Ian "Marvin" Graye's Reviews > The Stranger
The Stranger
by
by
If You Exist
"The Stranger" dramatises the issues at the heart of existentialism.
The same issues are probably at the heart of life, whether or not you believe in a god.
Being Judged
It's interesting that there has been a crime and now Meursault is being "judged".
The judgement is symbolic not only of the justice system, but of God's judgement of humanity.
Defending Yourself
You would normally expect the defendant to assert their innocence or plead not guilty in the criminal justice system (cue Law and Order theme song).
Both options require the defendant to take a positive step, only they differ in degree.
To assert your "innocence" is to positively state that "I didn't do it".
A plea of "not guilty" would place an onus on the prosecutor to prove the defendant's guilt (although there are significant differences between the French system of justice and that of the UK/USA/Canada/Australia/etc).
To plead not guilty can mean a number of things.
It could mean that "I did actually do it", but you, the prosecutor, have to prove to the Judge or Court that I did it.
It could mean that "I did actually do it", but I have a defence or justification that means it is not a punishable crime (e.g., self-defence or provocation).
Asking Forgiveness
This process is partly analogous to the situation when a Christian dies and meets their God.
If they have sinned, you would expect them to ask forgiveness.
Having been forgiven, they would expect to go to Heaven.
Not Defending Yourself
One of the dilemmas of "The Stranger" is that morally and legally there might be issues that Meursault could put to the Judge that would excuse his action and allow the Judge to find him not guilty.
He could then go "free".
He could have argued that his action was self-defence or the result of provocation.
He could have "got off", if he had taken a positive step on his own behalf. However, he fails to take the step.
If he was a Christian (i.e., if he believed in God), he might have wanted to prolong his life on Earth.
His life would have had some meaning and he would have wanted more of it.
Similarly, if he was a Christian, he would have been motivated to seek eternal life in Heaven.
So he would have taken the positive step.
What's the Point?
Instead, against all expectation, he doesn't defend himself. We are left to wonder why.
We have to assume that Meursault effectively asked the questions of himself, "What is the point? Why should I bother?"
And we have to assume that he answered the questions, "There is no point".
Achieving Your Own Mortality
There was no point in prolonging his life and, not believing in Heaven, there was no point in seeking eternal life.
He had lived a life (however long or short, however good or bad, however satisfying or unsatisfying) and it didn't really matter that his life might come to an end.
The point is that, sooner or later, all life must come to an end.
By failing to take a "positive" step on his own behalf, he effectively collaborated in and achieved his own mortality. He existed while he was alive, he would have ceased to exist when he was executed.
If he wasn't executed, he would have died sooner or later.
Ultimately, he "enjoyed" his life while he had it, he didn't care enough to prolong it and he accepted the inevitability of his own death.
Is Despair the Explanation?
This doesn't necessarily mean that he embraced despair as a way of life (or death).
In a way, he accepted responsibility for his own actions during life and he accepted responsibility for the inevitability of his own death as well.
Ultimately, this is why "The Stranger" and Existentialism are so confronting to Christianity and Western Civilisation. It makes us ask the question "what is the point?" and it permits an answer that "there is no point".
Responsibility
This doesn't mean that life is meaningless and everybody else should live their lives in despair. Quite the opposite.
We should inject our own meaning into our own lives. We are responsible for our own fulfilment.
Life is short and we should just get on with it. (Or as a friend of mine says, everybody is responsible for their own orgasm.)
Such is life.
"The Stranger" dramatises the issues at the heart of existentialism.
The same issues are probably at the heart of life, whether or not you believe in a god.
Being Judged
It's interesting that there has been a crime and now Meursault is being "judged".
The judgement is symbolic not only of the justice system, but of God's judgement of humanity.
Defending Yourself
You would normally expect the defendant to assert their innocence or plead not guilty in the criminal justice system (cue Law and Order theme song).
Both options require the defendant to take a positive step, only they differ in degree.
To assert your "innocence" is to positively state that "I didn't do it".
A plea of "not guilty" would place an onus on the prosecutor to prove the defendant's guilt (although there are significant differences between the French system of justice and that of the UK/USA/Canada/Australia/etc).
To plead not guilty can mean a number of things.
It could mean that "I did actually do it", but you, the prosecutor, have to prove to the Judge or Court that I did it.
It could mean that "I did actually do it", but I have a defence or justification that means it is not a punishable crime (e.g., self-defence or provocation).
Asking Forgiveness
This process is partly analogous to the situation when a Christian dies and meets their God.
If they have sinned, you would expect them to ask forgiveness.
Having been forgiven, they would expect to go to Heaven.
Not Defending Yourself
One of the dilemmas of "The Stranger" is that morally and legally there might be issues that Meursault could put to the Judge that would excuse his action and allow the Judge to find him not guilty.
He could then go "free".
He could have argued that his action was self-defence or the result of provocation.
He could have "got off", if he had taken a positive step on his own behalf. However, he fails to take the step.
If he was a Christian (i.e., if he believed in God), he might have wanted to prolong his life on Earth.
His life would have had some meaning and he would have wanted more of it.
Similarly, if he was a Christian, he would have been motivated to seek eternal life in Heaven.
So he would have taken the positive step.
What's the Point?
Instead, against all expectation, he doesn't defend himself. We are left to wonder why.
We have to assume that Meursault effectively asked the questions of himself, "What is the point? Why should I bother?"
And we have to assume that he answered the questions, "There is no point".
Achieving Your Own Mortality
There was no point in prolonging his life and, not believing in Heaven, there was no point in seeking eternal life.
He had lived a life (however long or short, however good or bad, however satisfying or unsatisfying) and it didn't really matter that his life might come to an end.
The point is that, sooner or later, all life must come to an end.
By failing to take a "positive" step on his own behalf, he effectively collaborated in and achieved his own mortality. He existed while he was alive, he would have ceased to exist when he was executed.
If he wasn't executed, he would have died sooner or later.
Ultimately, he "enjoyed" his life while he had it, he didn't care enough to prolong it and he accepted the inevitability of his own death.
Is Despair the Explanation?
This doesn't necessarily mean that he embraced despair as a way of life (or death).
In a way, he accepted responsibility for his own actions during life and he accepted responsibility for the inevitability of his own death as well.
Ultimately, this is why "The Stranger" and Existentialism are so confronting to Christianity and Western Civilisation. It makes us ask the question "what is the point?" and it permits an answer that "there is no point".
Responsibility
This doesn't mean that life is meaningless and everybody else should live their lives in despair. Quite the opposite.
We should inject our own meaning into our own lives. We are responsible for our own fulfilment.
Life is short and we should just get on with it. (Or as a friend of mine says, everybody is responsible for their own orgasm.)
Such is life.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Stranger.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 1-48 of 48 (48 new)
date
newest »
message 1:
by
Praj
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Apr 14, 2011 05:42AM
I wonder how the attainment of one’s mortality justifies in cases of suicide and terrorist procedures. The former that deems the non-existence of GOD and the failure to make life beautiful and the latter erected on falsified foundations of eternity in paradise.
reply
|
flag
Could there possibly be justification on the dead individual's part or would that be done by the survivors who were in the person's life?
I can understand suicide but it doesn't seem for me; however, I'm willing to admit I've never been pushed to my limits of sanity. I too believe in focusing on the beauty of life. Beauty may be out of reach for some individuals?
I can understand suicide but it doesn't seem for me; however, I'm willing to admit I've never been pushed to my limits of sanity. I too believe in focusing on the beauty of life. Beauty may be out of reach for some individuals?
These are all important questions.
Part of what I wanted to say under the last heading was that we are responsible for our own fulfilment and (the creation and perception of) our own beauty in life.
Mersault had reached a point where he didn't think it was worth going on any further.
However, that was a personal decision of his, at that time of his life.
And at that point, it might even have been a rational decision, not an insane one.
Suicide motivated by despair presumably means that the individual has given up hope that they can experience the beauty of life.
Or as Randy identifies, they might be insane.
But Western law and possibly medicine tends to assume that nobody would make a decision to suicide if they were genuinely sane and rational.
In other words, it is not rational to participate in my own mortality.
This is part of the problem with getting acceptance of euthanasia.
The State reverts to paternalism about the ending of your own life.
It's interesting that the concept of suicide as a mortal sin in the Catholic Church was only introduced, when so many people started committing suicide in order to escape an intolerable life on Earth.
For them, suicide had become a highly rational act.
They had made the prospect of Heaven too attractive compared with real life.
The reward for terrorism is an ideological extension of this "make it attractive" argument.
Make the reward of Heaven attractive enough and people (men only? do women get promised virgin men as well?) will embark on the act of terrorism that earns the reward.
Praj's phrase "falsified foundations of eternity in paradise" describes the whole idea of Heaven really well, whether or not it's the reward for terrorism.
In one case, the argument is: do good and you will enjoy eternity in paradise.
In the other, from the point of view of non-terrorists, it's: do bad and you will enjoy eternity in paradise.
If you look at suicide in the case of euthanasia, I think it does help the survivors in the person's life to know the justification of the suicide was a considered and deliberate act, that they had decided not to prolong a meaningless and painful life, just because medical science could keep them breathing.
In this sense, it allows the person to embrace their own mortality and their death with the same sense of peace and contentment that they previously embraced life and beauty.
But part of what I was saying is that, personally, I think it's important to embrace life and beauty while we can.
Existentialism isn't all about death, it's about life as well.
The best we can achieve with the energy invested by nature in our body is to be vital.
Do something with it.
Part of what I wanted to say under the last heading was that we are responsible for our own fulfilment and (the creation and perception of) our own beauty in life.
Mersault had reached a point where he didn't think it was worth going on any further.
However, that was a personal decision of his, at that time of his life.
And at that point, it might even have been a rational decision, not an insane one.
Suicide motivated by despair presumably means that the individual has given up hope that they can experience the beauty of life.
Or as Randy identifies, they might be insane.
But Western law and possibly medicine tends to assume that nobody would make a decision to suicide if they were genuinely sane and rational.
In other words, it is not rational to participate in my own mortality.
This is part of the problem with getting acceptance of euthanasia.
The State reverts to paternalism about the ending of your own life.
It's interesting that the concept of suicide as a mortal sin in the Catholic Church was only introduced, when so many people started committing suicide in order to escape an intolerable life on Earth.
For them, suicide had become a highly rational act.
They had made the prospect of Heaven too attractive compared with real life.
The reward for terrorism is an ideological extension of this "make it attractive" argument.
Make the reward of Heaven attractive enough and people (men only? do women get promised virgin men as well?) will embark on the act of terrorism that earns the reward.
Praj's phrase "falsified foundations of eternity in paradise" describes the whole idea of Heaven really well, whether or not it's the reward for terrorism.
In one case, the argument is: do good and you will enjoy eternity in paradise.
In the other, from the point of view of non-terrorists, it's: do bad and you will enjoy eternity in paradise.
If you look at suicide in the case of euthanasia, I think it does help the survivors in the person's life to know the justification of the suicide was a considered and deliberate act, that they had decided not to prolong a meaningless and painful life, just because medical science could keep them breathing.
In this sense, it allows the person to embrace their own mortality and their death with the same sense of peace and contentment that they previously embraced life and beauty.
But part of what I was saying is that, personally, I think it's important to embrace life and beauty while we can.
Existentialism isn't all about death, it's about life as well.
The best we can achieve with the energy invested by nature in our body is to be vital.
Do something with it.
Praj wrote: "Existentialism Is a Humanism
What would be your thoughts on this article?"
Thanks for mentioning this article, Praj.
I am 99% certain I read it in the late seventies.
I probably adopted it as a personal manifesto back then and consciously lived by it, until I started to live sub-consciously by it.
So I probably forgot the source of my beliefs.
I hope I don't sound like I have plagiarised Sartre in the way I wrote about The Stranger.
Sartre's article reads like poetry of the mind and the soul.
What would be your thoughts on this article?"
Thanks for mentioning this article, Praj.
I am 99% certain I read it in the late seventies.
I probably adopted it as a personal manifesto back then and consciously lived by it, until I started to live sub-consciously by it.
So I probably forgot the source of my beliefs.
I hope I don't sound like I have plagiarised Sartre in the way I wrote about The Stranger.
Sartre's article reads like poetry of the mind and the soul.
read this for the first time years ago during my French A'level studies and a few times since. It has been echoing in the background for a while now and I have been thinking of reading it. Maybe I should. great review Ian, thanks
read this in highschool, it left me with many questions that you seemed to have actually answered (well not so much answered but helped me to question it even better!) Man what's the point of me even saying all of this? Haha, I enjoyed your review, it gives the book the light it deserves!
Ian, I had no idea that you had read this book. I came across your review purely by chance.
I read Camus as part of my French degree at uni and so I'm intrigued to see how it translates into English.
It's a pity that I'm not the 100th "like" instead of the 99th!
I read Camus as part of my French degree at uni and so I'm intrigued to see how it translates into English.
It's a pity that I'm not the 100th "like" instead of the 99th!
I’ve read this once and thought about it many times more but have never been able to make up my mind on how to rate it or what to make of it – I find Camus’ nonfiction much more accessible to this text, and Beckett a lot more easy than this. I’ll need a re-read – but your review does make a lot of sense, so I hope this time around I’ll know what I feel about the text. A very well thought out review. Glad I read it.
Thanks, LB. I read "The Rebel" about the same time I first read "The Stranger". I recently bought it again, and almost couldn't stop reading it in the bookshop. Do you know how articles in lifestyle magazines really want to give your succinct guidance, but dress it up as Mary and John stories. I hate that. I just want the distillation. This is like Camus' fiction versus his essays. I wish that he had lived.
Fiction confers immortality on [some] authors. There must be some authors who cannot be disinterred.
An opinion: Albert Camus is also to be placed in the context of his time (the world war and the unspeakable human misery) when one reads his book. Man had no meaning. Nothing or no promise could offer him/her anything to hold on to. Everything that man thought gave meaning to his life seemed to give no answer in the background of cruel wars. Life as a project was a failure. This was the philosophy of Sartre. And Albert Camus narrated it in a very powerful art form - a short novel.
P.S. A dangerous book for the one who is upset with life.
P.S. A dangerous book for the one who is upset with life.
Good point, Dhanaraj. However, I'd argue that this was a time of the greatest demand for meaning and action. The best example is the French Resistance. Hence, the concept of "engagement", which I think is fundamental to existentialism. You still "do" things in order to survive and be fulfilled.
You are doomed to be free. And in freedom when you act you are held responsible. There is no escape. - A summery of Sartre.
Sartre saw the human act as the result of freedom that he is endowed with. And that act leads no where or it leads to no meaning. That is the point brought out by Camus in the novel when Meursault kills a person for no reason. He acts for he has to act and that emerges from his freedom. But then he is held responsible for it and is put behind the bars. There also nothing gives meaning to his life. That is the reason Sartre was always placed in the 'school of the negative existentialism.'
"You still "do" things in order to survive and be fulfilled." - According to Sartre, you "do" but apparently that does not bring fulfillment. Rather it leads to failure. That is well expressed in the novel.
Sartre saw the human act as the result of freedom that he is endowed with. And that act leads no where or it leads to no meaning. That is the point brought out by Camus in the novel when Meursault kills a person for no reason. He acts for he has to act and that emerges from his freedom. But then he is held responsible for it and is put behind the bars. There also nothing gives meaning to his life. That is the reason Sartre was always placed in the 'school of the negative existentialism.'
"You still "do" things in order to survive and be fulfilled." - According to Sartre, you "do" but apparently that does not bring fulfillment. Rather it leads to failure. That is well expressed in the novel.
By the way, I read the novel and the philosophy of Sartre long back. But the impact they left one me (specially the novel) can never be forgotten by me. Specially the last encounter between the priest and Meursault in the novel left me heavily depressed.
We might disagree a little in emphasis. Have a look at Sartre's paper at the link from Praj. That is where I came from. I don't think Camus advocates the actions of Mersault, just the implications of responsibility which the character realised with us as readers, but too late for him. By then, he had to accept responsibility.
Ian wrote: "We might disagree a little in emphasis. Have a look at Sartre's paper at the link from Praj. That is where I came from. I don't think Camus advocates the actions of Mersault, just the implications ..."
I'll have to re-read it, Ian. I'm getting curious.
I'll have to re-read it, Ian. I'm getting curious.
Ian wrote: "A large part of my personal philosophy derives from Sartre's paper."
No wonder, the novel appealed to you. To me it was a different experience. I felt the impact and took time to recover.
No wonder, the novel appealed to you. To me it was a different experience. I felt the impact and took time to recover.
Dhanaraj wrote: "You are doomed to be free. And in freedom when you act you are held responsible. There is no escape. - A summery of Sartre.
Sartre saw the human act as the result of freedom that he is endowed wit..."
Reading Existentialism is a Humanism makes me think that this isn't what Sartre meant at all. He said that if anything, existentialism is optimistic and makes you take action. And that action reflects in the whole humanity. So while it indeed passes a feeling of anguish, it reassures us about our fredoom.
Sartre saw the human act as the result of freedom that he is endowed wit..."
Reading Existentialism is a Humanism makes me think that this isn't what Sartre meant at all. He said that if anything, existentialism is optimistic and makes you take action. And that action reflects in the whole humanity. So while it indeed passes a feeling of anguish, it reassures us about our fredoom.
Not sure if this comment is about something I've said or Dhanaraj. Let me know and I'll respond, if appropriate.
Oh, it's about Dhanaraj's comment, Ian. I like you review.
It's funny, I read The Stranger before reading Existentialism is a Humanism. While I enjoyed it a lot, reading Sartre's article made me see some things I've missed. It's a shame my verson doesn't come with the essay Sartre made of Camus's book.
It's funny, I read The Stranger before reading Existentialism is a Humanism. While I enjoyed it a lot, reading Sartre's article made me see some things I've missed. It's a shame my verson doesn't come with the essay Sartre made of Camus's book.
you think it works out for both attorney disciplinary rules and for the honorable disposition of pre-modern dueling for your attorney to take a bullet for you?
A Brilliant review, Ian. Such a marvelous dissection of the book. You've conveyed the main message clearly. I enjoyed reading your review.
Ian, I wish I had read your review before I read it. This calls for me to re-read it after the Meursault Investigation