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.
Showing posts with label Meaning behind Indifference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Meaning behind Indifference. Show all posts
Friday, December 3, 2010
The Meaninglessness of Justification
Amoia, Alba. "Indifference as the Guiding Principle of The Stranger." Readings on
The Stranger. (2001): 52-60. Print.
Alba Amoia describes Meursault by saying, “he lives in his own private world, indifferent to the opinions of others, without regard for social mechanisms” (Amoia 52). Amoia argues that Camus uses the character, and 1st person narration, of Meursault as a symbol that expresses “the meaninglessness of the values that govern life in the pre-WWII world”, and that Meursault’s display of indifference expresses Camus’s “lack of faith in concepts such as justice or perhaps even truth” (Amoia 52). In addition, Amoia argues that “the principal leitmotiv throughout the novel is ‘it’s not important’. Nothing is important except what Meursault himself, in his aberrancy, considers meaningful” (Amoia 53). Amoia discusses the beginning of the novel, when Meursault goes to his mother’s geriatric home for her funeral, and instead of following the tradition of staying awake and keeping watch over his dead mother all night, Meursault dozes off. Amoia states that Meursault’s actions and attitude during this scene make it seem as if his dead mother was of no importance to him. Amoia argues that Camus uses the 1st person narrator of Meursault in order to say that “contemporary man feels himself to be in an absurd situation because, even while he seeks value and justification for his existence, he discovers that society and events defeat his purpose” (Amoia 59). He then claims, however, that the significance of Meursault’s experience is something that each reader must determine from an individual perspective.
Alba Amoia’s point of view demonstrates a deeper understanding to why Camus uses 1st person narration, and why he displays Meursault as an unconcerned, uncaring human being. Amoia’s explanation of Meursault’s behavior suggests that it reflects Camus’s views on justice and truth. Amoia’s point of view argues that Camus feels as if there is no point in man justifying himself to society, because society will always view man based on their own justification or opinion, therefore a reader determines their own explanation for Meursault’s experience based on their individual perspective. This point of view explains that Meursault is, in fact, indifferent, and the reasoning behind his attitude comes from Camus’s deficiency of the same values the world has when it comes to justification. Amoia’s argument brings up points that may make it easier for readers to fully understand the reasoning behind Meursault’s indifferent attitude, which can change the extent to which a reader is able to relate to Meursault as a character and narrator.
The Stranger. (2001): 52-60. Print.
Alba Amoia describes Meursault by saying, “he lives in his own private world, indifferent to the opinions of others, without regard for social mechanisms” (Amoia 52). Amoia argues that Camus uses the character, and 1st person narration, of Meursault as a symbol that expresses “the meaninglessness of the values that govern life in the pre-WWII world”, and that Meursault’s display of indifference expresses Camus’s “lack of faith in concepts such as justice or perhaps even truth” (Amoia 52). In addition, Amoia argues that “the principal leitmotiv throughout the novel is ‘it’s not important’. Nothing is important except what Meursault himself, in his aberrancy, considers meaningful” (Amoia 53). Amoia discusses the beginning of the novel, when Meursault goes to his mother’s geriatric home for her funeral, and instead of following the tradition of staying awake and keeping watch over his dead mother all night, Meursault dozes off. Amoia states that Meursault’s actions and attitude during this scene make it seem as if his dead mother was of no importance to him. Amoia argues that Camus uses the 1st person narrator of Meursault in order to say that “contemporary man feels himself to be in an absurd situation because, even while he seeks value and justification for his existence, he discovers that society and events defeat his purpose” (Amoia 59). He then claims, however, that the significance of Meursault’s experience is something that each reader must determine from an individual perspective.
Alba Amoia’s point of view demonstrates a deeper understanding to why Camus uses 1st person narration, and why he displays Meursault as an unconcerned, uncaring human being. Amoia’s explanation of Meursault’s behavior suggests that it reflects Camus’s views on justice and truth. Amoia’s point of view argues that Camus feels as if there is no point in man justifying himself to society, because society will always view man based on their own justification or opinion, therefore a reader determines their own explanation for Meursault’s experience based on their individual perspective. This point of view explains that Meursault is, in fact, indifferent, and the reasoning behind his attitude comes from Camus’s deficiency of the same values the world has when it comes to justification. Amoia’s argument brings up points that may make it easier for readers to fully understand the reasoning behind Meursault’s indifferent attitude, which can change the extent to which a reader is able to relate to Meursault as a character and narrator.
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.
Indifference is the Ataraxy of the Sage
Champigny, Robert. "Ethics and Aesthetics in The Stranger." Modern Critical Interpretations: Albert Camus's The Stranger. (2001): 47-56. Print.
Robert Champigny demonstrates how The Stranger is told in the first person and this first person is not limited to the introduction of the events, because the narrator is also a commentator. Meursault, as a narrator, affirms his presence outside and above the human character caught in the flow of events. Champigny argues that Meursault “neutralizes the sum of events” and eliminates himself of the “’evil’, that is to say, of the temptation of pseudo-values” (55). Meursault associates a closeness between his outlook and the indifference of the universe, which results in a personal indifferent outlook on life. Champigny explains that Meursault’s “indifference is the ataraxy of the sage”, which lacks, but permits, the penetration of tenderness (55). According to Champigny, this tenderness, as well as this indifference, characterizes the tone of the narration. Champigny argues that a person does not have to imagine his or her own life in order to experience it, but when it comes to subject matter, in this case being Meursault, it has to be imagined to gain the full experience.
Champigny’s point of view allows a connection to be seen between the narration and the indifference of Meursault. Champigny explains that throughout Meursault’s narration, even when merely describing events, he consistently neutralizes events, which make the events, and himself, come off as indifferent. Champigny argues that Meursault’s “indifference is the ataraxy of the sage”, meaning his indifference provides a tranquil state of mind for knowledgeable reader. This statement is something important to consider when determining the ability and extent to which one’s mind may be able to form a connection to the narrator. A reader may not actually be “relating” to Meursault’s indifference, but they may be able to identify with his indifference because of the tranquil state of mind it provides. Champigny’s argument also suggests that Meursault’s indifference causes the reader’s mind not to contain or allow the infiltration of compassion. Readers must be able to grasp this indifference in their imagination in order to gain the full experience of the story. All things considered, Champigny’s point of view is something worth considering, because he demonstrates why Meursault’s indifference is necessary.
Robert Champigny demonstrates how The Stranger is told in the first person and this first person is not limited to the introduction of the events, because the narrator is also a commentator. Meursault, as a narrator, affirms his presence outside and above the human character caught in the flow of events. Champigny argues that Meursault “neutralizes the sum of events” and eliminates himself of the “’evil’, that is to say, of the temptation of pseudo-values” (55). Meursault associates a closeness between his outlook and the indifference of the universe, which results in a personal indifferent outlook on life. Champigny explains that Meursault’s “indifference is the ataraxy of the sage”, which lacks, but permits, the penetration of tenderness (55). According to Champigny, this tenderness, as well as this indifference, characterizes the tone of the narration. Champigny argues that a person does not have to imagine his or her own life in order to experience it, but when it comes to subject matter, in this case being Meursault, it has to be imagined to gain the full experience.
Champigny’s point of view allows a connection to be seen between the narration and the indifference of Meursault. Champigny explains that throughout Meursault’s narration, even when merely describing events, he consistently neutralizes events, which make the events, and himself, come off as indifferent. Champigny argues that Meursault’s “indifference is the ataraxy of the sage”, meaning his indifference provides a tranquil state of mind for knowledgeable reader. This statement is something important to consider when determining the ability and extent to which one’s mind may be able to form a connection to the narrator. A reader may not actually be “relating” to Meursault’s indifference, but they may be able to identify with his indifference because of the tranquil state of mind it provides. Champigny’s argument also suggests that Meursault’s indifference causes the reader’s mind not to contain or allow the infiltration of compassion. Readers must be able to grasp this indifference in their imagination in order to gain the full experience of the story. All things considered, Champigny’s point of view is something worth considering, because he demonstrates why Meursault’s indifference is necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)