The Stranger question

I find Mersault very interesting because of his indifference. Sometimes I can even understand him.
I also like him because he does not lie. He speaks his mind, for example, when Marie asked him if he loved her, he said no, straight away. He did the same when she asked him if he would marry her, and he replied that it is okay with him if she wanted it.
His actions might display him as an "anti-hero" like Anirudh wrote before me, but in my opinion, actions like this make him honest, and complete honesty like Mersaults is something that people cannot accept.

Meursault is a great character. His indifference for suffering was his downfall only because it conflicted with the common opinion of suffering of the society in which he lived.

Meursault believes in existence as being absurd. This much is clear. He buys into that absurdity by seeking out only things that will provide pleasure, as, if life is pointless, why would anyone want to feel pain? So his "lack" of emotion regarding his mother's death is a reflection of his belief that life (and death) are pointless, thus, why should a man cry at his mother's funeral if he believes life to be pointless? That would be a lie.

In the end Meursault's emotional breakdown is the result of no one understanding this viewpoint, of condemning him for having this belief. I suppose from a societal point of view it is "dangerous" to have a person within that society living as if life is pointless. What stops that person from turning to drugs, becoming a strain on the system, and so on and so forth? What stops that person from murdering another if they believe all lives are valueless? (There must be some facet of doing those things that doesn't bring pleasure for Meursault, which is why he only killed the "Arab" because he was threatened, hot and the sun was in his eyes and it bothered him).

But, this begs the questions... did he deserve to be put to death? It appears the only fact that condemned him to death was the fact he did not show remorse for the murder of the "Arab" (strengthened by his "lack of empathy" for his mother's death - not crying at her funeral). Had he even feigned remorse, he would have been set free. Had he LIED.. he would have been set free. This is the absurdity he believed in, coming to a fore and colliding directly with his own life. It's interesting that he would fight so hard for something he believed to be absurd and pointless. If he was condemned it wasn't because he didn't value life, it was because he didn't play the game of society, didn't believe in it, and therefore his life was taken from him. He must have valued pleasurable experiences, though not seeing that life had any purpose, pleasures became his purpose and as a result he became lost in a society where the purpose was to obey God (i.e., a society whose laws are based on religious laws and where there is a worship/obedience to a greater power). Of all things though, I think Meursault valued his independence and freedom above all. It is clear he did not make choices based on the opinions others would have of him, nor did he lie in the face of a death penalty/imprisonment. His conflict was directly with the mindset of the society he lived in, becoming an example of someone who does not want to play their game, and paying the ultimate price (his life) for this disobedience.

I didn't like him, and I think he is not someone one can like. I also don't judge him in any way, but his attitude to life made this book exceptionally boring for me.

Meursault for me is like the "anti-hero".. he is very detached from people / relationships ... to the point of being apathetic... which i didnt like. But thats because i give alot of importance to people and relationships in my life.

I don't think of him as an "anti-hero", I don't think of him as a "hero" either.. He is just a person like others, but what makes him different is that for him, the other's opinion doesn't matter, and that's why he never lies, even when it's a matter of life and death..

The crime he committed was a bold exaggeration of his honest feeling expression, Camus tried to show us how honest he is about his feelings..

He is not independent, but he is indifferent. He has feelings, but his feelings are separated in his mind and they won't interfere with each other.. (think of it as different boxes in his mind.. one for each feeling)

Sometimes people cannot understand the difference between sentences I mentioned , and that's why they don't like these kind of attitude and think it's unacceptable (both in the court and in real life)

I personally liked his character very much..

Meh.

i just can say that i really like him cause the way he live and his attitude to life.

the society influence our opinions and ideas , so we are almost express our societies , when you deal with your society you have to intimately live in it otherwise you can escape from it , but to be in it and try to deal with the situation as you wish , will be for sure wrong
its matter of positioning between you and the society ideas . and i think he miss that

I found Meursault's emotions at the end of the story (both toward the conclusion of the trial and especially at the very end, when he was waiting to be executed) to be really interesting. He was so indifferent about everything, even when he was in prison.

He seemed to completely incapable of experiencing empathy toward others, and I didn't get the sense that he regarded the sufferings of others with much interest or concern (he was detached from the death of his mother, didn't have a problem helping Raymond write the letter, didn't care much for Marie beyond the superficial and wasn't fazed by the man he killed.) It was only when his own reputation was called into question (during the trial), and finally at the very end when he was waiting for his execution and the reality of his own mortality came crashing down on him, that he really became emotional.

He was very much turned inward on himself, and seemed to me to see those around him as just another part of the scenery.

I don't know him, I just know a handful of events that happened to him in his life, I can't make any judgements about him as a person from that.

I didn't like him. The reader isn't supposed to like him. Isn't that the point?

I found him to be the most honest person. He could have committed purgery in court and come off scott free but he didn't. I found him the most compelling at the end of the novel "So close to death, Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again. Nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her. And i felt ready to live it all again too." Still i cannot fully explain him as a person but i eventually did sympathize with him at the end of the novel

A poor,pathetic excuse of a human being. He did gain my sympathy, though.

I couldn't empathize with Meursault at all. I found his character interesting, and the nihilism he represented. But I did not like him as a person nor would I associate with someone like him. The only aspect to his personality that I respected was his straight-forward bluntness. I hesitate to call it honesty.

I regard Meursault as not an anti-hero but rather as an anti-person. The deeper mental mental happenings which distinguish us from purely biological creatures are absent throughout the first half of the book - he is homo sapien, but he is not human. I think Camus' point was that in order to be fully human we have to engage in human society, to see beyond ourselves and obtain some perspective of humanity as a whole and try to figure out what our place is in that whole. His realization of this is the second half of the book.