Shattuck, Roger. “Two Inside Narratives: Billy Budd and L’Etranger." Modern Critical Views, Albert Camus. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1989. 13-18. Print.
In this comparison article, Roger Shattuck addresses the similar narrative styles of Herman Melville’s Billy Budd and Albert Camus’s The Stranger. Shattuck’s view on The Stranger is that Meursault cannot fully separate what he inwardly knows himself to be from what and how society judges him to be. Meursault doesn’t defend himself, nor show any remorse, against the charges sentenced to him by the narrow and distorted justice system; thus, he appears to be indifferent. Shattuck points out that Meursault’s change in his state of being can be detected through the narrative style that at first seems to be limited to Meursault’s immediate experiences in which are recorded without the influences of civilized living. He claims that the narration allows one to barely notice the shifts in point of view. Shattuck states, “The primitive first person singular of passive sensation has gradually secreted beside itself another, highly penetrating person of reflection” (14). This first person singular tense of passive sensation and experience has concealed beside itself another person of reflection. This sensation “asserts itself in the style in the shape of a double je, which functions simultaneously as first person and as third person looking back astonished” (14).It is the vague and shifting use of a double je in Camus’s French version that allows the reader to witness Meursault as a human consciousness undergoing an inner change, which is experienced very late for a physically mature man.
Roger Shattuck’s emphasis on Meursault’s use of a double je to describe certain behaviors is relevant because it helps us think about how the differences between the French and the English languages affect our level of measuring Meursault’s indifference. His view allows a reader to think about how Meursault’s indifference may only be the appearing result of the effect of the loss of the French double je in the English version, which then allows the reader to think about the extent of sacrifices and inaccuracies that may occur in experiencing the English version. The double je in French is a way of using pronouns to layer and complicate the point of view. Since there is no direct equivalence of a double je in the English language, an American reader may fail to notice where the narration is shifting points of view. Therefore, Shattuck suggests thoughts about how the English translated version may distort our assessment of Meursault’s indifference and allow for many misinterpretations of important key details. The double je is what easily allows the reader, who understands French, to decipher between the first-person claims and the third-person reflecting claims in the original un-translated version, because the reader is aware of and understands the functions of a double je. Because the English narration allows one to barely notice the shifting point of view, it makes it very easy for the reader to overlook and miss certain details. Overlooking these detail and shifts in point of view suggests many complications for the reader’s willingness to identify Meursault’s, especially since the shifts in narration are what indicate Meursault’s change in state of being.
Showing posts with label An Emotionless Narrated Story. Show all posts
Showing posts with label An Emotionless Narrated Story. Show all posts
Friday, December 3, 2010
Absurdity as a Factor of Meursault's Indifference
Showalter, English Jr. The Stranger: Humanity and the Absurd. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1996. Print.
Showalter’s view on The Stranger is that Camus tried to remain true to his vision of the absurd, the meaningless of existence, through to the very end and avoid the normal existentialist conclusion of the absurd as an excuse for a rise of faith and as to prove something. Showalter argues that Camus’s first-person narration was intended to be hard to distinguish exactly when and how Meursault speaks. This is a way to emphasize the strange inconsistency in Meursault, where the story he tells is in some extent of a story that is forced to be spoken. Showalter argues that the brief first-person narrative portrays its hero’s story as an unemotional confession, where the narration serves to highlight the intellectual disabilities within the character, Meursault. The narration dramatizes the problems of representation, communication, and interpretation and categorizes Meursault’s inability to give a convincing explanation as a failure of language, instead of a failure of the judicial system or the code of society. The brief first-person narrative, involving suppressed dialogue, enabled Camus to feel silent while writing The Stranger, and thus allowing him to create a fictional image of life within the absurd. Showalter argues that Camus “uses Meursault’s mind as the glass partition through which the world is viewed,” where the “technique makes the narrator a purely passive observer” (12). This technique’s effect is similar to the effects of observing someone in a phone booth from the outside, where all we see is the gestures, but do not hear the conversation. Showalter claims, “Such a person would appear absurd” (12).
Showalter’s suggestions of Meursault’s inconsistency and the difficulties of characterizing his exact speech in his telling of the story lead to different interpretations of the story along with different circumstances for who a reader will be able and willing to identify with. Showalter’s idea of the intentional, hard-to-distinguish narration and Meursault’s constant and strange inconsistency allow a reader different perspectives of viewing Meursault, where “indifferent” may not be the correct or only label. The argument involving the creation of a fictional image of life within the absurd through the use of a first-person narrative suggests the presence of a potential easiness for a reader to relate and identify with Meursault. Especially since this creation was enabled by Camus’s ability to theoretically feel silent and as a part of this life within the absurd while writing the novel. The argument of Meursault’s mind as a glass partition that creates a passive observing narrator recommends to a reader a different way of viewing, reading, and interpreting the narrative. The narrator is placing the reader in a perspective that reflects and easily relates to Meursault, which may help to analyze and measure the extent of sympathy a reader feels for Meursault. The effects of this technique suggest a reader to reevaluate first impressions of Meursault as indifferent and consider the absurdity as a factor of an “apparent” indifference.
Showalter’s view on The Stranger is that Camus tried to remain true to his vision of the absurd, the meaningless of existence, through to the very end and avoid the normal existentialist conclusion of the absurd as an excuse for a rise of faith and as to prove something. Showalter argues that Camus’s first-person narration was intended to be hard to distinguish exactly when and how Meursault speaks. This is a way to emphasize the strange inconsistency in Meursault, where the story he tells is in some extent of a story that is forced to be spoken. Showalter argues that the brief first-person narrative portrays its hero’s story as an unemotional confession, where the narration serves to highlight the intellectual disabilities within the character, Meursault. The narration dramatizes the problems of representation, communication, and interpretation and categorizes Meursault’s inability to give a convincing explanation as a failure of language, instead of a failure of the judicial system or the code of society. The brief first-person narrative, involving suppressed dialogue, enabled Camus to feel silent while writing The Stranger, and thus allowing him to create a fictional image of life within the absurd. Showalter argues that Camus “uses Meursault’s mind as the glass partition through which the world is viewed,” where the “technique makes the narrator a purely passive observer” (12). This technique’s effect is similar to the effects of observing someone in a phone booth from the outside, where all we see is the gestures, but do not hear the conversation. Showalter claims, “Such a person would appear absurd” (12).
Showalter’s suggestions of Meursault’s inconsistency and the difficulties of characterizing his exact speech in his telling of the story lead to different interpretations of the story along with different circumstances for who a reader will be able and willing to identify with. Showalter’s idea of the intentional, hard-to-distinguish narration and Meursault’s constant and strange inconsistency allow a reader different perspectives of viewing Meursault, where “indifferent” may not be the correct or only label. The argument involving the creation of a fictional image of life within the absurd through the use of a first-person narrative suggests the presence of a potential easiness for a reader to relate and identify with Meursault. Especially since this creation was enabled by Camus’s ability to theoretically feel silent and as a part of this life within the absurd while writing the novel. The argument of Meursault’s mind as a glass partition that creates a passive observing narrator recommends to a reader a different way of viewing, reading, and interpreting the narrative. The narrator is placing the reader in a perspective that reflects and easily relates to Meursault, which may help to analyze and measure the extent of sympathy a reader feels for Meursault. The effects of this technique suggest a reader to reevaluate first impressions of Meursault as indifferent and consider the absurdity as a factor of an “apparent” indifference.
Questioning Meursault's Apparent Indifference
Champigny, Robert J. “Meursault’s Pagan Philosophy.” Readings on The Stranger. Ed. Derek C. Maus. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2001. 82-93. Print
Robert Champigny’s perception of Meursault is that he develops life as a Pagan. The notion of physis, known as “natural law,” influences Meursault’s Pagan lifestyle along with his preference to be uninvolved in a civilized and materialistic lifestyle filled of unnatural and unnecessary desires. He perceives Meursault as childlike because of his need for sleep and aptitude for falling asleep during events that are unappealing to and bore him, events that society would consider important. Another reason Champigny gives for Meursault’s childlike behavior is how his space is limited to what he encounters each day and how his time is limited to a moment, a day, or a week at most. Meursault lives purely in the moment and does not spend time reflecting on the past, until his time in prison, or having regrets on past decisions and actions. Therefore, Meursault appears to Champigny as “an individual without a past, as a flat and transparent strip of glass” in which the readers can view the world of a stranger through (83). Also, He does not believe that Meursault is indifferent; in fact, his “better explanation” of Meursault involves the concept of ataraxia, his freedom from mind disturbances and worries. Champigny argues that his “indifference” comes from a clash between the influences of society on his lifestyle and his satisfactory with his socially detached life, where “sentiments do not interfere with his physical demands, that passions do not trouble his ataraxia, that social desires are not substituted for his natural desires” (90).
Robert Champigny’s view is relevant because it allows a reader to question the depths and extents of Meursault’s apparent indifference. Champigny’s idea presents the opportunity for a reader to think about the idea of Meursualt as a looking glass. This idea helps readers to question the reasons for why Meursault appears to be indifferent, and then to consider Meursualt’s pagan and childlike behaviors as possible causes of his indifference. This idea of Meursault as a “transparent strip of glass” allows the reader to view the world through the eyes of Meursault’s mind. Therefore, a reader can use Champigny’s idea to understand and accept Meursault and his apparent indifference in order to perceive a broader perspective of the novel. Another way Champigny’s view allows the reader to question Meursault’s apparent indifference is by helping the reader perceive Meursault’s first-person claims as his desires for ataraxia and having a peace of mind by not caring. This concept brings a new dimension to the experiences and interpretations of the novel, in which a reader may have never even considered. For example, Meursault’s pagan, childlike, and careless behaviors can be viewed as his attempts at maintaining the peace within his mind, and not as an “indifference;” however, using the idea of Meursault as a “transparent strip of glass” suggests to a reader a more apprehensible way to categorize and measure the extent of his “apparent” indifference.
Robert Champigny’s perception of Meursault is that he develops life as a Pagan. The notion of physis, known as “natural law,” influences Meursault’s Pagan lifestyle along with his preference to be uninvolved in a civilized and materialistic lifestyle filled of unnatural and unnecessary desires. He perceives Meursault as childlike because of his need for sleep and aptitude for falling asleep during events that are unappealing to and bore him, events that society would consider important. Another reason Champigny gives for Meursault’s childlike behavior is how his space is limited to what he encounters each day and how his time is limited to a moment, a day, or a week at most. Meursault lives purely in the moment and does not spend time reflecting on the past, until his time in prison, or having regrets on past decisions and actions. Therefore, Meursault appears to Champigny as “an individual without a past, as a flat and transparent strip of glass” in which the readers can view the world of a stranger through (83). Also, He does not believe that Meursault is indifferent; in fact, his “better explanation” of Meursault involves the concept of ataraxia, his freedom from mind disturbances and worries. Champigny argues that his “indifference” comes from a clash between the influences of society on his lifestyle and his satisfactory with his socially detached life, where “sentiments do not interfere with his physical demands, that passions do not trouble his ataraxia, that social desires are not substituted for his natural desires” (90).
Robert Champigny’s view is relevant because it allows a reader to question the depths and extents of Meursault’s apparent indifference. Champigny’s idea presents the opportunity for a reader to think about the idea of Meursualt as a looking glass. This idea helps readers to question the reasons for why Meursault appears to be indifferent, and then to consider Meursualt’s pagan and childlike behaviors as possible causes of his indifference. This idea of Meursault as a “transparent strip of glass” allows the reader to view the world through the eyes of Meursault’s mind. Therefore, a reader can use Champigny’s idea to understand and accept Meursault and his apparent indifference in order to perceive a broader perspective of the novel. Another way Champigny’s view allows the reader to question Meursault’s apparent indifference is by helping the reader perceive Meursault’s first-person claims as his desires for ataraxia and having a peace of mind by not caring. This concept brings a new dimension to the experiences and interpretations of the novel, in which a reader may have never even considered. For example, Meursault’s pagan, childlike, and careless behaviors can be viewed as his attempts at maintaining the peace within his mind, and not as an “indifference;” however, using the idea of Meursault as a “transparent strip of glass” suggests to a reader a more apprehensible way to categorize and measure the extent of his “apparent” indifference.
Proposal of Two Meursaults
Solomon, Robert C. “Is Meursault a Stranger to the Truth?” Readings on The Stranger. Ed. Derek C. Maus. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2001. 61-75. Print
Solomon addresses his idea of Meursault as an existentialist man who neither lies nor tells the truth, because he cannot reach the level of consciousness where truth and falsity can be clarified. As the narrator of the novel, Meursault does not judge; he describes and observes. Solomon expresses how Meursault’s “indifference is a falsification of emotions” (75). He cannot be true to his feelings, not only because he does not know and understand them, but because he cannot even have them without making judgments. He is minimally self-conscious with only few thoughts in which he does not reflect on. Meursault’s “true feelings” are an emotionally stripped representation of human experience. Solomon states that “Meursault, for the first part of the novel, is an ideal sartrian pre-reflective consciousness, pure experience without reflection, always other than, but also nothing other than what he is conscious of at the moment” (64). Solomon argues that it is the “first-person standpoint that Camus allows the Kantian or Husserlian Ego to report on the utter blandness of Meursault’s pre-reflective consciousness as it matter-of-factly describes his world” (65). The problem is that the narrator of part I “cannot consistently be the same Meursault who is unreflectively experiencing. It must be another Meursault, a reflective Meursault.” (65). Solomon claims that the “trueness” for the reflective narrator would appear to be the bare, un-interpreted, and comment-less reporting of human experience of the pre-reflective Meursault’s. Also, he explains how there are “gaps in the narration where feelings ought to be in exactly the same way that there is an abyss where Meursault’s ‘soul’ ought to be” (67). Thus, Solomon justifies that Meursault of part I is an impossible character because he is the reflective narrator and the un-reflective bearer of experience.
Solomon’s idea about two Meursaults, the pre-reflective character and the reflective narrator, is relevant because it allows a reader to think about and categorize Meursault’s indifference as the result of two Meursaults in the narration, instead of completely labeling Meursault as inwardly indifferent. The reader could rationalize his indifference by the result of the complications that arise between Meursault’s existential role as character and inability to interpret and reflect on events and his role as narrator to be reflective. Solomon portrays the narrator of part I as “another Meursault,” which would enhance and highlight Meursault’s indifference and make it easily apparent for a reader, who wasn’t aware of “another Meursault” as the narrator. Another relevance of Solomon’s argument involves how the “gaps in narration” allow a reader to consider the possibility that these gaps are created by the effect of a pre-reflective character of Meursault as the reflective narrator. Even though these gaps may be what initially drives a reader to consider Meursault as indifferent, Solomon’s view on the gaps in the narration allow the reader to contemplate and analyze these gaps as the results from the complications between roles and the crossing of paths of the two Meursaults.
Solomon addresses his idea of Meursault as an existentialist man who neither lies nor tells the truth, because he cannot reach the level of consciousness where truth and falsity can be clarified. As the narrator of the novel, Meursault does not judge; he describes and observes. Solomon expresses how Meursault’s “indifference is a falsification of emotions” (75). He cannot be true to his feelings, not only because he does not know and understand them, but because he cannot even have them without making judgments. He is minimally self-conscious with only few thoughts in which he does not reflect on. Meursault’s “true feelings” are an emotionally stripped representation of human experience. Solomon states that “Meursault, for the first part of the novel, is an ideal sartrian pre-reflective consciousness, pure experience without reflection, always other than, but also nothing other than what he is conscious of at the moment” (64). Solomon argues that it is the “first-person standpoint that Camus allows the Kantian or Husserlian Ego to report on the utter blandness of Meursault’s pre-reflective consciousness as it matter-of-factly describes his world” (65). The problem is that the narrator of part I “cannot consistently be the same Meursault who is unreflectively experiencing. It must be another Meursault, a reflective Meursault.” (65). Solomon claims that the “trueness” for the reflective narrator would appear to be the bare, un-interpreted, and comment-less reporting of human experience of the pre-reflective Meursault’s. Also, he explains how there are “gaps in the narration where feelings ought to be in exactly the same way that there is an abyss where Meursault’s ‘soul’ ought to be” (67). Thus, Solomon justifies that Meursault of part I is an impossible character because he is the reflective narrator and the un-reflective bearer of experience.
Solomon’s idea about two Meursaults, the pre-reflective character and the reflective narrator, is relevant because it allows a reader to think about and categorize Meursault’s indifference as the result of two Meursaults in the narration, instead of completely labeling Meursault as inwardly indifferent. The reader could rationalize his indifference by the result of the complications that arise between Meursault’s existential role as character and inability to interpret and reflect on events and his role as narrator to be reflective. Solomon portrays the narrator of part I as “another Meursault,” which would enhance and highlight Meursault’s indifference and make it easily apparent for a reader, who wasn’t aware of “another Meursault” as the narrator. Another relevance of Solomon’s argument involves how the “gaps in narration” allow a reader to consider the possibility that these gaps are created by the effect of a pre-reflective character of Meursault as the reflective narrator. Even though these gaps may be what initially drives a reader to consider Meursault as indifferent, Solomon’s view on the gaps in the narration allow the reader to contemplate and analyze these gaps as the results from the complications between roles and the crossing of paths of the two Meursaults.
He Has No Heart
Schofer, Peter. "The Rhetoric of the Text: Casualty, Metaphor, and Irony." Modern Critical Interpretations: Albert Camus's The Stranger. (2001): 127-137. Print.
Peter Schofer argues that there is a series of casual links that show that Meursault is incapable of supplying in his narrative and which leads us to seeing his act as “absurd”, yet Meursault is quite capable of observing, understanding, and inferring causes. Schofer explains that Meursault gives an accumulation of material causes for his actions that almost acts as a sort of overkill to suppress any thinking and any introspection. This relative absence of casual links is intimately tied to the narrative style, where Meursault provides sequences of events but no casual links about his personal feelings. Schofer demonstrates that in most of the text, we are given a series of observations and actions without motivations. Therefore, the scene of the murder is not at all exceptional except that it is a murder, not a narrative of everyday events. Schofer argues that Meursault’s inability to grieve indicates that he has no heart, thus explaining his crime. In other words, a lack of heart leads to the insensitivity toward his mother and towards the murder victim.
Peter Schofer demonstrates Meursault’s use of casual links throughout his narration to tie events together, without showing any kind of emotions towards them. If Meursault does give an excuse for any of his actions, then it is a shallow excuse that blocks him from having to deeply think and to show any emotions or feelings. For example, when Meursault is on the bus on the way to his mother’s funeral, rather than thinking of his dead mother, he falls asleep, and says that “it was probably because of all the rushing around, and on top of that the bumpy ride, the smell of gasoline, and the glare of the sky and the road, that I dozed off.” Schofer’s argument about not providing any personal feelings demonstrates Meursault’s indifference towards the world. Many critics have come up with in-depth reasons why Meursault has this indifferent personality, but Schofer simply says that it “indicates that he has no heart.” This point of view is important to consider, because it is blunt and obvious, and it is also one of the first impressions that may come to a readers head before further researching and analyzing Meursault’s personality and behavior.
Peter Schofer argues that there is a series of casual links that show that Meursault is incapable of supplying in his narrative and which leads us to seeing his act as “absurd”, yet Meursault is quite capable of observing, understanding, and inferring causes. Schofer explains that Meursault gives an accumulation of material causes for his actions that almost acts as a sort of overkill to suppress any thinking and any introspection. This relative absence of casual links is intimately tied to the narrative style, where Meursault provides sequences of events but no casual links about his personal feelings. Schofer demonstrates that in most of the text, we are given a series of observations and actions without motivations. Therefore, the scene of the murder is not at all exceptional except that it is a murder, not a narrative of everyday events. Schofer argues that Meursault’s inability to grieve indicates that he has no heart, thus explaining his crime. In other words, a lack of heart leads to the insensitivity toward his mother and towards the murder victim.
Peter Schofer demonstrates Meursault’s use of casual links throughout his narration to tie events together, without showing any kind of emotions towards them. If Meursault does give an excuse for any of his actions, then it is a shallow excuse that blocks him from having to deeply think and to show any emotions or feelings. For example, when Meursault is on the bus on the way to his mother’s funeral, rather than thinking of his dead mother, he falls asleep, and says that “it was probably because of all the rushing around, and on top of that the bumpy ride, the smell of gasoline, and the glare of the sky and the road, that I dozed off.” Schofer’s argument about not providing any personal feelings demonstrates Meursault’s indifference towards the world. Many critics have come up with in-depth reasons why Meursault has this indifferent personality, but Schofer simply says that it “indicates that he has no heart.” This point of view is important to consider, because it is blunt and obvious, and it is also one of the first impressions that may come to a readers head before further researching and analyzing Meursault’s personality and behavior.
The Passionless Man
Rhein, Phillip H. Albert Camus. Revised Edition. New York, NY: Twayne Publishers, 1989. 19-26. Print.
Rhein argues that the popularity of L’Etranger comes from the fact that most young people in a predominately bourgeois, moralistic society experience essentially the same problems as Meursault. Because Meursault’s story is related in 1st person, it reaches out to the youth, because it is usually only young people who openly defy the rules of life dictated by society. Rhein states that as we get to know Meursault’s character, we are “tempted to see him as irresponsible and antisocial”, which leads us to believe that he is completely indifferent to everything except physical sensations. In the novel, Meursault comes off as an impassionate human being, but Rhein argues that he is far from being totally deprived of passion, “for it is his passion that leads him to his decision to be honest to himself and to base his life on the truth of being and feeling” (Rhein 20). Rhein’s analysis of the book’s purpose is that is it a novel of development in which Meursault, the protagonist, goes through the agonizing experience of moving from a basic indifference toward life to a conscious realization that the infinite value of life lies in the very finiteness of its nature. As a consequence of Meursault’s failure to accept any philosophical reasoning behind existence leads him to recognize the absurdity of life. Rhein argues that Camus believes all actions are not equal, and they can be judged without applying the sources behind human experience. Therefore, in his portrayal of Meursault, Camus implies that we cannot live happily or productively if all events are thought to be morally equivalent.
The willingness to relate with Meursault’s apparent indifference cannot be deciphered until discovering what his indifference is, and where it comes from. Rhein’s point of view provides a deeper understanding for the passivity that Meursault comes off to be. This point of view brings light to the fact that Meursault may actually be the opposite of what he comes off to be. He appears to be a human being that cares about nothing, and has no feelings towards anything, but Rhein’s argument brings up the possibility that the reason Meursault comes off as passionless or nonchalant towards the world may be because he holds too much devotion to staying true to his own being and feeling. This devotion he has towards himself is hidden by his surface image, making Meursault seem as if he dispossesses any passion at all. The reader must read between the lines to discover why Meursault comes off as indifferent, why he carries out the actions he does, and what leads him to the conclusion that life is absurd. Rhein’s point of view is an excellent contribution to consider, because rather than displaying Meursault’s “apparent indifference”, Rhein demonstrates why he comes off in this manner, which may help readers relate more or less to the character and narrator of Meursault.
Rhein argues that the popularity of L’Etranger comes from the fact that most young people in a predominately bourgeois, moralistic society experience essentially the same problems as Meursault. Because Meursault’s story is related in 1st person, it reaches out to the youth, because it is usually only young people who openly defy the rules of life dictated by society. Rhein states that as we get to know Meursault’s character, we are “tempted to see him as irresponsible and antisocial”, which leads us to believe that he is completely indifferent to everything except physical sensations. In the novel, Meursault comes off as an impassionate human being, but Rhein argues that he is far from being totally deprived of passion, “for it is his passion that leads him to his decision to be honest to himself and to base his life on the truth of being and feeling” (Rhein 20). Rhein’s analysis of the book’s purpose is that is it a novel of development in which Meursault, the protagonist, goes through the agonizing experience of moving from a basic indifference toward life to a conscious realization that the infinite value of life lies in the very finiteness of its nature. As a consequence of Meursault’s failure to accept any philosophical reasoning behind existence leads him to recognize the absurdity of life. Rhein argues that Camus believes all actions are not equal, and they can be judged without applying the sources behind human experience. Therefore, in his portrayal of Meursault, Camus implies that we cannot live happily or productively if all events are thought to be morally equivalent.
The willingness to relate with Meursault’s apparent indifference cannot be deciphered until discovering what his indifference is, and where it comes from. Rhein’s point of view provides a deeper understanding for the passivity that Meursault comes off to be. This point of view brings light to the fact that Meursault may actually be the opposite of what he comes off to be. He appears to be a human being that cares about nothing, and has no feelings towards anything, but Rhein’s argument brings up the possibility that the reason Meursault comes off as passionless or nonchalant towards the world may be because he holds too much devotion to staying true to his own being and feeling. This devotion he has towards himself is hidden by his surface image, making Meursault seem as if he dispossesses any passion at all. The reader must read between the lines to discover why Meursault comes off as indifferent, why he carries out the actions he does, and what leads him to the conclusion that life is absurd. Rhein’s point of view is an excellent contribution to consider, because rather than displaying Meursault’s “apparent indifference”, Rhein demonstrates why he comes off in this manner, which may help readers relate more or less to the character and narrator of Meursault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)