When it comes to certain books, I really do not appreciate them until after I have finished reading them. The Stranger by Albert Camus is a prime example of what I mean by this.
I had to read The Stranger in twelfth grade for AP Lit, similar to most of the other books I write about on here. As I read it the first time through, I thought the writing was too dry, and I did not like the main character at all. Afterwards, however, thanks to class discussion, I realized I was probably looking at everything that was occurring in the plot the wrong way.
The novel tells the story of Meursault, a peculiar man who seems to have no care in the world for anything. When I say he does not care, I really mean that he goes about his day without prioritizing anything, and the writing style in the novel communicates that through the tone.
To illustrate this point, here is a quote from the first page of the novel, as Meursault describes the death of his 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.”
Everything is described in this book as if it is meaningless to Meursault. At his mother’s funeral, he does not even shed a tear.
It does not stop there. He is even indifferent as he finds himself caught up in the middle of a fight between his two friends and two Arabs at the beach. The one friend, Raymond, is being targeted because of his affair with the sister of one of the Arab men, and he considers using a gun against the Arab. Although Meursault takes the gun at first, he sees the Arab again later on and shoots him for no reason at all.
The rest of the plot focuses on Meursault’s trial. During the trial, Meursault is repeatedly questioned about his level of guilt, which he completely lacks, and shocks everyone. Additionally, his indifference at his mother’s funeral is used to further turn the jury against him.
It is also worth noting that this book takes place in the 1940s, a time when religion is still considered to be an integral part of life in most countries, including Algeria where this novel is set. Any form of atheism is frowned upon, so when the magistrate finds out that Meursault has no faith in God, he and the courtroom immediately view Meursault as “Monsieur Antichrist” to explain his unconventional outlook and actions.
During my class seminars about this book, my teacher took the time to explain existentialism, which really helped me make sense of this novel. Granted, this was not the first time she described the concept, but it was the first time I paid attention to why it might be relevant.
Meursault is an existentialist himself; although, this is an outlook he does not truly grasp until the very ending, which I do not want to spoil. He believes in free will, that not every decision is rational, and that the world is absurd and, therefore, does not care about social or religious values because everyone dies eventually.
He did not shoot the Arab because he is the devil, like everyone in the courtroom believed. His action was completely irrational, and it has no real meaning to it because it is the same outcome that every living organism faces eventually.
Considering this really allowed me to make sense of the character. I realized that the reason why I could not relate to Meursault at first was because I did not grasp that his outlook on life is completely different, which is an idea that most students in my class struggled with as well. It forced us to open our minds and consider other perspectives about life to which most of us have not been exposed before.
For this reason, I grew to really appreciate The Stranger. I found the book to be enlightening in the sense that it challenged conventional beliefs about the world in a unique way. Although I am not an existentialist myself, I think it is really interesting to consider various philosophical approaches that involve describing the world in very different ways. Overall, I rate the novel as an 8/10. It somehow proved to be easy to follow while still being thought-provoking for me as a reader, which I think takes a great deal of skill in terms of writing.
I actually read this book first in French (its original language) and then in English. However, when I read it in English, I felt like the translation didn’t truly capture Meursault’s thoughts and consequent actions as well as the French version. The English version portrayed Meursault as a character who doesn’t really care about life and doesn’t see any meaning in it. The French version, on the other hand, portrays Meursault as a character who isn’t influenced by others around him. He doesn’t see the need to conform with the rest of the word. It’s interesting how the message of the book is lost in the translation because it shows how vital language and specific word choice are.
When you shared what your post was about it class, I was automatically drawn to read your post this week. I loved the book when I read it my sophomore year! At first I was skeptical about Meursault’s character and almost found Camus’ development of it laughable. I though that there was no way that people actually went about their day in the ways he did, nor would people have the outlook on life that he did. But then, my teacher introduced the idea of existentialism and something clicked. Like you, I was acquainted with the term but had never seen it come to life through analyzing someone else’s, even if it was a fictional character’s. Overall, I really liked the book and I’m so glad you decided to reflect on it for your post this week!
Yasmin I LOVE this book!! When we analyzed it in AP Literature, we compared it to Hamlet. Both stories, at their core, are about how the main characters perceive living and then come to terms with dying, as they confront the meaning of life (if there is any). While Hamlet is full of sharp emotions, Mersault is completely devoid of them, but the behaviors of both characters lead them to alienation and isolation. You would think Mersault might have a scrap of feeling for his mother, but he doesn’t shed a tear at her funeral. You would think he might have a scrap of feeling for his girlfriend, but he has none there either. While Mersault is in prison, Marie, his girlfriend, comes to visit him. He narrates, “… Marie shouted to me that I had to have hope. I said, ‘Yes.’ I was looking at her as she said it and I wanted to squeeze her shoulders through her dress. I wanted to feel the thin material and I didn’t really know what else I had to hope for other than that.” Quite frankly, he likes to touch her, but he doesn’t care about the heart, the emotions that lay beneath her skin. Only at the end of the book does Mersault feel any emotion. Throughout the book, he doesn’t care about life, and by the end, he fears losing it. But just as something snapped inside Hamlet as he realized he needn’t fear death nor the absurdity of life, something snapped inside Mersault when he argued with the chaplain. Mersault describes the chaplain, saying, “And yet none of his certainties was worth one hair of a woman’s head. He wasn’t even sure he was alive, because he was living like a dead man.” In other words, the chaplain’s faith is blind and phony. It makes him a zombie, because he does not own the independent power to give his life meaning. Instead, he relies on God (if one exists) to grant his life that meaning. Mersault’s personal victory, in the end, is that even though he may not be able to control his imminent death, he can still control how he lives before he is finally taken. Existentialist philosophy is so interesting to me! But I think I’d have to read more of Camus’s work before deciding for myself if I agree with it or not.
Reading this book on the road trip back from one of my college tours between junior and senior year, I remember hating every page. With every sentence, I grew to hate the character’s indifference even more. The more indifferent he appeared, the more angry I became with him. Looking back, this was probably because I was in a period of my life in which I felt that I must care deeply about every decision I made, especially when it came to the college application process. By the time I finished the book, I did not appreciate it for its writing style as you did, but instead appreciated my own passion and emotion – no matter how stressful those emotions might have been for me when it came to choosing a college. Unlike Meursault, I have opinions about the people around me and their effect on my life, even when those opinions and effects might impact me negatively. I think that – while perhaps not the intended message of the book – is a very important takeaway, and I can appreciate that fact while still disliking every minute I spent within the book’s pages.
Honestly, I have never heard of this book, but now I’m considering reading it, especially to find out the ending! I feel like I would be confused as well throughout the book. This ideology would probably be beneficial to practice, however, not to such an extreme. I definitely believe many would benefit from not stressing about this on Earth because they will be irrelevant in the future. However, I do not think it’s right to kill someone because they will die eventually. It is especially interesting how this ideology plays into religion. Although the main character does not believe in a religion, many religions talk about letting go of earthly possessions. It is similar to the idea that we all die eventually, so why worry about what happens in our life. Overall, great post!