This particular piece written by Albert Camus certainly
presents what can constitute a “difficult” character. Beginning with the
identity of Meursault, the reader is presented with a main character that is
somewhat unique in terms of how he interacts with his environment. Part one of The Stranger familiarizes us with some
of these things that make Meursault such an unfamiliar human being. When he
comes upon his mother’s casket during her vigil, he declines the offer made to
open it up in order to view her body. He smokes and drinks coffee during the
vigil, remains void of any expression of grief during her funeral, begins a
relationship with a woman the very next day, etc. The portrayal would indeed
seem to be that of a sociopath. The reader begins to question why this
particular agent in life is making these choices. This leads us to infer that Meursault
does not neatly fit into the perceptions of what constitutes a normal life,
which is dictated by societal norms.
Focusing on
the idea of why Meursault acts the way he does, we can use the casket during
the vigil as a good starting point. A point was brought up by Robbie in my
group discussion up that the reason that Meursault chose to leave the casket
closed hinges on his idea of life and what happens after you die. Meursault is
certainly what you would classify as an atheist. That is, when someone dies he
believes that is the end. Therefore, what would be the point in opening the
casket? While for most people the opening of the casket and the visualization
of the deceased body can bring about a much needed feeling of closure, to
Meursault, viewing the body is simply not necessary. It makes no difference.
This idea of indifference is later reinforced in the short story during his
trial for shooting the Arab multiple times, and killing him. Everyone is
perplexed and simply stuck on the issue as to why Meursault had shot the Arab
four more times after he had more than likely already killed him with the first
shot, but Meursault is actually mystified as to why it makes any difference at
all. This confusion creates a surprising amount of tension with people as they
try to assign a reason to an action devoid of any reason at all.
Yet, why
does Meursault think this way? A point in our class discussion turned to an
individual in the class stating that Meursault can be described almost as a
robot, or someone incapable of feeling or thinking critically. While I would
more than likely agree with the first part of the description of Meursault, I
would very much disagree with the latter. Meursault is an individual that is
very much capable of thinking critically, interacting with his environment, and
arriving at difficult conclusions. This is evident from the very beginning of
the short story after he apologizes to his employer for asking for a couple of
days of leave, Meursault says that “afterwards it struck me I needn’t have said
that. I had no reason to excuse myself; it was up to him to express his
sympathy and so forth” (Camus, 4). Thus, we can see that Meursault is certainly
an intelligent individual, simply incapable of understanding emotions. In a
way, it almost appears as if he is above emotional response (a subjective
view), and is actually capable in staying objective when interacting with
particular events in his life.
This is why
I was not necessarily thrilled when the class discussion turned to whether or
not we should view Meursault as evolutionarily superior or inferior. This
matter is a matter of opinion and is subject to the context in which it is
involved. Certainly we wish to stay objective in many situations in life,
separating ourselves from emotions which may blind us from arriving at a more
defensible decision. On the other hand, the meaning of life seems to dwindle when
we approach the idea of a life without emotional interactions. In other words,
the idea of Meursault being evolutionarily inferior or superior is not
something that can be measured since all of the variables cannot be assigned real
values.
A question that I did find
particularly intriguing concerning Meursault was posed during Group 2’s
discussion which stated: “Throughout the course of the novel, Meursault
approaches the deep moments in his life (death of his mother, marriage, murder,
ect.) with severe indifference. In your opinion, what is it about the
chaplain's visit which evokes such a "blind rage" within him?” To me,
this blind rage stems from the issue of identifying exactly who the stranger is
in this short story. This particular piece of evidence, to me, points to the
idea that the stranger is most definitely Meursault himself. He struggles with
his own identity throughout the story and seemingly positions himself in that
of an observer. That is, he puts himself in a situation where he views his
environment and surroundings and is definitely intrigued by it, but has
difficulty understanding “why”. Whereas most people find their identity to be
reinforced by the perceptions of the society around them, Meursault cannot. He
lacks the emotional factor which influences this. To me, this is why he enters
a state of blind rage in the face of the chaplain. The chaplain wants Meursault
to assign meaning to his actions and come to face his identity of a person. I
think that the very fact that Meursault is incapable of doing this is what
incites this anger.
No comments:
Post a Comment