Camus

[bazarov]

Anyone read Camus and his Stranger??? What do you think about Mersault? Was he wierd and crazy, with no wish to apologize for murdering that Arap, or he had no wish or need to apologize for something his does not regret?? Would it make any difference, they would kill him anyway...

[MikeK]

My impression is that Camus wanted to portray a man who would not bend or yield to (what he saw as) the prevailing ridiculous standards of modern life. Who was honest enough not to put on an act for the sake of the rest of society and act in accordance with their wishes. Or, as Camus would put it, recognized the 'absurdity' of life and would not compromise himself by conforming.

This book, I think, had this unintended consequence: Camus wanted to portray a man who would not yield to the absurd societal conventions, but in so doing he created a character who was absurd himself, whose absurdity far surpassed the absurdity that Camus saw in the world; who was so far removed from his fellow man that he could commit murder and not be struck by any pangs of remorse. That may have been true. Mersault may indeed not have felt any remorse (so I guess it's better to be honest about that), but doesn't that say something horrible about Mersault? The irony of the book is that Camus wanted to indict society, but may have more harshly indicted Mersault, and his own convictions.

[Asa Adams]

want to reply.....gah....cant reply....world cup....is.....on bah :lol:

[Chava]

My previous english teacher was of the opinion that this was an existential piece, since Mersault primarily reacted to basic instincts, "now i'm hungry, i'll eat." etc. However I disagree since Camus has distinctly reported that he was not an existentialist.
Even though it is about a man who faces a new opinion of life as he faces death, he doesn't respond to the classical existential enlightenment. It seems that Camus' critiscism is much more focuses on the lunacy that Mersault must undergo, simply because he didn't cry at his mother's funeral, it's socio-criticism. The descriptions of the socially outcast, and the way the court beats them down, like the man with the dog, as well as the owner of the building where he lives.
To make final point, he rejects religion, or anything that could otherwise indicate development in that sense. (though he does undergo changes in his thoughts, becoming more philosophical)
Essentially, as he awaits the guilotine he faces it without regret, since he believes that he has done what he could.

[Chell53]

To go back to what someone else on this thread said, I don't think there is anything absurd about Meursault, that might appear to some people I suppose but I didn't see it. What I thought was that he was someone who was detached and he seemed in a way to be saner than everyone else in the book (the bit where he shoots the Arab is open to all sorts of psychological interpretations about repressed emotions, all of which are valid, but I don't think Meursault is crazy either) One thing I did think, this may be completely out there but when he's on trial and the prosecution brings up all the so called 'evidence' involving what films he saw and whether he cried at his mother's funeral, it was sort of like the trial in Alice in Wonderland (when the Knave of Hearts is on trial) "Write that down, that's very important!" That might be a bit of a weird link but the fact that all the things they think are part of his guilt sound so ridiculous makes it seem plausible to me.

[mousemouse]

I always felt that there is a hughe hint in the title "The Stranger". I think this makes the book a comment on our (or Camus') society. Is this the way all the rules and laws would be seen, if someone was a complete stranger to this beforehand.
If read this way, the book becomes a discussion of the absurdism of the world, rather than that of Mersault. Are all the rules and laws just arbitrary or maybe created by religion, or are we born with a certain amount of moral and ethics. Camus seems to have believed, that it's all just absurd, and that the rules must be man-made.

[Lyn]

It seems to me that it's all about honesty. He is a character that is completely honest about how he feels, or doesn't feel, and as a result is rejected. It seems that the rules, rather than punishing someone because of the actual act they have committed, punish them as a consequence of their complete honesty about their state of mind, which because it deviates from the 'norm' of fake over-emotional socially acceptable responses, is wrong. I agree - its all absurd. The rules are man made - we are required to act and feel in a certain way, and if we admit the fact that we don't, we are punished. Fitting in requires pretense.

[Teeeeom]

I think that ultimately he is persecuted not for the murder he committed but for his indifference toward morality. His being convicted guilty is symbolic of how someone like him cannot be accepted in a society based upon arbitrary morals. He is a stranger.