Love? Gentle indifference? Cries of hate? Just what are your lingering thoughts concerning Camus's The Stranger? You might address something covered in class that was particularly striking or an issue that wasn't addressed in class discussion. You might choose to discuss style, characters, plot, or philosophical implications of the novel.
15 comments:
I liked The Strangers. It was an easy read, and I think that it was easy to pick up on the symbolism. It was just awkward how Meursault reacted to situations, and it was an interesting perspective to think that Camus thought that life was better that way. One thing that I was thinking was how Meursault even admitted that he shot the Arab (this word was just thrown about like the word phonies in The Catcher in the Rye) because of the sun. People laughed at him, but as a lifeguard I know how the sun can play on a person’s mood. The sun makes you tired, hot, and irritated. When it beats down on a person it is dangerous, and Meursault could have been affected by the heat. The one thing about the trial that I thought was important and we didn’t mention in class was how he looked at the man and robot girl reporters and he said that he saw himself in them. I think that was kind of ironic considering that part of the reason that Meursault was on trial because he saw different than everyone else, but there in the crowd were two people seemingly similar in nature. It was weird how Meursault looked away, when one would think that he would turn to them for some empathy or support, but I guess considering how he didn’t even see his friends in the crowd that Meursault didn’t really have a deep human connection with others, his friendships were shallow-like, he didn’t really care.
I loved the novel, or at least in my interpretation of it. So I guess I'll explain that, starting with the murder. When the murder occurred, i think Mersault was too aware of the sun, which represents to him the cyclical nature. In his shooting of the arab, it was the ultimate attempt to find meaning. If a greater power exists, then something, anything, should happen when a human being is killed. But NOTHING happened, and thus what Mersault was aware of and scared of became true. There was no chance to him for anything else to be true, and that causes his unhappiness because before there was still that chance. Now there is no more uncertainty. And that was why he fired four more shots, out of desperation to make something happen.
Prison leads to Mersault's acceptance of what is true. But then the death penalty makes it all the more real, because he sees that after he dies, nothing will happen. So, Mersault begins to think of hope again, hope in his appeal or in the chance he won't die. It is a different type of hope: he does not hope for a greater purpose or afterlife. By the end of the novel, he is happy because he knows that he is right and knows that people would hate him for it. He found his meaning in his current life, and lived life instead of living a trip to death.
The Stranger was an alright book. It was pretty easy to read considering what we've already read this year and in previous years. But the book was different. Even though it was a simple read it had its complications. Maybe it's just because we were told the story through Mersault's eyes, perhaps if we have seen the story through the eyes of the jury or the religious guy or another character we could have seen their arguements. My beleif is that Mersault's out look on life was beyond those of his time. He, I would say, had a lot more liberal mind set. Live for yourself, do what you want, and do it today, not tomorrow. I'm sure that through the eyes of some others in the novel they saw him as not having morals. And we, well I, could see their point half the time. But I have to say that Mersault would be perfect for our society today. Morals? Forget about'em. A conscience? Who feels guilty anymore. Everybody lives for themselves, to better themselves. Nobody looks out for the little guy anymore. Mersault realizes that. He is alone in his world. I'm not saying that there aren't a few nuts loose in his head, but I see the guy would be able to fit in. To me, this novel depicted the value of morals over the values of man. Pretty much, I'm just saying that if you don't believe or agree with what society has taught "us", then we are outcasts, and would be exiled and executed not because we are "bad" or do "bad things" but because we don't see what everybody else "sees".
I didn't like this book at all. I grimaced at the main character's juvenile description of life--no intellectual thoughts at all, only immediate physical sensation and impulse. He didn't say anything he didn't "feel like" saying or "didn't want to."
Yeah, I would say that his lifestyle has him accustomed to a life without morals. He does not believe in God and does not live by any code, religious OR societal. This is a man who lives only to serve himself. He doesn't care if his Maman died. He doesn't care if Marie loves him. He doesn't care that he murdered someone and caused a lot of grief for the man's friends and family--I'm sure Meursault doesn't think that matters. What matters is that--oh snap--he can't live Carpe Diem anymore cause he's in jail and has to live closed off from everything he enjoys. I don't feel sorry for him. I think he has lived a life of pointlessness, which is ironic because he believes exactly the opposite. That which other people do in order to fulfill their lives he thinks is meaningless, that it "doesn't matter." I'm so sick of hearing that come out of his mouth. As far as I know, he hasn't contributed at all to society; he's sort of given a free ride through life doing whatever he wants, whatever makes him happy. And usually what "feels good" or what satisfies us immediately is not good for us. Sebby's right; this does show up in our society (sex, drugs, fast cars). I guess I'm bashing the main character too much, but I don't relate to him at all. Everyday physical sensations, logic and reason, empiricism...it's boring . I'd rather have a character who lives for some noble cause and does his best to lead a good life...not for himself, for his own pleasure, but to care about others and be a freakin human, for God's sake.
dang why does everyone write such long responses! the strangers......it was well...appropriately titled because it was pretty strange. people generally have this idea that there is something after life (religion n such lies like that) while meursault is just laid back and is the only one in the book that LIVES life instead of spending it thinking about something he calls absurdity and complete nonsense. i loved the book because the message was so great, well okay to me the message was to not overthink things and just feel and live sometimes. ive always tried to live my life like that so it's pretty awesome that i got to read a book about it. also, its the important idea of not caring about society's rules and not conforming to whatever is going on with other people. the only problem i had with the stranger was the french name, i just don't like them dont ask me to explain further.
On the whole, I appreciated Camus' The Stranger. One of the most memorable parts for me was the trial scene. I loved the irony of the situation: A court room serves as the ultimate symbol of the law. It is where justice is administered and upheld. Meursault, however, receives a very unfair trial. Rather than judge him based upon his criminal actions, the court evaluates Meursault according to his emotional behavior. Meursault's lawyer captures the irony in asking if his client is on trial for murder or for burying Maman.
Another reason as to why I enjoyed the trial is because it reinforces The Stranger's theme of dichotomy. Similar to how there is Paris vs. Algiers, meaning vs. pointlessness, and the father vs. the mother, the court scene illustrates justice vs. prejudice. In addition, it highlights the individual vs. society, natural vs. unnatural, as well as order vs. chaos. The wealth of contradicting ideas portrays life as a set of choices; of "either or" statements. It then becomes our responsibility to establish our own moral standards-to give life value. What does it mean to shoot? Not to shoot?
I got rejected from Wesleyan. :( That's besides the point though. Since no one else has mentioned him, let me talk about the prosecutor for a bit: "The Stranger" has given me a brand new abhorance for prosecutors. The entire novel the prosector just kept on attacking Meursault with such a ferverous hatred, pointing his finger at him, calling him a monster. But why? I think it takes a particularly disgusting person to fabricate such emotions within themselves, especially when he doesn't even know Muersault. Plus, he was taking some sort of sick pleasure in this entire affair as well (as shown by his satisfaction and glee whenever something popped up that supported Meursault's guilt). This is where the great irony is: the prosecutor, someone who is meant to seek justice, is taking a sadistic satisfaction out of sending Meursault to his death. Meursault killed without being aware of himself, but the prosecutor, he makes it his profession to send people, regardless of guilt , to death. I think he's more guilty of murder than Muersault could ever be. He murders with hatred, enjoyment, and with complete knowledge of what he is doing. Meursault didn't.
I think that this book perfectly uncovers the line between what is right and what society believes is right. And it is an extremely fine line. Everyone thinks that Meursault is unfairly judged for his actions, and yet it happens every day in our society. We talked about this in class...but the Casey Anthony story is a perfect example. She was out partying after her daughter's death just like Meursault did after his mother's death. And is this supposed to affect the jury? No. But by plastering these photos everywhere it is almost impossible to have an unbiased jury. The truth is both of them killed someone. And yet how they've reacted to it is the bigger issue. I'm in no way condoning the actions, I'm simply saying that we live in the exact society that would condemn Meursault for this -- we just refuse to see it.
However, if we are too much like Camus then we again become part of the problem. IS it wrong to help your "friend" get back his girlfriend if you know he is abusive? Is it wrong to sit by and let this happen? So in that sense, our outside actions do affect how people see us. It is about hypocrisy. Everyone knew the abuse was happening and didn't report it, but once Meursault is on trial he is thrown under the bus for it. And we can see he is wrong. But so was everyone else.
Society then becomes the structure for "good" and what the masses deem acceptable is therefore acceptable. That is what is scary about society. This line we toe can easily put us on the wrong side of the law, even if we do nothing truly wrong. In any case, I liked the book a lot. Especially becasue it allows for so many different interpretations to so many different people.
I agree with Dovile. All of these people writing these rediculously long responses are making me look bad.
Anyways, I'm currently reading this book called Change of Heart and it's constantly reminding me of The Stranger. They're both stories of men who are convicted of murder and are awaiting the death penalty. Both men are also very socially awkward and are looked down upon in their society. However Shay (the man being convicted) is clinging to the idea that if he donates his heart to a little girl then he can be saved. All Shay has is hope. He is actually thought to be the messiah at one point. Meursault on the other hand believes that he must give up all hope in order to be happy. It was really interesting to be reading these two books at the same time because it showed both sides. Is it better to keep faith or give it all up? I haven't finished Change of Heart yet so i'm not quite sure how i feel about that question. I do think that it depends on the individual. You can't tell people that they shouldn't believe in God and that will make them happy and you also can't tell them not to believe in God. I believe its your own personal beliefs that makes you happy.
I'm not going to say I hated The Stranger because I didn't but it just made me a little frustrated at times. There were points within the novel that I just wanted Mersault to feel something more than anything. It was as if just because he didn't feel an emotion I had to try and feel it for him. But this connects directly to society. Society tries to tell you how to feel and that is what happened exactly with Mersault. Just because he was not the same as everybody else he was judged and was a "stranger" in the eyes of those in the courtroom. After reading the book I did recieve the message and I knew that what I had felt was exactly normal but I didn't need to feel it. Everyone has their own reactions and emotions. There are different ways of living life, not just one
I thought “The Stranger” was pretty good. I agree with a lot of people who were annoyed at some points with Meursault’s inability to feel. It drove me nuts in the beginning, but as the novel continued, I realized that it was just his way of thinking and dealing with things. It was still annoying when he only commented on the physical and basic aspects of what he was seeing, but I got use to it as the novel progressed. I thought the part when he kills the man and says it was because of the sun was a bit outrageous. I know that he didn’t feel anything throughout the book, but he also didn’t take any action that would make him seem like a ruthless killer. In my paper I talked about the effects on Meursault of the sun and the sea, it seems like they are two ever-present icons. When he killed the man the sun was reflecting off the sea to a point that he said was unbearable. So because the sun and sea were hurting him he feels the need to kill someone? I think that he had some feelings here; the man that he killed had tried to hurt him and his friend. Yet he doesn’t say that this is why he killed him, for revenge or for his own safety. He just did it. Most of Meursault’s actions were because of physical things, but this one was the hardest to believe, that it had no feelings and emotions attached to it.
As we were reading The Stranger in class, I was also reading Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and I must say that I saw a few similarities between the two books in how they treated life. Meursault saw no deep, absolute, philosophical truths to life, instead he believed that all that life consists of is a series of physical sensations. By the same token, the inhabitants of London, such as Lenina's coworkers, were all perfectly content with their place in life, with no desire for higher thinking or ambitions. Instead, they all merely wanted their soma ration (LSD-like drug), and then go off and play a game or have generous, unrestrained, promiscuous sex with as many people as possible. The similarities between these two philosophies is quite easily seen; they both say that there is nothing else beyond this life and that we might as well enjoy it while we can. Even the endings are similar: in The Stranger Meursault ends up being executed for his beliefs regarding the lack of moral responsibilities, and in Brave New World(spoiler) the Savage ends up killing himself because there is seemingly no way to change what the people of London think. Both of them end up dead because of their beliefs regarding society and morals, the only difference is that Meursault played the part of Huxley's London in The Stranger and Meursault's society was similar to the Savage's beliefs.
Paulll I'm sorry about Wes. At least we were excellent hippies today. :)
Alan Michael...I absolutely loved you saying (spoiler) before you referenced the ending of BNW. JHBJHDbasd that was funny.
I think what I MOST want to address, Mr. Cianflone, is the title of this particular blog and its signficance.
First off...if you're cool, you can follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CvcGK9nkdk
Now. Westward Ho to my response:
The significance of Mr. Cianflone referencing The Doors song people are strange in the title of this blog is, no my friends, not only because the book is called the stranger but because Jim Morrison (lead singer for the Doors) was kind of similar to Meursault. He had that same sort of mindset where everything needed to be instantaneous- instant gratification. He loved women and "sex" not necessarily the idea of true "love." We talked about Dionysus and Bacchus when discussing Hedda Gabler the other day and I know THAT doesn't directly relate to Meursault, but that's what people called Jim Morrison. He was indifferent to the way people viewed him. Lived really how he wanted to, for himself. He was kind of egocentric the way that Meursault and Hedda both were. All three of them are led to self implored early deaths. Hedda kills herself; Meursault murders the Arab and gets himself sentenced (although its primarily because everyone's so shaken up at HIS indifference about the crime) and Jim abused drugs and over exerted his body to the point of weakening his most vital organ- his heart! and then it...imploded I guess.
Plus if you go and listen to the song or even just read through the lyrics its really about living in a society where your indifference or "strangeness" makes you a stranger to them and society's actions/ideals/laws/codes strange to you.
I read a note you made on my essay (I did option A if you guys begin to wonder) Mr. Cianflone, and it was about whether Meursault's death can be viewed as a kind of sacrifice to allow others to continue their lives according to their delusions by uniting in "cries of hate". I thought of that too- the possibility that although he recognizes life's meaning is created by the person themself-that theres nothing, no real mystery to life- and he dies with that knowledge. In doing so he spares us the thought of a life with no hope and nothing to dream of. SO yessss in a sense he's a martyr for sparing us the "brutal truth". But I still feel that he's not the only Christ we deserve.
Natalie- I was thinking of Jim and Meursault when I read the title too! And their similarity. Your response was cool.
SO, I'll comment on something totally different. I do have a lingering thought. I wonder how Meursault's childhood was. The story is obviously very psychological, and leaves PLENTY of room for us to analyze Meursault's crazy ways of dealing with life/thoughts. Usually in psychology, one's childhood is the first thing the psychologist tries to interpret. I wonder how Meursault's family was, how stable he was as a child, and if he was the same strange Meursault we meet when we read the book. Since a partial point of the books seems to be about trying to figure out Meursault's internal motives and thoughts, the lack of information we actually have about Meursault proposes a difficulty, and a wide range of error. I think that Camus did this, perhaps, to portray Meursault as the "unexplained character." He is a mystery to us all, and the many theories we develop/hear confuse us, because there are so many. I think giving us more information about Meursault's past would have helped us reason as to why he acted in such an emotionless manor at his mother's funeral. Though, the book would have been longer that way. The book is as awkward as Meursault is, leaving it to be very thought provoking. I think that's probably what Camus wanted, in the first place. For the reader to ponder and question everything-from start to finish- of his book.
It was an inteesting and easy read, but Meursalt is so strange. the way he views life adn the little things that influence his decisions really made me wonder if theres something really wrong with him. Seriously, he didn't wanna kill someone because he thought it wasnt right after he hurt his friend, but then when the sun reflected on the knife, he felt really hot and uncomfortable so he randomly decided to kill the Arab. Just to get out of the situtation since he was uncomfortable due to the weather. Now only did he just shoot one bullet at him, he thought that since he already started he might as well finish him off well by shooting him a couple more times. Why would you do that?
Post a Comment