Whether it be scorn or approval, Meursault undeniably provokes. From the characters in the book to the readers, his existence disturbs the normality and generates reactions. Meursault both repels and attracts due to the same reason; the preservation of the human species. The most basic and ancient of nature’s “requirements” fuels these perspectives of “threat”, “man” and even “hero” with his absurd personality at the center of it all. Yet the deeper one explores Meursault, the more self evident the latter becomes.
The threatening aspect of Meursault’s personality is most prominently represented in his prosecution in which the lawyers barely know him beyond his case file. The reason for his murder is one of their perceived “dangers” about him.
…show more content…
At first, it will seem there is no benefit in Marie staying with someone who claimed to not love her back. However, it is Meursault's character that ironically allures Marie. His allegiance to Marie is indefinite - there will be no fickle moods, no falling out of love, and he is compliant enough to marry her (Camus 41). In addition, Meursault is shown to be reasonable enough to honor commitments such as his job. Such a man will be a secure and practical choice to father her children: stable, simple, agreeable. Criticism might follow - what if Meursault no longer finds her attractive and cheats? What if he abandons the child because it is intolerable to his senses; or worse, murders it? Yet these questions are only valid when his oddness overshadows the honest integrity of his character. He is a man who live in his own world, but is faithful to those who involve him in theirs and has proven his loyalty. To Marie, he is a good man with flaws, and that is all. Therefore, it is these traits that allow the presumption that their relationship is partially based on him being an appropriate partner to reproduce …show more content…
At first the reader is quick to judge a character that makes them uncomfortable - he is a "sociopath" or a traumatized with PTSD. By labelling him as such they mark him dangerous, and this prejudice prevents deeper understanding without guidance. After all, Meursault is foreign and therefore, unsafe. It is not until Sartre provides guidance that there is greater insight. Meursault is not a sociopath, but an absurd man and his purpose is to “[reveal] to us in a doleful illumination” the realm of absurdity (2). In a way, the reader’s instincts are correct. Species preservation is about securing the future; Meursault lives in the moment and to him, “all that counts is the present and the concrete” (4). But after deep analysis, it is difficult not to respect the heroism of Meursault and to mourn him in the end. To live every moment without concern for the next requires the acceptance of death, and the struggle for that peace is a pivotal moment that eventually everyone must face. Meursault has just understood this from the beginning. For the strength to pursue his life even so, the reader must admire Meursault.
Without effort to understand the absurd, Meursault would never achieve the justice he deserved. It is difficult to accept someone as foreign as him for his mindset and personality seems to jeopardize mankind’s
Meursault is a fairly average individual who is distinctive more in his apathy and passive pessimism than in anything else. He rarely talks because he generally has nothing to say, and he does what is requested of him because he feels that resisting commands is more of a bother than it is worth. Meursault never did anything notable or distinctive in his life: a fact which makes the events of the book all the more intriguing.
Meursault’s actions throughout the novel lead to his regretless murder. Meursault surrounds himself around people of no spiritual faith to withdrawal himself from his mother and God. Reserved Meursault interacts with his neighbor Salamano on various occasions and observes him walking his dog everyday, repeatedly swearing at it. Meursault observes as Salamano yanks the dog while screaming, “’Filthy, stinking bastard!’” (Camus 27). This interaction illustrates the revolting and monstrous characteristics of Salamano through the eyes of society. Instead of cringing in repulsion as expected of most ordinary people, when Raymond “’asked me (Meursault) didn’t I think it was disgusting’” (Camus 28), Meursault replied no. Meursault’s response implies his lack of sentiment and places him in the same category as Salamano.
Since he cares little for the affairs of the world, claiming they do not mean anything, then justice—a major concern of the world—also means nothing to him. His actions both before and after his decision to kill a man without provocation demonstrate his apathetic view of the world, and his indifference to justice. Therefore Meursault’s search for justice, culminated by the court’s decision to execute him, remains an example to all of the inability of society to instill justice in criminals. Meursault’s perpetual refusal to acquire a sense of morality and emotion instigates skepticism in all who learn of his story of society’s true ability to instill justice in the
While coming to terms with the absurd was a gradual process for Meursault, his final days and his heated conversation with the chaplain, and his desire for a hateful crowd of spectators show that he was able to accept the absurdity, and revel in it, finding satisfaction in spite of those around him and justifying his murder. His ego had reached an all-time high as he neared his execution, and his satisfaction left him prepared for the nothingness awaiting him. This process was a natural psychological response to his mortality, for his peace of mind. Therefore, Meursault is not the Stranger, an alien to society, but a troubled man seeking meaning and satisfaction in a life and a world that was overwhelming unsatisfactory and absurd.
Often one wonders what it would be like to completely close off all connections to society and live in exile. What it would be like if your thoughts were the only thing to keep you company. For most; the idea of being all alone with just your thoughts is enough to drive one crazy. However not for Meursault. Meursault is already so detached from society that his experience of exile is less of a punishment, and more so enriching. His time in captivity cuts him off from his “home” or better yet, his comfort zone of being an introvert and gives him a chance to create a different appearance in front society, apart from a stranger.
Meursault doesn’t conform to society such as understanding what we would call normal human emotions such as the emotions of love or death. The reason Meursault may seem disconnected from the felling of love is shown when his girlfriend ask about marriage. Meursault answers without caring by saying “it doesn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to” (Camus, 156). Meursault also show the disconnection of normal human emotions after his mother’s death. “… Maman’s death, but that was one of those things that was bound to happen sooner or later” (Camus, 123).
...immediately gives an impression of a lack of emotion towards the demise of his mother. This lack of emotion highlights the existentialist ideal that we all die, so it doesn't matter what life we have while we are alive. We simply exist, as did Meursault. It becomes apparent, as the novella unfolds, that Meursault has acquired an animal like indifference towards society. His interactions with his neighbour Raymond are an example of his indifferences. It never dawns upon Meursault that society does not condone his interactions with the pimp, avoided by his community. Meursault simply acts to fill his time. Being a single man, he has a lot of time to fill, and finds the weekends passing particularly slowly.
I find it strange that Meursault knows that he has ruined his own sense of peace and happiness when he shoots the man on the beach, yet he then goes to shoot the man four more times. He even acknowledges that “it was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness,” which reveals that to some extent, Meursault understands the consequences of his actions. But due to his total mental detachment from the world, he does not care about consequences, no matter how dire they may be. I cannot help but think that Meursault is as indifferent to the state of his own life as he is to the life of the man he killed.
Meursault in the book tries to overcome his emotional indifference within himself. One example shows Meursault emotional indifference against Marie. In this quote, “A minute later she asked me if I loved her”. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so.” The quote explains how Meursault doesn’t really think about the consequences of other people’s emotions.
Every character that revolves around Meursault seems to be in direct contrast to him. Meursault is an amoral person who does not seem to care passionately about anything. He acts in accordance with physical desires. In other words, Meursault is a sensualist person. At this particular time in his life, his path crosses with his neighbor, Raymond, who feels as though his girlfriend is cheating on him. He decides to take revenge with minor aid form Meursault. Meursault helps him only because he thinks he has nothing to lose if he does. As things lead into one another, the first major violent act of the book is committed.
From those actions stems the character of Meursault. In writing, Meursault is painted as an indifferent, honest, and very strange man. He completely embodies the absurd and in many ways he can be considered a reflection of the absurd artist in the Myth of Sisyphus. Meursault expresses all of the absurd characteristics outlined in the book : revolt, freedom, and passion. Revolt- By not partaking in social customs or following c...
This ideal destroys the very purpose of the trial, which seeks to place a rational explanation on Meursault’s senseless killing of the Arab. However, because there is no rational explanation for Meursault’s murder, the defense and prosecution merely end up constructing their own explanations, which they each declare to be the truth, but are all based on false assumptions. Therefore, the prosecution itself is to be viewed as absurd. When the prosecutor asks Perez if “he had at least seen [Meursault] cry,” he tries to persuade the crowd that Meursault is without feeling (91). The prosecutor then further turns the crowd against Meursault when he asks him about his “liaison” with Marie right after his mother’s death. The prosecutor remarks “indifferently that if he was not mistaken, that was the day after Maman died” (93). Though the liaison with Marie and the lack of emotions at Maman’s funeral may seem unrelated to Meursault’s killing, the prosecutor effectively convinces the crowd that they are in fact intertwined. The jury convicts Meursault not because he killed a man, but because he didn't show the proper emotions after his mother died. Despite hearing Meursault’s own thoughts ...
The trial portrays the absurdist ideal that absolute truth does not exist. This ideal destroys the very purpose of the trial, which seeks to place a rational explanation on Meursault’s senseless killing of the Arab. However, because there is no rational explanation for Meursault’s murder, the defense and prosecution merely end up constructing their own explanations. They each declare their statements to be the truth, but are all based on false assumptions. The prosecution itself is viewed as absurd. The prosecutor tries to persuade the jury that Meursault has no feelings or morals by asking Perez if “he had at least seen [Meursault] cry” (91). The prosecutor then continues to turn the crowd against Meursault when he asks him about his “liaison” with Marie right after his mother’s death. Though Meursault’s relationship with Marie and his lack of emotions at his mother’s funeral may seem unrelated to his murder, the prosecutor still manages to convince the crowd that they are connected to one another. The jury ends up convicting Meursault not because he killed a man, but because he didn't show the proper emotions after his mother ...
He describes how the prosecutor illustrates him, “He said the truth was that I didn’t have a soul and that nothing human, not one of the moral principles that govern men’s hearts was within my reach” (The Stranger, 101). The prosecutor labels Meursault soulless, without ethics and consciousness. The prosecutor neglects the possibility for a different understanding towards the terms ‘soul’ and ‘moral principles’ by defining it under the majority’s value system. Camus expresses his dissatisfaction towards this neglect in his story, “Despite my willingness to understand, I just couldn’t accept such arrogant certainty” (The Stranger, 109). Camus points out that many are not willing to understand subjectivity because if the majority does not agree with it, it is wrong. Meursault may have a different set of principles he follows, but the fact that he is not the same makes him an outcast. However, even though Camus points out such alienation exists, his character Meursault never does anything about it. Meursault continues to sit in court passively observing the trial and even finds it difficult to stay awake; he embraces his subjectivity despite what the objective opinion
Meursault is distant from set plans, ambitions, desires, love, and emotions in general. He has a difficult time with emotions such as regret and compassion. The reader sees the nature of his personality in the first few lines of the novel: "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know." When he hears of the death of his mother through a telegram, he is unattached, and can be considered uncaring.