The Stranger by Camus explores the absurd in that we are put into the mind of a character who seems to have minimal to no emotions. To accompany this lack of emotion he seems to have no ideas of his own, as is seen in his simple “yes” as an answer to many people’s questions. In class we have talked about the idea that nothing in life really matters and now that we have finished the book it is much more obvious how seriously Meursault took this idea to heart. All of these factors put together make Meursault a very, for lack of a better word, strange character and we the reader are not the only ones to think this, since the jury kills him much for these reasons.
The absurdity of Meursault is what drives this story as we search for any reasoning behind his actions. For my panel presentation we even did an article that argued that Meursault had some condition that caused him to not have emotions. This shows that we are all trying to find an explanation as to what Meursault is thinking and why he is doing things. We are always searching for concrete answers and we are scared by the idea that someone “just does something”. Just like the jury we look for a reason and when we find out that Meursault has no motive, we think of him in a bad light, some even calling him a monster.
So one big question is why would Camus create a character like this. We have already talked a little about how Camus might be basing his character of his philosophy that nothing in life really matters which would fit with how Meursault does not seem to think there are any repercussions for his actions. This is a good explanation, but what if there is really no reason for his characterization because just like Meursault believes, there is no meaning to anything we do. What if just like Meursault, Camus just said yes to someone who asked him to write a book and it really has no meaning to him. Although I'm quite sure that this is not true it is a good thing to think about when we look at this novel.
What are your thoughts on the absurd parts of this book as well as your ideas on what this might mean?
While it is true that Meursault's character is very "strange" at times, in that he shows extreme indifference and decisive answers, we can still see instances in the book where Meursault shows emotion, albeit towards the end and information from the book suggests that Meursault is a fairly intelligent human being. It seems as though Meursault himself is searching for answers in this regard, and by the end of the book Meursault has concluded that the answer is that there are no answers, as nothing actually matters in life. This very well may be Meursault's motive in the novel, to find these answers and grapple with what they mean.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Meursault concludes that life had no meaning. But I just think this is a terrible conclusion. I believe Meursault doesn't have enough experience with emotion to judge whether life has meaning. Yes he does have his moments where he seems like a real person, but these do not make him a complete human being in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that lack of "experience with emotion" keeps someone from judging whether life has meaning. It's important to keep in mind that while Meursalt is thinking about life as it applies to other people, ultimately his judgment is if life has meaning for HIM. Whatever Meursalt thinks, the rest of us can still be jammin' out.
DeleteI feel like Meursault is written the way he is to express to readers that even if they believe that nothing matters and express no outward emotions, it is in their best interest to project that they have great emotion and they value life because if they diverge from behavior that is expected of them, there is something wrong with them. In the case of Meursault, because he committed murder, his crime multiplied society's view of his character and ultimately condemned him for his divergence from the behavioral norm.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it's Meursault himself who is "absurd," but rather that Camus depicts a character who seems to have an intuitive awareness of the absurdity of conventional human life--his detachment reframes familiar social practices in a deeply unfamiliar way, and he seems immune to the *desire* for transcendent, metaphysical meaning. His "strangeness" has the effect of making our familiar concerns seems strange.
ReplyDelete