Is Meursault really the existential hero we thought?

Throughout reading the book it seems on the surface that Meursault is an existential hero, especially because for most of the book he fulfills all 6 tenets of existentialism. While it is written by an author who is one of the forefathers of existentialism the ending of the book seems to question Meursault as a existential hero. We largely see this in one of the the final scenes while he is imprisoned where he is longing for escape or for the chance of survival. He wishes that the guillotine breaks or for the possibility, even if it is 1 in 1000 chance of freedom. He thinks that if there were to be such a thing it would not be as hard on prisoners. These thoughts are very anti-existentialist. For multiple reasons this goes against the foundations of existentialism; specifically the futility of life and the inevitableness of death. Yet he still cannot accept the certainty of his own death. He claims there's something "out of proportion" between the verdict being read and the events that had passed since then. He continues to until the very end to hope that death doesn't come, while he does accept death he does not embrace it.

Meursault, a Stranger in His Own Story

In the book, The Stranger, the main character, Meursault, is a stranger in the book. He is distant from the other characters and shows no emotion in various scenarios. When his mother dies, he doesn't cry or feel any remorse. Instead he complains about the heat and the sun in his face and how he had to take off of work and go on a long train ride. When he is with Maria, a woman who falls in love with him, he doesn't care much about their relationship. When she asks him if he loves her and wants to marry her, he says that is it indifferent to him. The same uncaring attitude follows him into his own jail cell, when he is convicted of killing a man, he complains about not having women around him or any cigarettes and then realizes that, that is his punishment. With his uncaring attitude, it separates him from the world around him and isolates him. He is also a stranger to emotion, he doesn't care about anything happening in his life, thus making him a stranger to society, emotion, and even himself.

Is Meursault's Atheism Existentialist?

In Albert Camus' The Stranger, in the fifth and final chapter, Meursault encounters a chaplain before he lives out his death sentence. The chaplain expresses confusion at Meursault's seeming lack of care for his own situation, but Meursault is steadfast in his beliefs. He does not attempt to explain his position to the chaplain to the fullest extent possible, merely answering the questions that are asked of him, and later getting annoyed at the amount of questions being asked. He believes that there is no life after death, and the fact that there is no life after death does not concern him.

For its time, Meursault's atheism was likely perceived as existentialist. as his lack of belief in God indicates a belief in himself as a free agent (as well does the rest of the book). If there was no God, then what else could determine humanity's actions but individual humans?

When looked at through a modern lens, atheism is not necessarily indicative of an existentialist viewpoint. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a religion. That does not imply the existence of believe in oneself. Due to the increasing cultural prevalence of atheism in society, we are not necessarily inclined to believe that if one does not believe in God, one must believe in individuality.

On the contrary, non existentialist atheists might believe that humanity as a whole (large scale peer pressures) or the as-yet-to-be-defined set of laws that govern the universe as a whole yet don't subscribe to a deity. Or perhaps they believe that humans had free will at one point, but the advent of societal constructs such as justice, love, and friendship became so ingrained in the human psyche that we no longer have the freedom to think outside of them.

Regardless, when analyzing from a modern perspective, the fact of Meursault's atheism cannot be used as proof of his existentialism. It's up to the rest of the book to do that.

Forgetting Our Greatest Desires

I somewhat agree with Camus’ argument that simple pleasures have room to emerge once people stop longing for things they can not have. I was not persuaded until I saw the parallels between his essay and Meursault's actual life. In Cumus’ essay, he argues that Sisyphus’ punishment is not the most grueling in the world because Sisyphus can be happy if he loses his desire to have things on Earth. Once he becomes content with his position in life, he will be joyful because he won’t be preoccupied with striving for anything more than what’s in front of him.

Meursault faces this reality while in prison. When he first arrived, he had the mindset of a free man. Once he lost his desire to have and do things from the free world like smoking cigarettes and going to the beach he was content with his life in prison and understood his punishment.

I do find there to be a fault in Camus’ argument. There are people who are not okay with giving up on their lives when something is not available to them. For some people, trying to get what they don’t already have is the driving factor in their lives. People who grew up without the same luxuries as others use that experience to drive them to earn what they never had. They would go to school, work, and do all what they needed so that they could live a life where they would be able to have all that they desired.

I suppose happiness is relative. Some people will be able to find happiness by being complacent while others will find happiness through hard work.

A Hesitant Defense of Meursault

In Albert Camus's The Stranger, Meursault is sentenced to death for not conforming with the jury's view on humanity. The thing that condemns Meursault the most in his trial is his lack of visible grief for his mother's death. It is this lack of grief that causes the jury to believe he is inhuman. The jury and Meursault have differing views on what makes one human. The jury believes that a base of humanity is that one will feel love and grief for a parent who passes, and will mourn in a unspecified way that they deem appropriate, but one which Meursault clearly violates. As such, the jury is convinced by the prosecution that Meursault is a "monster", as they continuously paint him throughout the trial.

But we the audience, with full insight to Meursault's thoughts, can see him as a person, and know they are misinterpreting the events as well as failing to understand Meursault as a person. Meursault takes enjoyment of from the physical things in life, the murder was not premeditated, and his mother's advice is mentioned throughout the novel, suggesting Meursault did care for his mother, even if it was not as shown or typical of what society would expect.

In light of this, we must ask ourselves: Did Meursault deserve the death sentence? And can anyone really make judgments about what makes one human?

Meursault was a person, and felt emotions, even if they were not the ones deemed appropriate by society. Does this make him human? Or does his general indifference to emotions truly make him an inhuman monster? And most importantly, why? Who has the right to decide what one must feel to be a human?

At the end of the day, Meursault undeniably was a murderer, as so legally did deserve some sort of punishment. However, in addition to being punished for murder, he is also being punished for failing some abstract notion of humanity pushed by society, leading me to conclude that the death sentence was an unnecessary extremity.

Does the judicial system fail Meursault?

Society has a judicial system in place to find justice in the misdoings of others. In The Stranger, Meursault finds himself subject to societies expectations of being a moral person.

During the process of Meursault's trial, the question of right versus wrong is used to base the judgement against him. He is asked more thoroughly on his actions at his mother's funeral, rather than the events that took place at the beach. Meursault is very confused as to why they are not questioning him on the actions that he took, but on the morals behind his actions.

The prosecutor attempts to demonstrate to the jury that Meursault had no emotion at his mother's funeral, so that means that he could not possibly care about murdering the Arab. In society, there is a notion that everyone should act with the same morals, and that anyone outside of these parameters is to be considered the worst of a criminal.

Meursault has a different perspective in life compared to the rest of society. He does not view his actions as right or wrong, but rather as did I do them or not. He bases his actions on nothing. When he feels as though something needs to be done, he does it without mention of the backlash that could occur. While on trial for killing the Arab, he wonders why the case is not straight forward, as he admits to killing him, but does not understand why the court mentions his actions during and after the funeral of his mother.

The court system is looking for Meursault to get the death sentence. During the entire trial, Meursault realizes that he is not able to have a voice for himself, as it is seen that it will only prove to be detrimental to his case.

The prosecutor brings up his date with Marie after the funeral to try and prove that Meursault showed a lack of care towards his mother, and that will translate to every one of his actions yet to take place. The courts derive their verdict from the mere fact that Meursault has a different perspective on life. Because his realization of right versus wrong is different than society, he is sentenced to be put to death. The entire trial mentions nothing of Meursault's stance on what happened, as the judicial system already had the outcome waiting for him, which was to sentence him to death, so that there will no longer be any indifference to societies expectations of a person.

Does Meursault have Emotions or is He a Sociopath??

A sociopath is a person with a personality disorder that manifests itself as extreme anxiety and a lack of conscience. Throughout The Stranger, Meursault consistently shows little emotion towards the things around him. In the most recent chapters when Meursault goes to prison for murder, he does not seem to feel emotion about it and just wants to pass the time in whatever way he can. Even though he has a serious girlfriend, when she comes to visit, he is happy to see her, but after she is gone, rarely thinks about her. This shows that even though he has these relationships he only sees life as something that he has to get through. Furthermore, unlike the other prisoners, he is able to get used to prison life and almost doesn't understand how bad it is supposed to be. He does not feel extreme misery towards everything and instead thinks that everything is basically normal. He doesn't miss the people in his life outside of prison and seems to leave everything behind, rarely thinking about them. Relating to the definition of sociopath, Meursault has not shown any sadness about being in prison and does not even begin to feel guilt about the murder that he committed. A sociopath shares similar thoughts, almost seeing the world as a black and white place where nothing truly matters.

Meursault's Algeria

Meursault published The Stranger in 1942, years before the tension between the French and Algerians came to fruition, during the Algerian War of Independence. At the same time of the publishing, the North African campaign of World War II had begun. France was under the Nazi's control, so British and American soldiers invaded the French colonies of North Africa in an attempt to free them. Due to this extensive fighting, one would assume that strains French-Arab relationship would be put on the back burner. The prevalence of the general "Arab" in the story says otherwise. Besides the Arab nurse from the beginning of the book, seemingly the only interactions Meursault has with Arab people is negative. The Arab characters do not have as much depth as the French or pied-noir characters, showing the distance between the two groups.

Is Meursault a Sociopath?

       A sociopath is someone with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviors and a lack of conscience. Meursault, at times, shows signs of having sociopathic tendencies. For example, his reaction to his mother's death strikes some people as underdramatic and unsympathetic. Furthermore, the killing of the Arab definitely strikes as an unconventional event. Regardless of what may have been perceived, Meursault was not participating in self-defense. Therefore his exaggerated attack proved to be inhumane, and unnecessary.
      Knowing this information, one could make the assumption that Meursault is indeed a sociopath. On the other hand, what if this way of thinking was unfair to Meursault?
      Some would consider judging him in this manner reflects more on the judging person than on Meursault. Why do readers feel the need to judge how Meursault deals with his troubles. Readers consider Meursault's actions as 'bad' because they are different from their own actions. Although Meursault doesn't do this to others. So an existentialist might ask, 'Why is there a defined 'right' way to grieve and what if I don't feel like grieving that way?'

Life Without Social Constructs

Camus’ argument in his essay The Myth of Sisyphus on the quality of Sisyphus’ life seems very inaccurate. He argues Sisyphus is living a happy life while pushing a rock up a mountain just to see it roll to the bottom when he reaches the top. Camus' existentialist beliefs bash social constructs, which is why Sisyphus is able to live a "happy" life. Although social constructs often get the worse of people, they also are necessary for having a structured and meaningful life. If everyone was an existentialist, life would be extremely boring and not worth living.

Imagine a world full of Meursaults. It would be terrible. Or imagine being Sisyphus, and claiming to be happy. There would be very little pleasure or fun in life, and Camus would be lying to say he would be fine living Sisyphus’ life. Just living to live isn’t happy by any means, and Camus doesn’t seem to understand that. It could be argued that feelings are a social construct, but they are also very natural, and life without emotion or feelings is unhealthy. People need motives in their life to be productive, and existentialists lack this, which makes the quality of the world go down, consequently making the quality of life decrease. Based off of Camus’ The Stranger, existentialists seem to be self-centered and mean, which is something this world definitely doesn’t need more of.

You Could Either Read This Post or Not

Many say they value “open-mindedness”- a vague concept, but generally definable as a sort of mental flexibility stemming from a willingness to be adventurous. As with all values, open-mindedness exists as a spectrum, the extremes of which are frowned upon. Both complete mental rigidity and total nonconformity are generally viewed as negative. It is through this lens, the extremities of open-mindedness, that I will analyze one particular construction of Camus’ writing: “I could either do A or not do A.”

Meursault frequently used the above construction, thinking things like the following:

“It was then that I realized that you could either shoot or not shoot.” (56)

“To stay or to go, it amounted to the same thing. “ (57)

“Whether it was now or twenty years from now, I would still be the one dying.” (114)

“He could either sit down or stand up.” (118)

A or not A- they amount to the same thing in Meursault’s mind. He could shoot just as easily as he could not shoot. This is open-mindedness in its consummate form: an extreme mental flexibility that defies social conventions. As evidenced by Meursault’s trial, his “extreme open-mindedness” was considered impropriety by the rest of society. Guilty. With the trial’s verdict, Camus’ poses a central (arguably thematic) question:

Is true freedom of thought compatible with human society?

A Taste of Your Own Existentialism

I believe everyone experiences a taste of existentialism at least once in their life time. Whether a person verbally agrees with it or not, one time or another they will experience a time of total bliss. Where social constructs crumble away, judgement is nonexistent, and everything is possible. I'd be as bold as to say people actively go in search for it more often than one might think. High schoolers and college students are perfect examples of this.

Throughout high school and college, common recreational activities are drinking, drugs, and smoking. No matter the reason behind trying them, it all boils down to rebellion. The reason why drinking, drugs, and smoking are so popular is because they provide teenagers the ability to let go. To escape from social constructs, the academic system, facades, personal life issues, etc, and have no worries at all. That's the great appeal to them, they provide the ability to experience total bliss, whether it be for a life time or for only a second.

Maman the True Existentialist Hero

The opening of The Stranger begins with the death of Meursault's mother. We do not learn her name, her age, or even see her alive. Her existence as a character is almost solely as a distracted afterthought in Meursault's preoccupied mind. In spite of her portrayal as such, Maman and her death clearly represent what I believe to be the essential question of the story:

Is an existential philosophy inherently compatible with humanity?

Existentialism firstly challenges us to reject the norm of such constructs as God, family, and love, and embrace the absurdity of a life that is as random and inexplicable as we fear it to be. When discussing what it means to be human, such constructs as these are often top of the list. In rejecting these it would then stand to follow that in doing so we reject the principles of our own human nature.

In The Stranger when Meursault is arrested after murdering the Arab (murder often considered the gravest offense to humanity that exists) his lawyer asks him if he was sad about Maman's death, to which Meursault replies 'no'. In doing so he dismisses Meursault's humanity, in this case Meursault's ability to be repentant of and redeemed from his crime, due to his nonconformity to the socially normative version of grief the lawyer expects. What the lawyer fails to conceive of is that Meursault not grieving as he 'should' does not equate a lack of love for his mother, nor a lack of humanity.

This addresses a second (and more often forgotten) aspect of existentialism. That God, family, and love should be dismissed as constructs but not necessarily as concepts. These things exist and are true in face of the absurdist universe painted by existentialism. But they are not true because that is the order of the universe, as societal norms would have us believe. They are true because we choose to create them and recognize them despite our consciousness of the random universe. In this existential allows us not only more freedom, but a greater capacity for humanity.

What Does Meursault feel...Anything?

     In Albert Camus's novel The Stranger, he begins to discuss the death of the main character, Meursault's, mother. "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know. I got a telegram from the home: "Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours." "That doesn't mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.  Immediately, the reader is able to see that Meursault does not show a particular emotion towards the death of his mother. He just thinks about how he has to go to the funeral, but shows no discomfort and doesn't even bother to figure out what day she died. However, in the end of part I, he discusses the weather to a great extent. Meursault states, "The light shot off the steel and it was like a long flashing blade cutting at my forehead. At the same instant the sweat in my eyebrows dripped over my eyelids at once and covered them with a warm, thick film"(59). Meursault spends a few sentences describing the feeling that the intense sun, but only uses about a sentence and a half to talk about his mother's death. The reaction was almost robotic. This shows that he feels very little connection to the people around them and maybe lives in a world that is more focused on himself. When Marie asks him to marry him, he says that he does not love her, but if she wants to get married then they could. He shows very little emotion towards her and is not excited by the idea of human relationships.

What Concerns Meursault?...Little to nothing.

     In Albert Camus's The Stranger, he begins his story with, "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know. I got a telegram from the home: "Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours." That doesn't mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday"(3).

      I've already read this story, but right off the bat, Meursault displays an indifferent mindset and set of values. Everything significant thing he does in part one present his nonchalance. Taking this first quote, for example, his mother just died, and he simply describes her death in monotone text. He takes all of a few sentences to tell the audience what happened, and he doesn't show any emotion or discomfort, and doesn't even know the exact day she died.

     While Meursault takes little effort to present his mother's death, he seems especially descriptive when talking about the weather. Near the end of part one, Meursault is describing the sun, and states, "The scorching blade slashed at my eyelashes and stabbed at my stinging eyes"(59). He uses much imagery in his illustration of the suns affect, and even throws in some alliteration. It's interesting that he gives so much more effort and details in to describing something as minor to him as the sun, but when it comes to his mothers death, his reaction is almost robotic. The sun could represent a distraction for Meursault, or an emphasis of his unconcerned behavior, or even his flaw to notice the finer/more important things in life.

     Meursault's boss also offers him a promotion to be working in Paris, sometimes traveling and sometimes staying put. While his boss thinks this would be good fit for Meursault, Meursault states that people never change their lives, and that he wasn't dissatisfied with his current life at all. He displays such a neutral position to his great opportunity, neither excited or angry/upset. He's mild-mannered. His lack of ambition a neutral set of values drive his everyday actions.

   

Honest Abe Had it All Wrong

There is nothing more harmful than constant truth. A truth is blunt and precise yet at the same time subjective and wildly variable person by person. Two individuals may perceive the same object differently, yet neither perception can be called false. In this way, the truths of two distinct experiences compete for a nonexistent title of Objective Truth. No two people will have the same experience, the same lived truth, yet each person will feel that their experience is the Objective Truth. This is the solipsistic irony of subjectivity.

It is through dishonesty that humanness is forged. Empathy is a form of denial- lying to ourselves in order to feel another’s Objective Truth. Diplomacy is the twisting of truth into a more palatable shape. Compromise is the omission of pieces of one’s Objective Truth to incorporate those of another. All forms of higher interaction and social adequacy rely on dishonesty to cohesively meld otherwise competing Truths.

Herein lies Meursault’s fatal flaw: an honesty so complete as to be inhuman. Casual, non-violating dishonesty is used commonly by nearly everyone. Meursault presents the opposite, honesty which violates those around him. For example, when asked by Marie if he felt love for her, Meursault said “I probably didn’t love her” (41). In telling Marie his Objective Truth exactly as he felt it, he alienated her. Meursault made no attempts to be diplomatic or even to avoid the question. Again Meursault’s honesty is revealed when he thinks “It was then that I realized you could either shoot or not shoot” (56). His Objective Truth had subsumed any possible empathy.

A fascinating thing is that Meursault is not clearly in the wrong. From a logical standpoint, what he says and does is almost entirely correct. He abides by his Truth and acts accordingly. It is his unwillingness to be dishonest, however, that sets Meursault apart and isolates him. An honest man in a world full of liars- he truly is a stranger.

Is Meursault Empathetic?

From the very first paragraph of the book, the reader immediately gets a sense that Meursault has trouble showing emotion. There is no sense of urgency or mourning when he found out his mother died. He actually seemed more laid back and nonchalant about the whole situation than anything. From the first paragraph and on, the evidence becomes overwhelming. He admits he does not love Marie, he does not seem to care about Raymond abusing women, and lets not forget he killed a person with barley any motive.

However, as one gives the book a closer look, there is some evidence to show that Meursault is empathetic: "For some reason I thought of Maman. But I had to get up early the next morning"(39). Meursault admits that he was indeed thinking about his dead mother but than immediately suppresses the feeling with a directive. This creates a sense that he is indeed capable of emotion and empathy but he seems to have an internal battle with himself on whether or not he wants to show it. This brings me to question if he had a traumatic childhood experience leading to the suppression of his emotion in his adult life. I am curious to see throughout the book if we uncover anything from his childhood and if Meursault shows anymore hints of emotion and empathy.

Don't Judge a Book By Its Cover...Right?

For the majority out there, a nostalgic saying "Don't judge a book by its cover!" has influenced our way of choosing novels to read ever since we were young. My question is, though,...are titles included?

Upon receiving the novel The Stranger by Albert Camus, the title particularly sparked my curiosity.  Not the cover design, the text size, or the font choice, but the title. Why would Camus title his novel with a noun that evinces such a strong enigmatic and impersonal impression?

Prior to reading the novel, I had superficial ideas. "The Stranger": a tragedy fiction novel following a male or female lead or a mystery fiction following a detective. None of my thoughts came close to answering my previously asked question. However, after opening the novel and reading part one, I've constructed a possible answer.

Throughout part one, all of Meursault's interactions and relationships with other characters such as  Maman, Marie, Raymond, Perez, etc have been superficial. No indication of a personal relationship with any of them is noted, nor does it seem like he has a deep relationship with himself. He discloses no personal information, preferences, or emotion to anyone, including himself. No where in the novel does his words spoken, not convey his thoughts. Meursault goes through each day with no enthusiasm, ambition, or, if I dare say, reason. If he did have one, we wouldn't know. Even after reading six chapters into the novel, Meursault is not only a stranger to the characters, but a stranger to all. Neither the characters within the novel or the readers absorbing every word, know who Monsieur Meursault truly is.

Carelessness with Meursault

I feel that Meursault's indifference to every situation will bite him in the butt throughout the story. His go with the flow process seems interesting and ideal, but will it get him into trouble. He doesn't say no to Salamano most of the time, but when he does he ends up doing what ever asked anyway. Maybe he's the type of person who needs to avoid conflict. However, it doesn't seem to be on purpose when he makes his decisions.

Unfortunately, his romantic life has his go with the flow mindset as well. I feel bad for the woman who he's with who seems to just take all the garbage she's given. It could be since during those times women weren't given the option to freely choose who they wanted to be with, and were subject to poor treatment, maybe she believed that her situation was good. Meursault also didn't do anything to help the woman Salamano was beating up, and neither did the police.

A Man Who Lives A Day

While in jail, Meursault details everything he goes through. He talks about the things he misses, the things he doesn't miss, and the memories he has. After recalling that memories he has outside of jail, he says, "....the more I thought about it, the more I dug out of my memory things I had overlooked or forgotten.  I realized then that a man who had lived only one day could easily live for a hundred years in prison. He would have enough memories to keep him from being bored. In a way, it was an advantage" (79). Later Meursault remembers a news article that he read once, and now he replays it in his head several times a day. He also talks about he would go around his jail cell, memorize the things in there, and then memorize where everything is. Obviously, one day can involve so many different stimulus that if you recalled it all it would be endless. However, I think it takes a certain person to be able to find the excitement in the number of steps you took in the one day, the color of the trees you passed, or the temperature of that particular day.  In Meusault's case, he has nothing he cares about enough that plagues his mind.  I don't think a man who lives one day can live a hundred years in jail without boredom, that's a gross exaggeration. What do you think?