In The Stranger, Albert Camus portrays Meursault, the book's narrator and main
character, as aloof, detached, and unemotional. He does not think much about
events or their consequences, nor does he express much feeling in relationships
or during emotional times. He displays an impassiveness throughout the book in
his reactions to the people and events described in the book. After his mother's
death he sheds no tears; seems to show no emotions. He displays limited feelings
for his girlfriend, Marie Cardona, and shows no remorse at all for killing an
Arab. His reactions to life and to people distances him from his emotions,
positive or negative, and from intimate relationships with others, thus he is
called by the book's title, "the stranger". While this behavior can be
seen as a negative trait, there is a young woman who seems to want to have a
relationship with Meursault and a neighbor who wants friendship. He seems
content to be indifferent, possibly protected from pain by his indifference.
Meursault rarely shows any feeling when in situations which would, for most
people, elicit strong emotions. Throughout the vigil, watching over his mother's
dead body, and at her funeral, he never cries. He is, further, depicted enjoying
a cup of coffee with milk during the vigil, and having a smoke with a caretaker
at the nursing home in which his mother died. The following day, after his
mother's funeral, he goes to the beach and meets a former colleague named Marie
Cardona. They swim, go to a movie, and then spend the night together. Later in
their relationship, Marie asks Meursault if he wants to marry her. He responds
that it doesn't matter to him, and if she wants to get married, he would agree.
She then asks him if he loves her. To that question he responds that he probably
doesn't, and explains that marriage really isn't such a serious thing and
doesn't require love. This reaction is fairly typical of Meursault as portrayed
in the book. He appears to be casual and indifferent about life events. Nothing
seems to be very significant to him. Later on in the book, after he kills an
Arab, not once does he show any remorse or guilt for what he did. Did he really
feel nothing? Camus seems to indicate that Meursault is almost oblivious and
totally unruffled and untouched by events and people around him. He is unwilling
to lie, during his trial, about killing the Arab. His reluctance to get involved
in defending himself results in a verdict of death by guillotine. Had Meursault
been engaged in his defense, explaining his actions, he might have been set
free. Meursault's unresponsive behavior, distant from any apparent emotions, is
probably reinforced by the despair which he sees open and feeling individuals
experience. He observes, for example, Raymond cheated on and hurt by a
girlfriend, and sees his other neighbor, Salamano, very depressed when he loses
a dear companion, his dog. Meursault's responses are very different, he doesn't
get depressed at death nor does he get emotionally involved. He appears to be
totally apathetic. Thus, he seems to feel no pain and is protected from life's
disappointments. Sometimes a person like Meursault can be appealing to others
because he is so non-judgmental and uncritical, probably a result of
indifference rather than sympathetic feelings. His limited involvement might
attract some people because an end result of his distance is a sort of
acceptance of others, thus he is not a threat to their egos. Raymond Sintes, a
neighbor who is a pimp, seems to feel comfortable with Meursault. Sintes does
not have to justify himself because Meursault doesn't comment on how Sintes
makes money or how he chooses to live his life. Even though Meursault shows no
strong emotions or deep affection, Marie, his girlfriend, is still attracted and
interested in him. She is aware of, possibly even fascinated by, his
indifference. ---- The Sun as a Symbol/Motif in Albert Camus's The Stranger
Camus' usage of the sun opposes its warmth and beauty in The Stranger. The sun
is a symbol for feelings and emotions, which Monsieur Meursault cannot deal
with. There is a sun motif present throughout the novel, which perniciously
characterizes the usual fondness towards the sun. The sun is a distraction from
Meursault's everyday life and he cannot handle it. The sun first presents a
problem to Meursault at his mother's funeral procession. Even before the
procession embarks, Meursault remarks of the sun, calling it "inhuman and
oppressive." Meursault has shown no emotion towards his mother's death and
he directs his bottled-up anxiety at the sun. To Meursault, the sun is an
influence on all his senses, as he cannot hear what someone else says to him. He
pours with sweat, symbolizing the flow of emotions. Meursault constantly thinks
about the sun when one would expect him to be mourning his dead mother. He says,
"I could feel the blood pounding in my temples," which is strong
imagery. At the beach with Raymond, the sun provokes Meursault to commit a
crime. He says, "(the sun) shattered into little pieces on the sand and
water." While going to get a drink of water, the foreign Arab uses a knife
to shine the sunlight in Meursault's face. Meursault knew that all he had to do
was turn around and walk away. His emotions (again not shown externally and
reserved) took over. Camus states, "All I could feel were the cymbals of
sunlight crashing on my forehead and, instinctively, the dazzling spear flying
up from the knife in front of me. The scorching blade slashed at my eyelashes
and stabbed at my stinging eyes." This strong imagery forces Meursault to
fire and kill the Arab with a revolver. What makes it worse, he fires four more
times to make sure the sun is dissipated for good. In prison, Meursault changes
his views on both the sun, and on his view of life, which are similar. Meursault
was first introduced to the harsh sun at his mother's funeral. Then, the sun
took him over and led him to murder another human being. But in jail, Meursault
realizes that the sun (and life) is warm and friendly. He discovers that you
assign meaning to your own life and that the sun does not need to cover his
emotions anymore. In prison, Meursault adulates the sun. He says, "I moved
closer to the window, and in the last light of day I gazed at my reflection one
more time." The sun symbolized his emotions and inner-self, and he knows
this. He would not have admired his own reflection earlier in the novel.
Although most creative thinkers have used the sun as a positive being, Camus'
existentialist approach sees the sun as a barrier to Meursault's emotions. It is
not until Meursault can comprehend this and grasp that there is "gentle
indifference to the world," that the sun motif is consummated. ---- The
Stranger defines Camus for most Americans. The novel is simple, with none of the
diversions common in popular literature. The main character is not a hero, has
no "true" love affair, and the pursuit of money and power never enters
into the story. The Stranger is an honest atheist, willing to accept his life as
it happens. Analysis of the novel should begin by recognizing the story's basic
structure. There are three deaths which mark the beginning, middle, and end of
the story. First, Meursault's mother dies. This death occurs before the
narration starts, but marks the start of Meursault's downfall. In the middle of
the tale we have the death of an Arab. The defining events in The Stranger are
set in motion by Meursault's murder of the Arab. One day, walking toward a cool
stream, Meursault is blocked by an Arab. It seems the Arab draws a knife, as
Meursault sees a flash of light from the blade. Meursault then kills the Arab,
believing this to be an act of self-defense. At the end of the novel, Meursault
is executed. Meursault is an anti-hero, at best. His only redeeming quality is
his honesty, no matter how absurd. Meursault does not believe in G-d, but he
cannot lie. This inability to falsify empathy condemns him in the eyes of
others. While Meursault is executed for killing an Arab, he is hated for not
expressing deep emotion when his mother dies. Meursault has faith in nothing
except that which he experiences and senses. He is not a philosopher, a
theologist, or a thinker. Meursault exists as he is, not trying to be anything
more than himself. Why do people recognize Meursault as a plausible character?
After two World Wars and other sufferings, many people came to (or tried to)
live life much as Meursault. They lost the will to do more than exist. there was
no hope, no desire. The only goal for many people was survival. Even then, the
survival seemed empty. We learn just how empty Meursault's existence is through
his relationships. He is not close to his mother; we learn he does not cry at
her funeral. He does not seem close to his mistress, Marie Cardona. Of his
lover, Meursault states, "To me she was only Marie." There is no
passion in Meursault's words. Readers should note an Arab is killed. Arabs were
traditionally the targets of racism in Algiers. In Algiers, the more French one
was the more important the individual. This might explain why it was more
upsetting to the court that Meursault was not respectful of their societal
norms... killing an Arab was a minor offense. In L'étranger, Albert Camus
anticipates an active reader that will react to his text. He wants the reader to
form a changing, dynamic opinion of Meursault. The reader can create a
consciousness for Meursault from the facts that Meursault reports. By using
vague and ambiguous language, Camus stimulates the reader to explore all
possibilities of meaning. Camus also intends to shock the reader into rereading
passages. Through discussion of narrative structure, the opening lines, the role
of pity, resentment toward Meursault's judges, and the relationship between
murder and innocence, I will prove that Camus' purpose is to bring the reader to
introspect on their own relationship with society. Through narrative structure,
Camus invites the reader to create and become the consciousness of Meursault.
Utah Sate University Professor David Anderson notices that "Meursault takes
the stance of simply reporting these impressions, without attempting to create a
coherent story from them." Indeed, in Part One, what Meursault reports are
exclusively facts. Micheline Tisson-Braun comments that Meursault
"registers facts, but not their meanings; ... is purely instantaneous; he
lacks the principle of unity and continuity that characterizes man" (49).
Through generalization, the reader links the details of Meursault's life. The
reader thereby creates their own meaning for Meursault's actions. Meursault,
without a memory or an imagination, refuses to spend time connecting events and
contemplating essences. The reader does this for Meursault. Thus, the reader
creates a consciousness for Meursault that is uniquely the reader's. It exactly
represents Meursault's effect on the reader. When the court forces Meursault to
confront his past and use his memory and when in his jail cell when he has
nothing to do but imagine, Meursault develops an independent consciousness. The
reader is intentionally left to compare Meursault's impression on themselves
with the consciousness that Camus creates. Camus uses this other, reader-created
Meursault as a bridge and a tool to put the reader in Meursault's shoes. On
trial, the reader compares the mental reaction of Camus' Meursault with their
consciousness for Meursault. Already the reader sympathizes with Meursault
(ostensibly because we create his consciousness and it is inherently similar to
the reader's), but in the court, Camus has the reader to place themselves on
trial. The reader introspects on whether they are guilty of indifference to
society. Camus has the reader create a consciousness for Meursault so that Camus
can inspire introspection in the reader. Camus anticipates the reader will
re-read his startling opening. By the opening lines, he sets a tone and standard
that the reader should continually reassess their attitude toward Meursault.
Aujord'hui, maman est morte. Ou peut-être hier, je ne sais pas. J'ai reçu un télégramme
de l'asile: Cela ne veut rien dire. C'était peut-être hier (L'Etranger 9). At
first, Camus shocks the reader into believing that Meursault does not care about
the death of his mother. Camus' intention, however, is to compel the reader to
create a dynamic approach to Meursault. The reader must have an open mind and
constantly be willing to change their view of Meursault for Camus' later
surprises to have the desired effect. As the reader reconsiders their initial
negative response to Meursault, they find his humanity. Camus shifts the
reader's reaction to Meursault from negative to neutral. This sets the stage for
the reader to begin to identify or pity Meursault. Demosntrating his humanity,
Meursault refers to his mother affectionately as "maman." Camus also
carefully words Meursault's observations. "Maman est morte." Camus is
intentionally vague and ambiguous. Meursault states a fact the reader must
interpret. On one hand, the sentence could be interpreted as "maman is
dead." A reader who has taken the opinion that Meursault's indifference is
the result of an incredible state of shock could take this interpretation. The
reader could also read that "maman was dead." This would show that
Meursault is indifferent to the physicality of her death because he has already
dealt with it mentally. By interpreting Camus in the Passé Composé, the reader
acknowledges that maman's death is a completed action. Camus asks the reader to
decide if Meursault lives completely in the present and if he reports events
exactly as he sees them. Meursault's reporting builds a trust with the reader.
By encouraging the reader to reread the opening, Camus hopes to have the reader
change their opinion of Meursault. Camus implores the reader to wonder what
Meursault is thinking, explore the possibilities of Meursault's thoughts. The
reader's initial reaction that Meursault is heartless begins to fall apart as
Meursault reports further. "Ou peut-être hier, je ne sais pas" (L'Etranger
9). Meursault factually does not know when his mother died. It is not that he
does not care, as the reader might first interpret, but that he does not know.
Camus intends this confusion so that the onus lies on the reader to determine
whether Meursault is heartless, indifferent, or innocent. Meursault continues,
"c'était peut-être hier" (L'Etranger 9). By not telling the reader
or Meursault the exact date, Camus stresses the date's importance, or lack
thereof. Already Camus has the reader reassess societal assumptions. One of the
first things we do when confronted with the news of a death is ask the exact
time. The reader introspects on the importance of temporal markers. By inviting
the reader to share in Meursault's exploration of the present and disregard for
the past, Camus accomplishes his goal. Through encouraging the reader to
identify with Meursault, Camus also lures the reader into pity for Meursault.
René Girard comments that, "the undergraduates quickly learn, of course,
that it is not smart to pity Meursault" (26). Girard not only misses Camus
reader response oriented intention, but he even wants his students to forego the
process that Camus desires. Through the reader first identifying with Meursault
and then pitying him, Camus sets up an epiphany for the reader. By pitying
Meursault, the reader also feels a varying degree of negative attitude toward
Meursault. By implanting in the reader a sense of looking down at Meursault,
Camus orchestrates the epiphany. The greater the reader pities Meursault, the
greater the realization of the essence of l'absurde. The reader finally realizes
that every person is partly Meursault and that the pity transfers back onto the
reader. Camus, through Meursault, shows the reader to pity themselves and all
other humans. The reader demonstrates to themselves, through their conclusions,
the essence of l'absurde: the reader is like Meursault, naked in the face of
impossible odds, living in a deplorable and pitiable state. The reader pities
their own relationship with society. Anderson argues that, Pity is a social
construction which violates the text's notion that 'one life [is] as good as
another' (Stranger 41). It divides the individual who pities from the one who is
pitied by creating the illusion that either fate is any different. Meursault
argues that 'we're all elected by the same fate, me and billions of privileged
people ...[who will] all be condemned one day' (Stranger 121). So, the reader's
feelings toward Meursault actually manifests the reader's attitude toward all
people. Any negative reactions or emotions the reader feels for Meursault are
indicative of their relationship to others. It is the reader's relationship with
other individuals that defines their relationship with society as a whole. Camus
needs the reader to pity Meursault in Part One so that the realization that all
people are in a universal circumstance in Part Two becomes even more great, even
more revealing. Girard argues that the reader links pity for Meursault with
resentment for his judges. "Sympathy for Meursault is inseparable from
resentment against the judges. We cannot do away with that resentment without
mutilating our global esthetic experience. This resentment is really generated
by the text" (Girard 16). So, Camus uses the reader's pity for Meursault.
The reader identifies with Meursault and sympathizes, perhaps empathizes, with
Meursault's absurd situation. Only once Camus sets up the link between the
reader and Meursault can he impart in the reader a resentment for the judges.
The resentment operates through the consciousness that the reader creates for
Meursault and because the reader identifies with him. Camus provokes the reader
to resent the judges of Meursault by having the reader feel that they are also
judges of the reader. The reader begins to resent not only Meursault's judges,
but all those who judge others for their past actions. Camus induces the reader
to question their view of society. Girard argues that Camus "set out to
prove that the judges are always wrong" (18). Camus' intention, however, is
more complex than Girard would have us believe. Camus intends for the reader to
come to an independent conclusion that Meursault's judges are wrong and unjust.
From there, the reader can apply the same theme to their own lives. Ultimately,
Camus does question all judges. But by traveling first through the reader, Camus
compels the reader to make the determination that all judges are inherently
unfair. So, by anticipating reader response, Camus makes his point more
strongly. He does not blatantly tell the reader that those who judge are
criminals in their own right, rather he lets the reader make that decision based
on prompting from Meursault. By setting up the court as a manifestation and
metaphor for society, Camus opens the door for the reader to explore the concept
even further. Through a reader response analysis, we uncover that Camus actually
points the finger at all judges in society, that is, all people who judge the
thoughts and actions of others. Through the Arab's murder, Camus has the reader
reassess the definition of innocence and murder. They are not opposing terms and
do not even have opposing connotations. Camus intends, however, to use the
neutrality of innocence to affect our view of murder. "The contradiction
between the first and the second Meursault, between the peaceful solipsist and
the martyr of society; it is that contradiction in a nutshell, as revealed by
the two conflicting words 'innocent' and 'murder'" (Girard 17). Meursault
fires an involuntary shot followed by four voluntary ones. Through the dynamic
murder, Camus creates the perfect scenario that forces the reader to deconstruct
these two terms. In the reader's mind, Camus starts a process where innocence
subverts murder. The reader questions who is innocent in relation to their
society and who is the murderer. This reflects back to and depends upon the
reader's attitude toward both Meursault's judges and all who judge. Furthermore,
the reader questions the dynamic morality of murder. The reader constructs a new
meaning for innocence and murder that applies to Meursault and how he affects
the reader. By the court connecting Meursault's indifferent past to his crime,
the reader explores exactly how they are related and applies new significance to
their definition. Purposely stark, Camus lets the reader make their own decision
about the relationship of Meursault's crime to his sentence. Girard states that
"from a purely textual standpoint, Meursault's condemnation is almost
unrelated to his crime" (13). Camus intentionally disassociates the two and
allows the reader to make the connection. It is natural to consider the attitude
of the judges both unfair and inevitable. ... Thus, the gap between this
portentous action and an afternoon cup of café au lait is gradually narrowed,
and we are gently led to the incredible conclusion that the hero is sentenced to
death not for the crime of which he is accused and that he has really committed,
but for his innocence, which this crime has not tarnished (Girard, 18). It is
the reader inserting their interpretation that connects the verdict with the
crime. Camus leads the reader to believe that the court kills Meursault for his
indifference, and in doing so, the reader deconstructs innocence, again. Through
reader response criticism we find that Camus' message is that no one living in a
society is truly innocent. We are all creators and contributors to l'absurde.
The reader begins to prosecute Meursault for opposing society. Camus, then,
wants the reader to introspect on their relationship with society. The reader
asks: in what way am I a Meursault? Am I guilty of feeling indifferent to other
people? Even my parents? The reader prosecutes themselves. Camus leads the
reader to make a connection that is entirely their own between Meursault's
actions and his sentence. Camus has the reader put Meursault on trial to
determine his innocence. Camus communicates his message through the reader's
identification with Meursault. Albert Camus anticipates an active reader and
forces them to introspect. Although Camus relies heavily on the reader to stop
and contemplate, reread, and identify with an indifferent man, Camus
successfully provokes the reader to experience the trial in the place of
Meursault. Perhaps Camus wrote all of Part One to set up the reader in a
situation where they must reassess their relationship with society. Whatever the
reader's emotional response, Camus places the reader in position to experience
the trial, l'absurde. Through anticipation of a responsive reader, Camus
communicates the essence of l'absurde. Raymond typifies the beast-character in
Camus' L'Etranger. He is like Stanley from A Streetcar Named Desire (T.
Williams), emotional and manly. Physical solutions come naturally to him, as we
see when he mistreats his ex-girlfriend. Ideally, society is exactly the
opposite; law and order attempt to solve things fairly and justly. I posit that
Meursault is somewhere between these two extremes and that this is the reason
why he is a societal outcast. This metaphor explains his major actions in the
book: as he struggles to keep his identity, his personality comes in conflict
with the norms of society and he is shut down. Just as an animal sticks to
instincts, Meursault has a hard time feeling emotions such as remorse or
compassion. Even the first page shows us this. Just as an animal leaves its
family when it is old enough, never to return, when Meursault hears of his
mother's death he is unattached, even uncaring. He had similar feelings when he
sent her to live in the old people's home. Meursault has quite a passion for
women; he starts dating Marie the very day after he finds out of the death. But
like most animals, marriage is basically nonexistent for him; though he
acknowledges it, it holds little meaning. When he is isolated in jail, he dreams
of women; not Marie, whom he has been seeing for some time, but women in
general. Like an animal he feels the urge to mate without any desire for
monogamy. An animal has to focus on the present in order to survive, and as far
as we know doesn't spend much time cogitating about its past. Meursault always
lives in the present, hence his lack of remorse. This beast-like quality is one
that gets him into trouble in the courtroom, for people misconstrue his nature
to be that of a cold-blooded, calculating murderer. Although beast-like,
Meursault has some human characteristics, and these are so defined as to be
amazing. One is his amazing capacity for telling the truth. He is in fact
absurdly honest when in the court room he says, "the witness is right. It's
true, I did offer him a cigarette" (90). Although such a response might
normally be contrived to impress and elicit sympathy from the jury, Meursault is
not that kind of person. No normal human would go beyond the truth in this way
to offer evidence that would hurt his position, especially when death is on the
line. Another human characteristic is his ability to rationally assess a
situation. We see this in every aspect of his life, from details of the people
and weather at the funeral to his nonchalant narrative of the court proceedings.
Only twice does his beast feel threatened enough to take over. "Bang!"
The gunshots echo hollowly in the pit of the stomach. Something about mankind's
inherent morality should forbid him from committing any such act, but something
about Meursault's character permits him the foul luxury. Throughout this scene
the sun and light play crucial roles, and in the end they confuse him enough so
as to be the catalyst for his awful decision. Here Camus shoves the role of the
beast into our face. The sun and light are used to represent nature, which is
wild and wholly unpredictable. Nature calls to his beast, and it is Meursault's
"natural" or animalistic side that finally pulls the trigger. The
shining knife, the other catalyst, besides being a fighting weapon, would be a
fine thing to hunt with. When Meursault recognizes that his animal is in danger
of being slaughtered he has no choice but to fight back. But even as he
impulsively, needlessly fills the body with bullets, the unhappiness his human
side feels is apparent as it once again gains control over him. As Meursault
approaches the end of his life, he is solicited by people who want to bring him
to the glory of the lord. Here Meursault's animal side takes control; animals
don't spend any time worshipping a god or dreaming of an afterlife; their
attentions have to be focused on living. Thus Meursault is not able, because of
his very nature, to believe in a hereafter. His human side gives in to his
animal side at the end when the chaplain tries forcibly to make Meursault see
the light. His animal feels the threat of being tamed, or converted to the ways
of human society, and so he explodes to save himself. Only twice in the novel
does Meursault experience extreme pressure, once from nature and once from
society, and at these points he gives himself over to his beast. This proves
devastating from a certain point of view: the first time he compromises his
chances of living, and the second time he compromises his chance of an
afterlife. This self-preservation instinct is the only thing that keeps him in
touch with his bestial side, and in spite of these consequences he triumphs over
life in that he remains unique, he does not conform.