlessly, supporting the idea that you cannot find meaning in life, and that no one can life in beauty forever. Camus expressed this ideal of a meaningless life in The Stranger frequently as well. Meursault lives for the pleasures of life in the moment, and does not force himself to feel things that do not come naturally. “It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed (Camus, 14). This shows that although most people would be upset about the passing of their mother, and that Meursault knew that it was abnormal not to cry or feel sorrow about his mother’s death, he did not, and did not even pretend or try to feel this way, and felt nothing, even the same, as he would have if his mother had not died. This shows that he has already recognized that people spend their lives doing trivial things, that will likely not matter in the end. This character that Camus portrays embodies the myth of Sisyphus because he understands that the luxuries in life are not to be focused on, because they are not what life truly consists of. Meursault does not complain about his job much, and goes reluctantly but does so knowing that there is no way out. He does not try to search for meaning in life, because he believes that there is none, and when the chaplain says to him “‘I know that at one time or another you’ve wished for another life.’” Meursault comments “...of course I had, but it didn’t mean any more than wishing to be rich, to be able to swim faster, or to have a more nicely shaped mouth” (Camus, 119-120). This shows that he knows that no matter what he does or what he wants to be, his life will be stuck in the same cycle over and over again.
ReplyDeleteThe character arc of both Meursault, in The Stranger, and Sisyphus, in the Myth of Sisyphus, are reflective of the idea of absurdity, or “the state of being wildly unreasonable”. In the Myth of Sisyphus, Sisyphus is sentenced to a life time of the “futile and hopeless labor” of endlessly rolling a rock up a hill, only to watch it roll back down (Camus, Myth of Sisyphus). This outset was condemned to him only after testing his wife’s love and being disapproved by the gods. Similarly, Meursault is sentenced to death by his indifference in the events of his mother’s death, his girlfriend’s love, and his witness of a murder. As both punishments seem unruly, Camus sees that both characters conclude that “all is well” (Camus, Myth of Sisyphus). Meursault’s conclusion is a coming peace he achieves in his acceptance of the indifference of the world. Similarly, Camus describes Sisyphus as a happy character when he defies his punishment by joyfully returning to the base of the hill, to once again strife to roll the rock back up it. Camus writes, “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart” (Camus, Myth of Sisyphus). In The Stranger, Meursault is pegged as a character wanting nothing to do with the world around him. He is indignant to the death of his mother and the confession of love by Marie, to which he replies, “I probably didn’t love her” (Camus 41). Yet in the conclusion, Meursault states, “I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world...I felt I had been happy and that I was happy again” (Camus 123). Only in the face of death does Meursault realize his true happiness. Not in the relationships he found, nor the love of Marie, did he receive joy, rather in his acceptance of indifference. In both Sisyphus and Meursault's character arcs, the men find themselves rejoicing in the face of their struggle, showing Camus’ belief in the struggle being enough to fill a man’s heart.
ReplyDeleteReligion/faith appears in The Stranger only a few times. One such appearance is when Meursault first meets with the judge for his trial. Meursault says he doesn’t believe in God and the judge says: “He said that was impossible; all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs on him. That was his belief, and if he were to ever doubt it, his life would become meaningless. ‘Do you want my life to be meaningless?’ he shouted. As far as I could see, it didn’t have anything to do with me, and I told him so” (Camus 69). This instance exists as an example of someone trying to use religion to give their life meaning. Religion, according to Camus, is philosophical suicide and so the absurd hero Meursault tells the judge that he does not believe in God. The judge tells him that believing that all people believe in God gives his life meaning, and the interesting thing is that Meursault replies simply by saying that the judge can believe what he wants and it makes no difference to Meursault. This somewhat reflects the idea that we can all find meaning in our own way, but it’s odd that Meursault doesn’t mind that the judge is committing philosophical suicide. It’s possible that Meursault is an absurd hero except that he cares little for others especially apparent because he is on trial for murder. Another indication that Camus believes religion is not the way is that since Meursault does not believe in God (AT ALL) then by the judge’s standards, the judges life is meaningless. This serves as a model to others, discouraging religious belief. Trying to create meaning through a god will get one no where.
ReplyDeleteQuestions of religion and faith arise in The Stranger toward the end of the novel when the chaplain goes to see Meursault. Meursault does not feel it is necessary for him to see the chaplain because he doesn’t believe in God, so the chaplain’s visit startles him: “When I saw him I felt a little shudder go through me” (Camus 115). When the chaplain asks why Meursault refused to see him, Meursault’s response is very matter-of-fact: “I said that I didn’t believe in God” (116). Camus’s use of straightforward language and a lack of direct dialogue emphasizes that Meursault’s atheism is not up for debate or discussion. Throughout Meursault’s conversation with the chaplain, the chaplain’s words are presented as direct quotes, while Meursault’s responses are presented as a description of words he has already spoken. Camus is trying to make the point here that belief in God is completely irrelevant because humans have free will. He does this by portraying Meursault as certain and steadfast in his lack of belief while the chaplain asks him many questions, even “[throwing] up his hands in annoyance” (117). Meursault almost explicitly voices Camus’s belief during his “friendly visit” with the chaplain: “I said that I didn’t see any reason to ask myself that question: it seemed unimportant” (116). At one point in the conversation, the chaplain says, “Every man I have known in your position has turned to Him” (116-117). Meursault’s response is, once again, simple: “I acknowledged that that was their right” (117). Camus makes it clear that Meursault doesn’t hate religious people even though Camus viewed religion as philosophical suicide. Because humans have free will, they are able to choose to turn to religion, and Meursault acknowledges that this is their choice. Even though religious belief is not a part of Camus’ theory of existentialism, it is important to address it in The Stranger because it provides a framework for Meursault’s own beliefs. Meursault’s conversation with the chaplain is important characterization of Meursault because it portrays him as something other than merely passive. He simply recognizes that he is alone in a hostile universe and that it is unnecessary and uninteresting for him to believe in a God how does not care about him and will do nothing to save him.
ReplyDeleteAbsurdist philosophy is abundant in The Stranger. Absurdism is described as the conflict between the human tendency to assign meaning to life, accompanied by the inability to find any. Camus, the author of the Stranger displays this idea frequently in his works. Specifically, in The Stranger, Camus writes about Meursault, a character who embodies this philosophy. From the beginning of the book, Meursault was painted as a character who had a lack of emotion or feelings when he reacted minimally to his mother’s death. Many saw him as cold, or heartless. Meursault knew that he was supposed to have a sad reaction, and even acknowledged this to the readers, but he was not the type to force himself to feel something he did not come to naturally. This is shown immediately at the start of the book, perhaps the most well-known quote, where Meursault states “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from home: ‘Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.’ That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday,” (Camus 3). This paragraph takes readers by surprise, as most would not expect one to talk about the death of their mother so emotionlessly, yet Meursault does not even care enough to figure out the date of his mother’s death. Personally, this line made me think about how people react in our society to death, especially the death of someone close to us. Meursault seems to think of death as something that is inevitable, which is true, but he does not see it as a big deal, and justifies this with reasoning that he had not spoken to his mother in a while, and she was pretty much removed from his life. In today’s society, we see that even if you have not made contact with someone in a long while, it is still upsetting to be informed of their death. A grieving process usually occurs, and funerals are typically very emotional. Meursault displays his unique outlook on life by defying these norms. The last line of the book also stuck out to me. Meursault is reflecting on his life during his final moments and comments to the reader “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,” (Camus 123). This is surprising due to the juxtaposition of happiness, and hate. Meursault says that he was finally happy, which is about as much emotion as he had expressed throughout the whole book. It is hard for us as readers to identify with him in this situation, because he is about to be executed, yet still remains happy. He says that he had been happy, which is confusing considering his lack of empathy and ability to show emotion or find joy in many things that others might. In this, Camus is saying that even in bad situations, or even in the day-to-day work of life, it is possible to find happiness, and that we should find this for ourselves. When Meursault goes to say that he wishes there was a large crowd of spectators to watch his execution, it signifies that he has finally realized that life is indifferent to human actions, and that he hopes his execution stands to represent him being above society due to his personal choice to choose happiness. I found this part strange, but I think that it was meant to be uplifting, saying that we can make the best of situations, no matter what other people do with their lives, our lives are to be lived independently. I do not think that I personally would be able to find happiness in this situation, but I think that based on Meursault’s ideas about life, it makes sense that he was able to find this, and then die at peace.
ReplyDeleteThe philosophy of absurdity is known as the human desire to find meaning when there is none. Albert Camus, a main contributor to this idea, acknowledged that life had no significance, but advocated for accepting and embracing this absurdity. In the novel The Stranger, Meursault starts out as a young man who finds meaning in nothing and leads a passive life. Albert Camus illustrates the absurdist philosophy through the development of the main character; gradually he begins to understand the lack of meaning life has. When Meursault and the people mourning the death of his mother trek towards the village to bury his mother, the nurse speaks to him about the unbearable heat, “She said, ‘If you go slowly, you risk getting sunstroke. But if you go too fast, you work up a sweat and then catch a chill inside the church.’ She was right. There was no way out” (Albert Camus 17). Camus uses the scorching weather as a symbol of the meaninglessness of life. No matter what one does in that humidity, they will feel the fervor of the sun, much like how Meursault feels trapped in the pointlessness of life. The blatant pessimism of Meursault reflects his initial ideals; he does not see that embracing this obscurity can result in finding true happiness and meaning. Camus creates a nihilistic tone, where there is no hope or positivity in the main character, making the reader feel dejected. The transition from his passive lifestyle and countenance is displayed in part two of the novel. After the priest visits him in the prison, Meursault finally accepts obscurity: “I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much life myself – so like a brother, really – I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again” (122-3). He realizes that the world is apathetic towards his actions and that life lacks any real meaning. Happiness exudes from him like never before and he embodies Camus’s philosophy; he lacks hope yet looks forward toward his death, highlighting the idea that joy can always be found. His transformation from passive to accepting of mortality and hopelessness does not appear very optimistic and positive to the reader. Meursault’s eagerness to die creates an uncomfortable, confusing tone which ultimately causes them to question how happiness is derived and the significance of our lives. Personally, I can understand the beauty in absurdity and existentialism; developing as human beings is an individual path and we must make our own meaning and actively be present. Our satisfaction is dependent on our actions. I think that it is an intriguing thought that happiness can be found in any situation, todo depende on how you interpret it.
ReplyDeletePassage #1: “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 3).
ReplyDeletePassage #2: “Despite my willingness to understand, I just couldn’t accept such arrogant certainty. Because, after all, there really was something ridiculously out of proportion between the verdict such certainty was based on and the imperturbable march of events from the moment the verdict was announced. The fact that the sentence had been read at eight o’clock at night and not at five o’clock, the fact that it could have been an entirely different one, the fact that it had been decided by men who change their underwear, the fact that it had been handed down in the name of some vague notion called the French (or German, or Chinese) people—all of it seemed to detract from the seriousness of the decision. I was forced to admit, however, that from the moment it had been passed its consequences became as real and as serious as the wall against which I pressed the length of my body”(Camus 109-110).
These two passages demonstrate Meursault’s ideas regarding death at the beginning of the book and toward the end. The first passage is short and to the point, just as is Meursault’s belief. Meursault does not care if anyone dies including his own mother: “That doesn’t mean anything.” He sees death as a matter equally as trivial as anything else in life. Camus writes that Meursault does not even remember the day maman died to emphasize that he really doesn’t care that she’s dead. Camus repeats Meursault’s doubting at the end of the short passage again: “Maybe it was yesterday” to further bring this to attention. The second passage is much longer since it details Meursault’s new, much more complex and evolved belief about death. He tries to understand the purpose for the verdict of his court case and gets to: “I just couldn’t accept such arrogant certainty.” Meursault doesn’t understand how the law could possibly conclude it necessary that a criminal be executed. He is infuriated by the way things played out as he considers the recent events. The constant repetition of “the fact” as he does this was included by Camus to symbolize the constant, mechanical and unstoppable process Meursault is now going through. Meursault concludes that this process: “seemed to detract from the seriousness of the decision.” Meursault now takes death seriously and attributes importance to it. He even goes as far as to say that his execution verdict “became as real and as serious as the wall against which I pressed the length of my body.” This last detail is HUGE because it reveals that Meursault finds an abstract concept like death to be just as meaningful as a physical object, which normally is more meaningful and real in this world. This does make sense though, since existentialists believe that death is one’s most authentic moment. How and why do these passages differ? In the first passage Camus states everything simply while in the second one he becomes very elaborate about the details. This is to show how Meursault’s understanding has matured over time. He is no longer a naïve child character, but a full-fledged existentialist. Why does Meursault change like this? The reason is likely because his naïvité was eliminated. This was done through the court case and having to face his own death. His eyes were finally open and he understood that death is indeed an event filled with significance. With this in mind it makes perfect sense why Camus varied his style and detail from the first passage to the second much later: to bring the readers along on Meursault’s journey to communicate how death is an event more significant than anything else in anyone’s life.
Passage #1: “I wanted to smoke a cigarette at the window, but the air was getting colder and I felt a little chilled. I shut my windows, and as I was coming back I glanced at the mirror and saw a corner of my table with my alcohol lamp next to some pieces of bread. 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).
ReplyDeletePassage #2: “Then, I don’t know why, but something inside me snapped. I started yelling at the top of my lungs, and I insulted him and told him not to waste his prayers on me. I grabbed him by the collar of his cassock. I was pouring out on him everything that was in my heart, cries of anger and cries of joy. He seemed so certain about everything, didn’t he? And yet none of his certainties was worth one hair of a woman’s head” (120).
In these two passages, Camus contrasts descriptive and emotional language to show a shift between the first and second parts of the novel in the way that Meursault perceives and interacts with the world around him. In the first passage, Camus focuses on describing that physical objects by which Meursault is surrounded: “I glanced at the mirror and saw a corner of my table with my alcohol lamp next to some pieces of bread” (24). In the first part of the novel, the physical world is much more important to Meursault than any sort of emotional or mental landscape because to him, there is no meaning outside of the physical world. Camus uses these declarative sentences to create a picture of the room in which Meursault finds himself without ascribing any meaning or significance to it. The table, alcohol lamp, and bread aren’t described beyond the simple statement of their existence. In this first passage, Camus uses tactile imagery to describe how the physical environment affects Meursault: “…the air was getting colder and I felt a little chilled” (24). The description of physical sensations is similar to the imagery that Camus employs when describing how Meursault kills the Arab. In that moment, physical sensation overpowered any sense of morality that Meursault could have possessed so that he had no other choice than to kill the man. At the end of the first passage, Meursault shows that he doesn’t have any strong feelings about his mother’s death, saying that “really, nothing had changed” (24). The second passage provides a direct contrast to the first one. While the first passage emphasizes the physical world and a lack of emotion, the second passage shows Meursault engaging with his emotions and the priest in a way that is more authentic than the way in which Meursault interacts with anyone else in the novel. Camus writes, “I was pouring out on him everything that was in my heart, cries of anger and cries of joy” (120). This is one of the first times that Meursault actually expresses emotion, and it represents Camus’s existentialist philosophy coming into direct conflict with religion. Meursault accuses the chaplain’s certainties of not even being “worth one hair of a woman’s head” (120). Meursault is seeing the chaplain’s religion the way Camus saw religion: as philosophical suicide. Religion causes the chaplain to feel certain about and life after death, which prevents him from creating meaning in his life. In the first part of the novel, Meursault passively floated through the world around him, noticing only the physical, but in the second part of the novel, he actively confronts philosophies that he sees as damaging to those who hold them, allowing him to engage his emotions in a way that didn’t happen in the first part of the novel.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Albert Camus’ The Stranger, the author uses techniques of repetition and absurd perspectives in order to exemplify the static character arc of Meursault. Meursault’s point of view on love is seen through a lens of absurdism. The philosophy of absurdism illustrates “that human beings exist in a purposeless world”. In Part One, Meursault exemplifies this belief when Marie asks him about his feelings for her: “A minute later she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but I didn’t think so” (Camus 35). Although Meursault continually confesses his “want” for Marie, all his feelings for her are derived from lust. His incapability of feeling love towards his partner shows his lack of care for the world around him. Meursault believes that humans must do as they please, yet only in service of themselves due to the lack of purpose in life. His apathy in his feelings not meaning anything reveal his indifference to the world around him, allowing him to detach both emotionally and physically from society with the novel resulting in his execution. The fact that he doesn’t love Marie, after all they have experienced, is hard to believe. Yet, his continuing feelings of apathy prove his lack of emotion. Similarly, in Part Two, Meursault reflects the same emotions, or lack of emotions, towards his loved ones. As the lawyer questions Meursault on his feelings of his mother’s death, Meursault states, “I probably did love Maman, but that didn’t mean anything. At one time or another all normal people have wished their loved ones were dead” (Camus 65). In this passage, the repetition of the phrase “that didn’t mean anything” is reflected from the passage in Part One. Meursault’s perpetual indifference in his feelings towards his loved ones is expressed through this repetition and the theme of absurdism throughout the novel. Although he felt a love towards his mother, his indifference in the meaning behind it displays the lack of purpose he sees in life. However, there is a change in his emotions as he admits his love for Maman, yet denies his feelings for Marie. Camus use of repetition and abounding absurdism beliefs throughout these passages symbolize Meursault’s apathetic outlook on life and the staticity of his character.
Passage #1: “He was planning to open an office in Paris which would handle his business directly with the big companies, on the spot, and he wanted to know how I felt about going there. I’d be able to live in Paris and travel around for part of the year as well. ‘You’re young, and it seems to me it’s the kind of life that would appeal to you.” I said yes but that really it was all the same to me,” (Camus 41).
ReplyDeletePassage #2: “Then, I don’t know why, but something inside me snapped. I started yelling at the top of my lungs, and I insulted him and told him not to waste his prayers on me. I grabbed him by the collar of his cassock. I was pouring out on him everything that was in my heart,” (Camus 120).
In the first passage Camus writes about a job offer that Meursault gets to go live in Paris, normally people would either be very excited or apprehensive about and opportunity to move to a different country for work. This is not the case for Meursault. He even expresses specifically that it didn’t matter to him where he was living. The sentences from this passage in section one are rather simplistic and straight to the point. Comparing this to the passage from part 2 we can see that the sentences become slightly more complex and interesting, as well as less choppy. In the first passage Meursault openly expressed his passivity and lack of care towards certain - or all - subject matters. In the second passage Meursault is shown “pouring out on him everything that was in [his] heart,” (Camus 120). This is a major character shift, as Meursault’s main personality trait that readers could observe was the fact that we lacked much empathy, or emotion towards most matters. Camus shows Meursault at the end of the book displaying his feelings to show that Meursault has changed from who he was before, and rather than looking at the world as meaningless, and refusing to search further, that it is very important to search for meaning in the world, thus the idea of absurdism which is a consistent aspect of this book. There are many other separate examples from parts one and two which express these respective ideas, which only help to support the fact that Meursault had a complete character change from the beginning of the book, or part one, compared to the end of the book, or part two.
“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). At the end of The Stranger Meursault has one final wish so that he can end his life in a way he is satisfied with. In the final moments he feels alone in the world, even more so than previously. To cleanse him of loneliness he wants people to watch his execution and “greet me with cries of hate.” The first part of the request is logical: he wants people around him. But the second part: the cries of hate, why does he want that? To understand this one must understand the revelation Meursault has just gone through: “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). Meursault now fully recognizes an existentialist idea - that the world doesn’t care. It is always indifferent and often hostile. He can therefore not expect anything from his fellow human beings but hate. They are against him as much as the rest of the world is, and he realizes and embraces this idea. Just like Sisyphus Meursault finds happiness where no one else would - in the mere struggle against a hostile world. Meursault craves this hostility and though he cannot physically rebel against it he can refuse to submit to it. He will not despair, rather he will rejoice and find true and complete happiness in the overwhelming contempt thrust upon him.
ReplyDelete“Seeing the rows of cypress trees leading up to the hills next to the sky, and the houses standing out here and there against that red and green earth, I was able to understand Maman better. Evenings in that part of the country must have been a kind of sad relief. But today, with the sun bearing down, making the whole landscape shimmer with heat, it was inhuman and oppressive” (Albert Camus 15)
ReplyDelete“I felt as if I understood why at the end of her life she had taken a ‘fiancé,’ why she had played at beginning again. Even there, in that home where lives were fading out, evening was a kind of wistful respite. So close to death, Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again” (122).
In these passages from the novel The Stranger, Albert Camus illustrates the transformation of the main character, Meursault, from a cold, pessimistic man to someone who embraces life, through contrasting diction and repetition of the same language. The first quote from part one of the book contains descriptive imagery that paints a beautiful scenery: “rows of cypress trees…red and green earth”. The details reiterate Meursault’s emphasis on the physical world; he understands his mother because he can clearly see that the environment she lived in was peaceful and magnificent. In addition, the passage starts with “seeing”, highlighting sight as his most important sense (22). The negative diction – “inhuman and oppressive” - creates a cynical tone that contradicts the beauty formerly described (22). The reader feels dejected and confused by Meursault’s gloomy attitude and his overall apathy towards the death of his mother. Simplistic language is riddled throughout this piece symbolizing his outlook on life; life has no meaning other than what you see.
In the second passage, Camus begins with “I felt” to signify that Meursault no longer solely relies on his sight to perceive and interpret his surrounding environment; he realizes there is more to life, like emotions (122). Instead of describing nature and its beauty, Meursault makes the realization that even though Maman is old and at the brink of death, she still made something of her life and found companionship. His understanding of his mother goes beyond the physical world, and into the emotional world, where he empathizes with her. His ability to feel and observe this demonstrates the change in his state of mind. He is able to live a satisfying life beyond its absurdity. Camus rephrases the sentence about evening found in the first passage: “in that home where lives were fading out, evening was a kind of wistful respite” (122). The direct comparison of “evening”in both parts of the novel showcases the increase in Meursault’s emotional intelligence; the diction is more complex and has more positive connotations. Although both sentences concerning evenings state the opposing feelings of regretful rest, in the second passage, it is followed by “Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again”, which exudes happiness and promotes the acceptance of obscurity (122). In this piece, Camus crafts a pleased tone that makes the reader feel optimistic.
The last line of The Stranger is as follows: “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). At this point in the novel, Meursault has accepted that he is going to die. He has accepted that everyone will die and that when and how do not matter: “throughout the whole absurd life I’d lived, a dark wind had been rising toward me from somewhere deep in my future, across years that were still to come, and as it passed, this wind leveled whatever was offered to me at the time, in years no more real than the ones I was living” (121). Meursault seems to have come to the conclusion that his death has been hanging over his head for his entire life and that the way he lived his life means nothing until the moment that he dies. The choices that Meursault made in his life were completely arbitrary and had no impact on the fact that he was condemned to die, just like everyone else. It is interesting, though, that at the very end of novel, Meursault finally decides that he wants to be less alone. Throughout the book, Camus cultivates the idea of the outsider who lives in a community without being of a community. Meursault is out of touch with the rest of the world, and his interaction with the robot woman is an effective metaphor for this. Meursault’s desire to be less alone is perhaps influenced by the way he chooses to think about his mother: I felt as if I understood why at the end of her life she had taken a “fiancé,” why she had played at beginning again” (122). Meursault realizes that this mother made a conscious choice to acknowledge her impending death and then to make something out of it. Camus writes, “So close to death, Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again” (122). These moments before Meursault’s mother’s death were her version of Sisyphus’s trip down the hill. Meursault realizes that she must have been happy and notes that “nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her” (122). Nobody had the right to cry over Maman because they weren’t crying for her: they were crying for themselves and the way that the death impacted them due to the meaning that they had assigned to Maman’s life. Maman felt free when she died, and so does Meursault: he feels “ready to live it all again too” (122). For this reason, Meursault doesn’t want anyone to cry for him. He doesn’t want anyone to feel pity for his fate because he has already accepted the meaninglessness of the time and means of his death. This is why Meursault wants to greeted with cries of hate. Those cries of hate will show him the hostility of the universe and give him the pride of knowing that he was able to die free and fully accepting of the inherent meaninglessness of his existence.
ReplyDeletewhoa *snap snap snap*
DeleteWow.
Delete“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).
ReplyDelete“The most authentic moment in life is death”: a statement by many existentialist philosophers referring to the vulnerability of a person as they reach their last moment upon earth. This belief is examined as a reflective statement on a person’s life, revealing who they truly have become as a person. In Albert Camus’ work, The Stranger, Meursault plays an important role as a dynamic character experiencing challenges on his outlook of life. However, the philosophy stated above appears to be the best explanation for the state of Meursault’s death. As he accepts his fate of being executed, the author creates a romantic tone through sexual diction with the word “consummated”. This lyric tends to allude to sexual means, however, Meursault sees his confrontation with death as a consummation, revealing his romantic outlook on the subject. This use of diction is a symbol of Meursault’s marriage, or forever commitment, to his fated death as he faces his execution. In this ceremony, Meursault also wishes for a crowd of people to witness his final moment. He explains his wish as helping him to “feel less alone”, yet he pleads his spectators to greet him with cries of hate. Camus’ use of irony in this statement exemplifies the contrast to Meursault’s deepest desires and the reactions of society. Meursault’s death was fated to him through his conviction of murder, causing his community to view him as a heartless criminal. Similar to the way Meursault believed that “nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her” when witnessing Maman’s funeral, he sees the crowds sympathy as a reflection of their pain, not the pain that Maman had to endure (122). However, Meursault’s desire for people to greet him with cries of hate show the pain they will endure in his presence, hating him for all he has done and the way he has negatively impacted them. Meursault’s selfish ambitions and desire for evil as he greets his death so boldly exemplify his true self through this philosophy: “The most authentic moment in life is death”.
The final line to the novel, The Stranger, by Albert Camus is: ”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). This ending quote exemplifies Meursault’s acceptance of absurdity and the lack of meaning in life. “Consummate” is used to mean ‘reinforce’; by dying, his philosophy and ideals are reiterated. He has finally come to terms with mortality and the obscurity of life and is now ready to die. His desire to “feel less alone” is satiated through his death, for a core value of absurdist philosophy is that death is one’s most authentic moment. Through the execution, Meursault becomes his utterly, true self, so much so that he will be consumed by the entirety of his being and finally be at peace with the trivialness of life. The “cries of hate” emitted by the spectators at his execution represent Meursault’s acknowledgement that no one understands or agrees with his perspective. The people around him see him as cold and apathetic, and they can’t fathom how someone could live such a seemingly detached and passive life. They also symbolize that Meursault has had an impact on the world around him. A core belief of existentialism states that everyone and everything affects everything. By having people who are passionate enough to yell obscenities means that he has affected the world in some way. By ending the novel in this style, Camus creates a lasting impression on the reader; a nebulous tone that makes us think hard about our interpretation of life.
ReplyDeleteQuestion #2 -
ReplyDeleteEstelle tries to kill Inez in a quick, impulsive, desperate action. Garcin says he cannot love Estelle with Inez watching. Estelle has long begged Garcin and when she seems so close to finding a resolution to her currently miserable situation she strikes quickly without thinking. To this action Inez reacts: “Dead! Dead! Dead! Knives, poison, ropes—all useless. It has happened already, do you understand? Once and for all. So here we are, forever. [Laughs.]” (Camus 46). After this both Estelle and Garcin join in the laughter. This laughter is a surefire sign that Estelle’s attempt is an example of the absurdity of the situation. Much of the time there is treated by the the three as if they are still alive, they cannot possibly take it seriously, they refuse to take it seriously. The paper-knife Estelle uses is itself an absurd symbol. There appears to be no rhyme or reason for its presence, Garcin: “What’s this? valet: Can’t you see? An ordinary paper-knife. Garcin: Are there books here? valet: No. Garcin: Then what’s the use of this? [valet shrugs his shoulders.]” (7). There’s no reason for there to be a paper-knife and indeed even at the end it still serves no purpose as a weapon because they are all dead already.
Question #5 -
The valet has no eyelids because no one in hell does. This is a source of Garcin’s distress: “No eyelids, no sleep; it follows, doesn’t it?” (6). Garcin comes to the conclusion that the lack of eyelids are to prevent anyone from sleeping and resting. This is indeed the case and no eyelids exist to torture those in hell by never giving them a break from their fellow prisoners. Additionally Garcin is bothered by specifically the valet’s lack of eyelids because: “there’s something so beastly, so damn bad-mannered, in the way you stare at me.” (5). This unending gaze adds to the valet’s mysteriousness and disconnection from the new arrivals to hell. The valet’s gaze simply seems odd as a whole. He does not look around and so makes no observations about the arrivals or his surroundings: he is disconnected. Inez, by contrast, is not. Not long after meeting Garcin Inez fixes her eyes upon him and criticizes how he twitches his mouth around. The valet is not bothered by these kinds of things. He placidly stares, without feeling.
Estelle’s attempt to kill Inez is both an example of self-deception and an example of the absurdity of the situation. Before trying to kill Inez, she says, “Right! In that case, I’ll stop her watching” (45). Her line makes it clear that she is trying to delude herself into thinking that she is able to control the situation and that she has the power to change Inez’s actions. However, because they are already dead, Estelle has no authority over Inez and can’t change her actions. Estelle thinks that she has free will and control over other people when in hell, she doesn’t. She appears to have complete freedom, yet she is trapped. She can’t change Inez, and that is her torture. Estelle’s attempt to kill Inez is also an example of the absurdity of her situation. She is trying to find conventional meaning in a meaningless place. In hell, weapons lose all of their meaning, as Inez points out: “Knives, poison, ropes—all useless. It has happened already, do you understand? Once and for all. So here we are, forever” (46). The paper knife can’t be used to kill any more than it can be used for its original purpose, which was to slit open the uncut pages of a book. There are no books in hell, and there is no life that could be taken away. The paper knife is a symbol of the inherent meaninglessness of the universe. Without paper to cut, the knife is worthless because its human-given meaning was taken away from it. Estelle attempts to give it a new meaning by trying to use it as a weapon, but it is equally worthless as such because everyone is already dead.
ReplyDeleteTime passes much more quickly on earth than in hell because on earth, people are living for the future. People make plans and tend to choose to take certain actions based on how these actions will affect them in the future, even if that future is only seconds later. The ultimate future, of course, is death, the future toward which all people march. They actively plan for death by adhering to religious or moral principles that will supposedly give them a life beyond death. Estelle first remakes on how quickly time passes when she says, “Olga’s undressing; it must be after midnight. How quickly time passes, on earth!” (13). When Estelle, Inez, and Garcin reach hell, they have crossed over to the other side of the ultimate future. They then have to experience every single moment because they have no future to look forward to that would distort their perception of time.
#3
ReplyDeleteIn No Exit, Jean Paul Sartre depicts hell through the interactions of three, different people who constantly argue and irritate each other. In hell, time passes more slowly than on Earth because the characters are absorbed and overwhelmed by their thoughts and desires. After Garcin pleads for Inez and Estelle to be silent, Inez replies “Can you stop your thoughts? I hear them ticking away like a clock, tick-tock, tick-tock, and I'm certain you hear mine” (Jean Paul Sartre 13). Each of them is constantly thinking about life back on earth and wondering what is happening to the people they left behind. On earth, time passes faster because humans spend little time on the thoughts that plague the dead in this play – like ‘why am I here?’ and ‘how did I get here?’. They take for granted each moment of their lives and they speed on to the next part. This distinction in time creates a tone of separation in order to further contrast the lives of the dead and the living. The characters in the play feel isolated and are engrossed in their contemplations of life, while those that are alive trudge on without caring about the notions of existence. The reader is left feeling reflective and curious about actuality.
#7
In No Exit, Sartre criticizes Estelle more than Inez, for she embodies the opposite of existentialism. She denies any reason for her placement in Hell – much like those who avoid death and do not accept their mortality and the impacts of their decisions. Her involvement in the materialistic world is shown when Estelle expresses her need for a mirror and Inez offers herself as a looking glass while she applies lipstick:
“When I can't see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist”(11).
Her thirst to see her reflection demonstrates her dependency on the physical world and her emphasis on appearances. She wants to appear like she’s living a pleasant life, but she’s actually in denial and counters any suggestion as to why she’s in hell. Sartre characterizes Estelle as someone who exists for others, she wants to be seen and thought of as an object. She doesn’t live for herself but for the attention of other people, like Garcin. Through his treatment of Estelle’s character, Sartre is commenting on the superficial nature of humans and our desire to comply with the banality of life. Tellurians become distracted by the trivial aspects of life, the things that hold Estelle’s attention – like beauty and the male gaze. Sartre uses Estelle as a representation of non-existentialism; she is against everything he believes in as an authentic philosopher. She symbolizes the author’s perception of many people on Earth; they are infatuated with trite objects and let them define who they are. Inez is the opposite of Estelle, for she doesn’t care about the materialistic world and she holds herself accountable for her actions and accepts her sentence to hell.
(ABSENT FOR THIS CLASS PERIOD)
ReplyDeleteThe first and last lines of a book are usually very significant to the book, as they make the biggest impressions on the leader. The book The Stranger by Albert is no exception to this rule. The first line of the book starts the book off with us immediately casting Meursault as someone who does not feel the way most people do, when he says “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 3). Throughout the book we see a subtle shift in Meursault’s manner, as he becomes someone who does care more about the simple things in life, and looks for joy, understanding why people indulge in the pleasures that they did, before only participating in things indifferently. Meursault’s ideas on marriage are unlike most, and he says that he does not care either way, essentially he is saying that he does not see any real purpose in marriage, but is not against it. He says regarding the topic: “That evening Marie came by to see me and asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to,” (Meursault 41). In the final pages of the book, we see this dynamic element to Meursault’s character. He says in reference to his mother “I felt as if I understood why at the end of her life she had taken a ‘fiance,’ why she had played at beginning again,” (Meursault 122). This comment is a direct contrast to what his previous opinions about the subject were. He here is almost saying that he supports the idea of marriage. This can be tied with the very last sentence that the book leaves off on. The book ends: “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,” (Meursault 123). This is commentary on his previous behavior, where he did not care about having people by his side to share his life with, and was impartial to every matter. He says, that at his death, which he has at this point embraced, he wants many people to witness, and wants no one to feel indifferent towards the subject. The fact that he said hate just shows that he knows that he has lived his life wrongly, and recognizes that other people likely do not like him for it. This contrasts his first statement where he expresses his lack of care towards his mother’s death, and wants to make the point that death is actually a very important moment.
In the play No Exit, Sartre’s use of setting allows for the characters to survive in an existential world in which everything is uncertain. The lack of mirrors in the room provides for a detachment of the characters as they become dehumanized. Estelle beings to realize this when she states, “When I can't see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist,” (Sartre). The characters being to lose their sense of self as they become nothing but beings in the depths of hell. In this circumstance, Estelle must rely on Inez to determine her appearance. Her reliance on Inex symbolizes her bad faith as she refuses to accept the way she truly looks. Although she is still aware of her existence, she falls for Inez’s trick that she has a pimple, symbolizing her inability to look within herself. Sartre’s lack of mirrors in the setting of this play challenges the characters to discover their true sense of self, despite the lack of assurance of a mirror.
ReplyDeleteThe contrast of the protagonist and antagonists in the play No Exit, is depicted through Sartre’s characterization of the three main characters. I think that Garcin is depicted as the protagonist due to his normality compared to the other characters. In the beginning of the play, the two females peg Garcin to be the “torturer”. However, he repeatedly claims, “I'm not the torturer, madam,” displaying his innocence in the matter. Also, Garcin is the only character out of the three who seems to be bothered by the others. Rather than chatting as Estelle and Inez do, he states, “ I'd rather be alone. I want to think things out, you know; to set my life in order, and one does that better by oneself,” (Sartre). In this way, Garcin also sets up the conflict of the story, which he later reveals to be: “Hell is other people,” (Sartre). Through the characterization of Garcin, Sartre establishes a tense mood to his play as the reader discovers the true conflict being the characters themselves.
Question #2:
ReplyDeleteEstelle wants the attention and affection that Garcin could give to her, yet when Garcin gives his attention to Inez, who is attracted to women, Estelle tries killing her. This attempt was unsuccessful, as they were already dead, and in hell. This shows Estelle’s self-deception, in that she refuses to believe that she, along with the others, are all already dead, and doesn’t want to believe that she will have to spend the rest of eternity in the situation that she is in. When her attempt to kill Inez with the paper knife was unsuccessful, she came to more of a realization that this was how it was going to be. The paper knife likely symbolized a philosophy that Sartre believed in, which was “existence precedes essence.” This means that the idea, or function of something was thought of before the actual material item. This is shown at the beginning of the book where Garcin first notices the paper knife
“Garcin:...[He goes to the mantelpiece and picks up a paper-knife.] What’s this?
Valet: Can’t you see? An ordinary paper knife.
Garcin: Are there books here?
Valet: No.” (Sartre 7).
This is to explain that although the knife has no immediate use, since its purpose is to be used for books, that humans are not the same way, and have no predestined purpose or plan in their life. This means that humans will never have nothing to exist for, because they were not specifically created for something in the first place.
Question #7:
In my opinion, Sartre is far less critical of Inez than Estelle. This is due to the fact that Inez is more honest, and tells the truth immediately, and is very straightforward when explaining her sins to the others. This is unlike Estelle, who tries to skirt around the truth of the situation. This is Sartre’s way of putting a negative light on self-denial which is a recurring theme in the play. All three of the main characters are, in turn, guilty of trying to shield the others, along with themselves, from the truth. Sartre portrays Inez in a more positive light than Estelle, because she is the least guilty of this, not because she is free of it.