* A bookworm's nightmare!
** Take a nap instead!
*** Finished but no reason to skip meals.
**** Don't forget to unplug the phone for this one!
***** A bookworm's bibliophilic dream!
Just wanted to say that i completely disagree with your comment about Camus being better than Sartre. Camus and Sartre were actually good friends and two very talented individuals. If you have read Sartre's Nausea or any of his plays I doubt you would be saying that. Though Camus is great in his own right, he is no better or worse than sartre, they are both genius.Originally Posted by Gibran
This book is definitely in my top five, and Albert Camus is one of the best writers I have ever seen. The fact that he can get someone to want to defend Meursault, even if they hate the man, and also respect him regardless.
(WARNING: contains spoilers [in case anyone hasn't read it])
Personally, I absolutely love Meursault. His apathetic/stoic behavior attracts me immensley for some odd reason. I love how Camus has his character develop, and how he develops Meursault's ability to feel.
In the beginning, we see a man that seems heartless. He can't show emotion; for what reason, we don't know. I think of it as the emotional part of his brain isn't completely developed, and the fact that he can't get in touch with his own feelings means that he doesn't know how to deal with other's emotions as well, such as when he got 'annoyed' but his mother's friend's crying.
We see how he shows some emotion toward his mother when something reminds him of her, and he instantly finds a way to shut it off.
As we get further into the book, Meursault's feelings seem more apparent. When he kills the Arab, it's as though he is letting out all of his anger in those four extra shots.
At the trials, he keeps his stoic demeanor at first, which turns most of the people against him and practically seals his fate. I found it odd when he told that all people wish a loved one dead at some point, but he's terribly burdened by lying, as he tells his lawyer.
At this point - to me - Meursault is showing more emotion that he had ever shown in chapters before. When I saw how he was able to recognize others emotions, it was apparent that he was starting to break loose as well.
When the last chapter is read, Meursault's emotions really break loose. One can tell that he is trying everything in his might to keep from feeling anything about his execution - such as when he sees that when he dies, it really won't matter anyway since it will happen eventually and the world will still go on regardless - but in the end it doesn't work.
One thing I noticed in the last chapter was the use of an exclamation point. When I saw this, I instantly felt the emotions radiating off of him. He tries to keep his cool at the end when the man comes and talks to him, and at first he does a pretty good job. You can see his old demeanor for a split second when he is 'annoyed' by him. But the last part, he ends up breaking down.
The last sentence really just sticks with me. It's such a crazy way to end the book, and it makes you go "..why?"
Anyway, that's my two cents.
It's a good read!
Meursault proceeds to shut it off because it doesn't much matter?
Anger at the raised temperature?
I can't find the reference but it sounds odd.
Meursault seems to understand emotion without much valuing it.
Meursault's emotions really break loose only because people are annoying him. Does he feel anything about his execution except, perhaps, a passing interest mingled with a passing, but natural, fear of pain? In the end it doesn't work because, in an absurd world, what does?
In a word, the priest bores, and therefore irritates, Meursault; so he loses his cool as he did when he shot the Arab.
Why? That they should greet me with howls of execration would add a fleeting spice to an indifferently happy life.
"Love does not alter the beloved, it alters itself"
This seems like a good response, since it really seems that it doesn't matter to him.
Anger at the temperature, at how the sun reminds him of his mother's death, etc.
There's one part where it doesn't necessarily say that he's burdened, but when his lawyer asks him not to say that (meaning about everyone wishing a loved one dead) Meursault responds with the fact that it's the truth. He would rather tell the truth since it was how he felt, regardless of what others thought.
It seems that those who enjoyed the book can identify with Mersault to some extent. Perhaps this is why I didn't care for it. I just could not fathom where he was coming from. He was not even capable of personal ambition. Example: not excited at the prospect of going to Paris for his job because apparently "One life is just as good as another." The only emotions he could muster up were lust and (eventually) desperation to avoid execution. I believe he should have been found guilty, and I'm sure Camus wasn't suggesting that there were extenuating circumstances, although perhaps he thought he should have been freed regardless (and it goes without saying that Camus opposed the death verdict). However, I entirely agree that what Mersault was convicted of was being a jerk. This seems to be how murder trials go: if you are sympathetic enough, the jury might give you a pass. The one point I could identify with him on was his willingness to state the obvious truth, even when it is in poor taste or later, dangerous to his case.
I read The Stranger about twenty-five years ago. I don't remember what the main character's motivation was for killing his mother. Can anyone tell me what it was?
Dostoevsky gives me more than any scientist.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. - Albert Einstein
I must be mistaken about this book. I thought he killed his mother.
Dostoevsky gives me more than any scientist.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. - Albert Einstein
He didn't kill his mother. Although, a major aspect of the novel is Meursault's lack of emotional response to his mother's death, and his unwillingness to view the body at the funeral.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
I think the fact that the person he shot was approaching him while wielding a knife, after having already stabbed his friend, could be considered an extenuating circumstance.
While his motivation for the shooting may not have in fact been self-defense, it is not as if did just walk up to some completely random person and shoot them. The person whom he shot, did pose a reasonable threat to his well being and was not some completely innocent bystander.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
SO true, and is true in my case. I've actually had a friend tell me I'm good to talk to because of my lack of emotions, haha.
"I drag myself out of nightmares each morning and find there's no relief in waking."
I'm quite happy to see the results of the poll, as well as the posts. I voted for: '**** Don't forget to unplug the phone for this one!'
I want to start picking up French one of these days, so I can read the French philosophical literature exactly as it was intended to be read. I already know German (Marx, Nietzsche, etc.)
But with that said, I might as well pick up Russian too... yikes, the alphabet.
Existence precedes essence.
Camus' prose is very simple and direct so he translates well, The Stranger is read in grade 9 French classes here. It's actually a great medium difficulty text for learners of French.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
That's the problem with human nature. In the book, it says he killed the Arab because of the sun. In this case, the sun is societal pressure. During the trial, people are acting like everyone on this forum because it's human nature; everyone wants to know why. This doesn't just happen in the book, this happens no matter what the case is. Humans need to know why someone did something. Maybe he just did it because he could or wanted to- maybe he was thinking why not? He disregards the laws (social norms) and does it anyway.
Why not accept Meursault's explanation at face value? The unshielded, hot sun bothered him at that moment, so he lashed out in irritation. If all is vanity, isn't this reason sufficient?
"Love does not alter the beloved, it alters itself"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
