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 Distortions in Narration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Distortions in Narration. 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.
Meursault as Two Different Narrators
McCarthy, Patrick. Albert Camus, The Stranger. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Print.
Patrick McCarthy analyzes the issue of language and narration in Albert Camus’s The Stranger. His point of view involves the two different languages that are given in the beginning as the narrator. In this argument, McCarthy poses two different narrators portrayed as the same character: one being an unidentified “I,” who reads the telegram, and the other being the narrator-character, who obeys the commands, like mourning the loss of a mother. One of McCarthy‘s views is that the narrator-reader of the telegram “does not accept the telegram’s authority without criticism because ‘it doesn’t mean anything,’” the narrator-reader stated. He believes “that by depicting the narrator as a reader, The Stranger is indicating to us, its own readers, how we should tackle it: we should be wary of the traps and commands it contains” (15). He also believes that the narrator’s own language provides its own inadequacy by the use of first-person phrases like “I don’t know” and “perhaps.” McCarthy stresses the inability for the reader to identify with Meursault and feel for him “the imaginative sympathy that a reader feels for a traditional hero” (29). McCarthy believes that the way The Stranger is narrated “leads to further hesitation on the reader’s part” and criticizes the traditional novel, where the reader is lead to identify with the hero (28).
McCarthy suggests that the two narrators as the same character create and magnify Meursault’s apparent indifference. This argument addresses the contradictions and confusions that result from two narrators as one character within the narration, which in fact causes Meursault to appear indifferent. McCarthy’s standpoint about the narrator-reader not accepting the authority of the telegram while the narrator-character obeys the commands and necessary duties of the telegram indicates more possibilities of frustration for a reader who is unaware of the two narrators posing as one character. Also, McCarthy’s standpoint can help a reader distinguish between the contradictions and confusions within the narration and suggest possible reasons for a reader’s difficulty and skepticism in relating and understanding Meursault. McCarthy’s idea of the narrator-reader presents issues to a reader about the ethics of reading. This concept indicates some of the potential limitations that can be placed on a reader’s ability to experience the text when the narrator indicates how the novel should be read. Thus, a reader may lead to question the authority of the narrator and think about how the novel may have been limited to only the narrator-reader’s perspective. These questions may cause a reader to analyze and consider the possible experiences and interpretations that were left out of this perspective.
Patrick McCarthy analyzes the issue of language and narration in Albert Camus’s The Stranger. His point of view involves the two different languages that are given in the beginning as the narrator. In this argument, McCarthy poses two different narrators portrayed as the same character: one being an unidentified “I,” who reads the telegram, and the other being the narrator-character, who obeys the commands, like mourning the loss of a mother. One of McCarthy‘s views is that the narrator-reader of the telegram “does not accept the telegram’s authority without criticism because ‘it doesn’t mean anything,’” the narrator-reader stated. He believes “that by depicting the narrator as a reader, The Stranger is indicating to us, its own readers, how we should tackle it: we should be wary of the traps and commands it contains” (15). He also believes that the narrator’s own language provides its own inadequacy by the use of first-person phrases like “I don’t know” and “perhaps.” McCarthy stresses the inability for the reader to identify with Meursault and feel for him “the imaginative sympathy that a reader feels for a traditional hero” (29). McCarthy believes that the way The Stranger is narrated “leads to further hesitation on the reader’s part” and criticizes the traditional novel, where the reader is lead to identify with the hero (28).
McCarthy suggests that the two narrators as the same character create and magnify Meursault’s apparent indifference. This argument addresses the contradictions and confusions that result from two narrators as one character within the narration, which in fact causes Meursault to appear indifferent. McCarthy’s standpoint about the narrator-reader not accepting the authority of the telegram while the narrator-character obeys the commands and necessary duties of the telegram indicates more possibilities of frustration for a reader who is unaware of the two narrators posing as one character. Also, McCarthy’s standpoint can help a reader distinguish between the contradictions and confusions within the narration and suggest possible reasons for a reader’s difficulty and skepticism in relating and understanding Meursault. McCarthy’s idea of the narrator-reader presents issues to a reader about the ethics of reading. This concept indicates some of the potential limitations that can be placed on a reader’s ability to experience the text when the narrator indicates how the novel should be read. Thus, a reader may lead to question the authority of the narrator and think about how the novel may have been limited to only the narrator-reader’s perspective. These questions may cause a reader to analyze and consider the possible experiences and interpretations that were left out of this perspective.
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.
Meursault's Passivity: A Warning to Readers
Bree, Germaine. "Meursault's Passivity Leads to His Death." Readings on The Stranger. (2001): 152-155. Print.
Germaine Bree argues that Meursault is displayed as a character who does not question any aspect of his own existence, which is the reason why Meursault murders the Arab and eventually leads to his own death. Bree believes that Meursault “serves as a warning to the reader not to simply exist passively and risk making the same sort of mistake” (Bree 152). The way Meursault “acts in a human situation as though human relationships, and therefore responsibilities, do not exist” leads Meursault to commit the actions his does, which results in the court condemning him to death (Bree 152). At Meursault’s trial, the prosecution and defense present all the unrelated events that occurred between his mother’s death and the murder as a basis of their interpretation of Meursault’s personality. Therefore, Meursault feels as if he is being condemned to death for not crying at his mother’s funeral, instead of being condemned for the actual murder he committed. Meursault is in bewildered surprise and sees no connection between any past events and the murder. Bree states that because of the 1st person narration, we see through Meursault’s eyes, and “we are almost in complete agreement with him” (Bree 153). Camus uses his hero (Meursault) to open the reader’s eyes in order to leave our comfort zone and to deride our smugness. Bree argues that Camus uses Meursault to “suggest that in the face of the absurd no man can afford passively just to exist” (Bree 155).
Bree’s argument explains that Camus displays Meursault to bear a passive attitude in order to convince readers not to follow in his footsteps, and to not live life the way Meursault does. Bree’s point of view suggests that the goal behind this novel is not whether or not to side with Meursault, it is to fully comprehend the extent of the situation Meursault got himself into as a consequence of his passive behavior. Although, in order for the reader to be fully capable of understanding the situation, an understanding of the existing indifference must be made. Bree’s point of view demonstrates that because of the fact that the story is told in 1st person, through Meursault’s eyes, readers instinctively find themselves in agreement with him. This agreement with Meursault is what leads readers to whether or not they find a relation to his indifference. Once the relation is determined, Bree argues that the purpose of Camus’s display of Meursault through 1st person narration will be discovered. Bree’s point of view contributes ideas to consider, because it explains reasons why Camus created the character of Meursault to act indifferent to society, which may help the reader when it comes to identifying or not with the personality of Meursault.
Germaine Bree argues that Meursault is displayed as a character who does not question any aspect of his own existence, which is the reason why Meursault murders the Arab and eventually leads to his own death. Bree believes that Meursault “serves as a warning to the reader not to simply exist passively and risk making the same sort of mistake” (Bree 152). The way Meursault “acts in a human situation as though human relationships, and therefore responsibilities, do not exist” leads Meursault to commit the actions his does, which results in the court condemning him to death (Bree 152). At Meursault’s trial, the prosecution and defense present all the unrelated events that occurred between his mother’s death and the murder as a basis of their interpretation of Meursault’s personality. Therefore, Meursault feels as if he is being condemned to death for not crying at his mother’s funeral, instead of being condemned for the actual murder he committed. Meursault is in bewildered surprise and sees no connection between any past events and the murder. Bree states that because of the 1st person narration, we see through Meursault’s eyes, and “we are almost in complete agreement with him” (Bree 153). Camus uses his hero (Meursault) to open the reader’s eyes in order to leave our comfort zone and to deride our smugness. Bree argues that Camus uses Meursault to “suggest that in the face of the absurd no man can afford passively just to exist” (Bree 155).
Bree’s argument explains that Camus displays Meursault to bear a passive attitude in order to convince readers not to follow in his footsteps, and to not live life the way Meursault does. Bree’s point of view suggests that the goal behind this novel is not whether or not to side with Meursault, it is to fully comprehend the extent of the situation Meursault got himself into as a consequence of his passive behavior. Although, in order for the reader to be fully capable of understanding the situation, an understanding of the existing indifference must be made. Bree’s point of view demonstrates that because of the fact that the story is told in 1st person, through Meursault’s eyes, readers instinctively find themselves in agreement with him. This agreement with Meursault is what leads readers to whether or not they find a relation to his indifference. Once the relation is determined, Bree argues that the purpose of Camus’s display of Meursault through 1st person narration will be discovered. Bree’s point of view contributes ideas to consider, because it explains reasons why Camus created the character of Meursault to act indifferent to society, which may help the reader when it comes to identifying or not with the personality of Meursault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)