The Stranger
discussion
Is Mersault more of a stranger to himself than to others?
message 1:
by
Sash
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mar 20, 2014 01:44AM
Today my lecturer said that 'Mersault is a stranger to himself than to others' which I do not understand. Do you think it is true? Why? She also quoted from The Myth Of Sisyphus that 'Camus holds that man is an eternal stranger to himself, that he cannot grasp or define his self or integrate its different aspects'. Can you point out some events or situations or descriptions or so from The Outsider novel that confirm and contradict the statement so that I could get a better idea?
reply
|
flag
Well, he certainly doesn't seem to have any sense of preference as to which way he wants his life to go.Promotion? Ok. Marriage? Sure.
I suppose that he's also a stranger to himself, in a way, but not more than he is to others.
well he doesn't really fully explain why he shot the Arab.He both sees through the illusions upon which society is based on, but is also completely unable to make of his life any alternative to it in the way that he lives.
He is alienated from society's values, is he alienated from himself? I'm not sure that he is, but I can see how others might argue for it being the case.
It has been years since I read this so I am a bit weak on detail, but I would definitely say yes, he is a stranger to himself. As Paulmartin suggests above you can see it in his lack of preferences. Mersault is not seeing through the illusions of society, he has seen through the illusion of himself and feels nothing. The man is numb. He clearly does not see why he should feel sad at the death of his mother. He has no reaction to the killing of the Arab. He is not even overly concerned with the possibility of his own execution. He has lost all sense of self because he has no definition of the concept. Mersault is a nihilist. Camus was not a nihilist but, like Nietzsche, fears that that is the man of the future. In Camus' book The Plague we see in the doctor a man who overcomes the nihilism to assert himself in the world. Hope this helps, vague as it is.
I agree with your analysis but not the conclusion you reach. He is numb, but that benumbment is in the context of the society he cannot connect to. He is not able to replace it with anything authentic, because man is as hollow and empty as society. I don't think he sees himself as the man of the future, he sees himself as the man of now and it flattens him
We are not in disagreement. Perhaps I was not clear but we are saying essentially the same thing. Thanks.
Compare classic humanism and its sense of "self" to both the structuralist view and Jacques Derrida's deconstructionism. From the standpoint of literary theory, you'll find a basis for your lecturer's comment. Eat What You Kill: A Novel
Ted Scofield
I would say yes he is a stranger to himself- he cannot identity with emotions and social normalities- but in the end he accepts his own purposeless, whereas society condemn him. So he is even more of a stranger to others.
Something that bothers me is that why did he fire a total of 5 shots."But I fired four shots more
into the inert body, on which they left no visible trace. And each successive shot was
another loud, fateful rap on the door of my undoing."
One shot should have been enough.
Also, it would make more sense to me if he had fired 6 shots because revolvers generally have 6 bullets. It would seem more plausible if he emptied the revolver. That somehow seems more sensible and seems to have a nice feeling to it. Instead 1 bullet is left. I can't help but think why he fired the extra shots.
Good question. I don't pretend to have an answer, but:One shot should have been enough.
Enough for what? We don't really know why he shot or what he hoped to achieve by doing it, other than that the reflection of the sun on the blade of the arab scared him. It seems more like a moment of insaniny or panick rather than a calculated action to kill the arab. The first time you fire a shot feels very weird, I almost got the feeling that he couldn't believe what he was doing, and therefore just kept doing it for a while longer.
But again, I'm not sure. Just my thoughts.
I perceived Mersault as a ghost, simply empty and devoid of being. He's hardly the definition of a human being. It was as though he were a robot, going through the automatic functions of life. He never really seemed to have actual thoughts/emotions/beliefs. Thus, I would say he is a stranger to himself in the sense that he could not truly connect to himself and his surroundings. How can a man say he knows himself when he does not know the definition of himself (who he is or simply what he is)?What I found interesting, and what puts me in confusion, are his desires and motivations (if you can call it that). He did have pleasures; he liked sex and going to the beach. I wondered how he defined why he liked to do those things. He could not understand why things were the way they were; could he understand what was the excitement and satisfaction behind having sex with a woman and swimming in an ocean?
Alisha wrote:Thus, I would say he is a stranger to himself in the sense that he could not truly connect to himself and his surroundings. Not quite sure if I agree completely on that. He knows what he likes, he know what he doesn't like, and he also knows what he doesn't care about (even though they are things that most other human beings care about). He's completely honest. Yes, his life seems empty and purposeless, but in a way he is more true to himself than most other people.
AlishaI think you are overstating his desires. This is an alienated man. He is going through the motions of life without any passion. For him there is no excitement, only existence. His is existence without essence, the duality that Sartre proposes in BEING AND NOT BEING.
I personally believe that it was clear that Mersault was not a stranger to himself. In fact, he is the most self-assured person there is in the book and I thought it was clear that Camus was trying to get at this point.The reason for having the Magistrate and the Chaplain in the book were to show how sure Mersault is in himself and that no one else in society is. The ideas that these two religious men live their lives by are based on their religion, which I believe, according to Camus, that religion is trying to find some kind of order to the world and to show that it is not as absurd as Camus believes it really is.
The magistrate shows this in the court,
"He told me that it was impossible, that all men believed in God, even those who wouldn't face up to Him. That was his belief, and should he ever doubt it, his life would become meaningless. 'Do you want my life to become meaningless?' he cried"
Also, this is clear with Mersault's conversation with the Chaplain in which Mersault says,
"He seemed so certain of everything, didn't he? And yet none of his certainties was worth one hair of a woman's head. He couldn't even be sure he was alive because he was living like a dead man. I might seem to be empty-handed. But I was sure of myself, sure of everything, surer than he was, sure of my life and sure of the death that was coming to me. Yes, that was all I had. But at least it was a truth which I had hold of just as it had hold of me. I'd been right, I was still right, I was always right."
Camus used these men with strong religious beliefs because people who are religious claim to be very sure of themselves. This is only natural as if one is able to speak to God and He is on your side, I am sure that would give you some sort of confidence in yourself knowing that He would pay attention to someone as small and insignificant as you.
I found in The Stranger that every link to religion was rather negative and that they seemed to be very emotionally triggered. This is also evident when Mersault finds out that his mother asked for a religious burial, even though she never really thought about religion in her life. And one can link this to the idea that Mersault believes that the reason she took up Thomas Perez as a kind of 'fiance' is that she wants to start a new life when she knows she is reaching the end of her old one. Religion promises a new life after death and Camus used this to show how unsure the most 'sure' people are.
Mersault was very sure of himself so he didn't need the comfort of religion as he had come to terms with the idea that nothing is important in life except to know that one day you will die. With him knowing this, he could live the little life that he had left feeling free with this knowledge. His self-assurance was in knowing that he knew and could control nothing.
Camus used religion to show that Mersault knew himself more than anyone because he could come to terms with the fact that the universe was absurd and there is no real meaning except for the eventuality of death.
At least, that's my interpretation of it.
William wrote: "I personally believe that it was clear that Mersault was not a stranger to himself. In fact, he is the most self-assured person there is in the book and I thought it was clear that Camus was trying..."Good post. I agree.
I would say no. This is the dilemma that he is no stranger to himself any more than he is to the world around. He is aware, observant, and to say to least narrator of the events of his own fateful life. He is just marred in perplexity, so that everything around him he finds is like an ocean of mist, hollow, meaningless, purposeless and absurd. This is the reason that he is not connected with the world, connected to think, to feel and act in ways of the other people around, because he find them their action quite plainly pointless and even hypocritical. He sees no reason as to why should he act like others, but even if he tried he would not be successful, he would not be himself. Why should he mourn the death of his mother, and express his feeling, which are really not there that intensely. He would never lie and will not pretend in the way of keeping up appearances, just for the sake of the world to see. He tells his story, and laughs at it in the end, and laughs at the world around. His crime is that he is too true to himself, too straightforward in his approach, and too simple for the good of his world. He is a real threat to the world, the world that is full of pretenders, convenience lairs, and wise hypocrites.
He is aware of himself, and of his world, alright, but not in the way of any common people, whom little things matter so much that they never run out of petty motives and reason to enact a performance, to put up a show, to be according to the fashions of the world. Why go that far why do so much, and not do so much, he would ask. But he does no longer feel any need to ask, to raise that question, too. He has become himself but unfortunately that is not good enough for the world.
Shahid wrote: "He is just marred in perplexity, so that everything around him he finds is like an ocean of mist, hollow, meaningless, purposeless and absurd. That's very well put, Shahid.
I can't base this on anything in the book, but if the first shot kills the man, takes the light out of his eyes so to speak, subsequent shots are as shooting into a carcass of meat. I suspect Meursault would have recognised the change in state from a living, breathing human being, to lump of dead matter and would have explored the difference between the two states and to see if there was any change in his own feelings by emptying more rounds into the carcass to see if both it and he felt any differently between the two states.
Marc wrote: "I can't base this on anything in the book, but if the first shot kills the man, takes the light out of his eyes so to speak, subsequent shots are as shooting into a carcass of meat. I suspect Meurs..."The point is he did not shoot to kill, he is not a killer, but he shot out of sheer boredom of his reflexes if you like. He kept on shooting, not because he was letting it out, or that he was unaware what was happening, but merely because there is nothing else to do that he might have found more engaging. In that, it is not that he needs to be disengaged from what he is doing, he just needs something else to engage into, something more interesting and alerting.
This is absurd, and the irony is this is exactly why it is true with him. Where people can be good or they can be evil, they can be noble or wicked, wise or stupid, he is just absurd, the one of the kind.
Geoffrey wrote: "AlishaI think you are overstating his desires. This is an alienated man. He is going through the motions of life without any passion. For him there is no excitement, only existence. His is existen..."
Yes exactly, he is a man deprived of passion and meaning. I can believe in not liking things, not putting on a front and not saving face because you believe life is devoid of meaning, and that to do those things are pointless. I can also see why pleasurable things are simply pleasurable and don't need a definition. But if one can't state to oneself that "I like this"; I don't believe that you know yourself.
As you said, he is simply DOING. He had pleasures, but did he KNOW he had pleasures? Or were they all the same to him: just actions, places, events, etc? He has no clue why he's doing it, but he does it. If you can't overtly state "I like this" or "I don't like this", even without a reason behind it, I question whether you're really in touch with even the reality of yourself.
I don´t recall there being only one bullet left in the chamber but if that was the case, then the reserve was potentially meant for himself, another example of his extreme alienation. So, unconsciously he provides for the option of his own suicide after killing the Arab, but is unaware of his own unconscious plotting.
Geoffrey wrote: "I don´t recall there being only one bullet left in the chamber but if that was the case, then the reserve was potentially meant for himself, another example of his extreme alienation. So, unconscio..."I am not quite sure he left the extra bullet for himself. I think it was to show that he wasn't just taking out his stress of the situation, his relief of killing the Arab or even the ordeal of losing his mum on the body, he was just doing it to see what happens. A revolver would have the capacity for 6 bullets so there would naturally be another bullet left.
I do not know for sure, but I believe that Mersault had nothing better to do and he knew that after the first bullet he was going to jail, so thought 'why not?'. But it was more controlled than just trying to empty the gun in a moment of rashness or anger and Camus really tried to get at this point of it not being a rash decision, such as his initial murdering the Arab.
If anyone has an idea that they can convince me of, please do. I do not feel that is a very strong argument and I also thought it was a slightly pointless act until I came up with that.
Shahid wrote: "Marc wrote: "I can't base this on anything in the book, but if the first shot kills the man, takes the light out of his eyes so to speak, subsequent shots are as shooting into a carcass of meat. I ..."Do you think that it is possible that because of this absurdness he did not really need to fire 6 and finish the rounds. Maybe just 5 was enough.
Somehow the fact that he did not fire all rounds somehow bugs me.
I somehow imagine such a person to just keep on shooting till the time the pulling of the trigger is useless.
Shahid wrote: "Marc wrote: "I can't base this on anything in the book, but if the first shot kills the man, takes the light out of his eyes so to speak, subsequent shots are as shooting into a carcass of meat. I ..."Do you think that it is possible that because of this absurdness he did not really need to fire 6 and finish the rounds. Maybe just 5 was enough.
Somehow the fact that he did not fire all rounds somehow bugs me.
I somehow imagine such a person to just keep on shooting till the time the pulling of the trigger is useless.
Rajit wrote: "Shahid wrote: "Marc wrote: "I can't base this on anything in the book, but if the first shot kills the man, takes the light out of his eyes so to speak, subsequent shots are as shooting into a carc..."Pulling of the trigger was useless after his first shot as the man was already dead, and if he wanted to explore this change of state and his feelings before and after, it was also pointless after the second shot as that would have been enough.
I do not know about you people but this remainds me of the dilemma of Cordilia in KING LEAR. The yuong princess as it appears is too truthful to be real.KING LEAR
……
Now, our joy,
Although the last, not least; to whose young love
The vines of France and milk of Burgundy
Strive to be interess'd; what can you say to draw
A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.
CORDELIA
Nothing, my lord.
KING LEAR
Nothing!
CORDELIA
Nothing.
KING LEAR
Nothing will come of nothing: speak again.
CORDELIA
Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth: I love your majesty
According to my bond; nor more nor less.
KING LEAR
How, how, Cordelia! mend your speech a little,
Lest it may mar your fortunes.
CORDELIA
Good my lord,
You have begot me, bred me, loved me: I
Return those duties back as are right fit,
Obey you, love you, and most honour you.
Why have my sisters husbands, if they say
They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed,
That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry
Half my love with him, half my care and duty:
Sure, I shall never marry like my sisters,
To love my father all.
KING LEAR
But goes thy heart with this?
CORDELIA
Ay, good my lord.
KING LEAR
So young, and so untender?
CORDELIA
So young, my lord, and true.
It's odd. During the first part of the book, I felt part of the "others", watching Mersault from outside. But during the trial, I was there with Mersault, and couldn't understand how nobody else could understand him. I remember being very angry that they would condemn him for having a 'café au lait' before the funeral and discussing whether he had shed tears or not. And then, suddenly, all the others seemed to be the strangers to me, the fake ones, the ones who had no meaning in life and, to go back to the title of the thread, the ones who didn't truly know themselves.
Rajit wrote: "Something that bothers me is that why did he fire a total of 5 shots."But I fired four shots more
into the inert body, on which they left no visible trace. And each successive shot was
another lo..."
Most experienced users keep only 5 cartridges in a revolver so that the hammer rests on an empty space in the cylinder for safety.
Kirk wrote: "Rajit wrote: "Something that bothers me is that why did he fire a total of 5 shots."But I fired four shots more
into the inert body, on which they left no visible trace. And each successive shot ..."
LOL
This is the most awesome explanation till date.
I think he is a stranger to himself. I think that could be a point that Camus is making; in a way, we are all strangers to ourselves. That is what continually drives the mystery of life. To look on to actions already done and not recognize the purpose of those actions (aka what we were thinking) is to question our existence, standards, and mind. This strangeness is reflected in Mersault's mirror. Society views him as an other because, in a way, it denies its own strangeness or unrecognizable actions. Society is in denial of actions that are apart of the norm it sets for itself. Mersault represents society's dirty little secrets. For example society values human life and treasures the innocent, yet it upholds wars in which most of the victims are innocent civilians. I may be getting carried away, but I think the question of 'The Stranger' will forever be relevant to how we see ourselves. I think we suprise ourselves every day.
I think he is a stranger to himself than to others for the very definition of existential crisis is being nauseatingly indifferent to the normality of life. He doesn't know how to express his feelings because he has none, he doesn't understand his actions because life has no meaning. He his submerged in a sea of despair, and no one can rescue him.
I think he's definitely a stranger to himself, i mean if he doesn't care about himself, how he'll do it for others?
Florencia wrote: "I think he's definitely a stranger to himself, i mean if he doesn't care about himself, how he'll do it for others?"I don't think that if one does not care for himself it implies that he cannot care for others. Your statement negates self sacrifice.
It is possible for a person to neglect or, in a more extreme case, harm himself to take care of loved ones.
Why can't I understand Mersault!
Paul Martin wrote: "Well, he certainly doesn't seem to have any sense of preference as to which way he wants his life to go.Promotion? Ok. Marriage? Sure.
I suppose that he's also a stranger to himself, in a way, b..."
Camus was an Existentialist and in the Myth of Sisyphus he talks of the absurdity of life. Mersault reflects Camus' existential philosophy as it really makes no difference what Mersault would like to do with his life, as ultimately it remains absurd.
Well, he rejected the label, as he didn't think of himself as one. But I guess that's not entirely for him to decide, as posterity will always need to classify and label people and ideas.It is important to remember that he was not a nihilist. In The Stranger he illustrates the paradox of the absurd, but he doesn't succumb to the idea that everything is meaningless, as he himself says in his letters.
Creo que Mersault era un extraño para si
Camus is presenting the human predicament through Mersault. For more, see the existentialism in introductiontophilosophy.com. It's a quick look at philosophy through science-fiction literature. The Stranger is not science-fiction. Another story is used. But, Camus' masterpiece hits us hard when we think about our predicament. First off: we live in a world that we will never understand. further, that world is antagonistic to our efforts, especially with regard to persons. For more, go to the site.
James wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "Well, he certainly doesn't seem to have any sense of preference as to which way he wants his life to go.Promotion? Ok. Marriage? Sure.
I suppose that he's also a stranger to ..."
existentialism and nihilism are separate philosophies, existentialism strictly speaking doesn't even consider itself to be a philosophy, as one of its tenets is that no single system can explain the complexity of life. For Camus places the absurdity of life as a theme running through much of his work.
James wrote: "James wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "Well, he certainly doesn't seem to have any sense of preference as to which way he wants his life to go.Promotion? Ok. Marriage? Sure.
I suppose that he's also ..."
I'm not quite sure what you are replying to, but yes, I agree.
This is a late comment, but I wanted to add something to this discussion. I have also wondered about the 6th bullet. I do not think Camus intentionally chose to allow the protagonist, Meursault, to fire 4 more shots without a reason. One answer above that mentions the idea that experienced users leave one chamber empty for safety (for example, police) is very true, but this means that Meursault fires 4 more shots because he is aware that there are only 5 bullets. This does not ring true because it would then suggest that Meursault is fully conscious of his actions, but we know that he is not. And if he is not fully conscious, then he would continue to pull the trigger as a reflex action (without thinking). I am inclined to believe that Camus embedded a symbol in this passage - as someone stated above, the 6th bullet is for Meursault. Perceived as a symbol, the remaining bullet foreshadows Meursault's trial and the eventual death sentence, which in turn reflects the one reality that we are all bound by - the certainty of death.In the Myth of Sisyphus Camus lays out his philosophy of the absurd in which he expounds the three consequences of living with the absurd: revolt - freedom - passion. Meursault is therefore the composite absurd man, who lives with his life as he chooses to live it - an authentic life (freedom); unrestrained by social conventions, but paradoxically condemned by these same conventions (i.e. religion). Meursault does not believe in God and therefore chooses to live without 'appeal'. He enjoys the simple pleasures that are found in the present (again authentic), rather than dwelling on the future: this is his passion. And then as a result of an act of senseless violence on a beach, under the unrelenting glare of the sun, the subsequent trial and his sentencing, he is finally washed clean by his anger in his confrontation with the chaplain and 'embraces the gentle indifference of the universe'. This is his epiphany. Meursault, bound by a new understanding of his own mortality re-evaluates his life and comes to the realization that he was happy before and is still happy, even though he is sentenced to death: this demonstrates his revolt against the absurd. Similarly, in the Myth of Sisyphus, Camus states that we must imagine Sisyphus as being happy, which is his revolt.
Really great ideas, clearly expressed, thanks John.
thanks James, but I rushed into this and left out important bits, which probably only cause confusion. I think that Meursault is first presented as a stranger to both himself and society in part one, leading up to his crime on the beach. I think he is an intriguing character because Camus allows us to see and experience the world through Meursault's thoughts, including his confusion at times and his inability to read other people's needs clearly. Camus gives us a privileged position as the listener to Meursault's thoughts and as a witness to his actions - we ultimately have a fairly good grasp of his character, even though we can only guess what he might look like. The irony is in the fact that the magistrate, his defense lawyer and the chaplain are not given the same privilege of seeing into Meursault's mind and so they see him as a closed book - someone to be afraid of because he comes across as being devoid of affectation: almost absurdly innocent of social conventions, which the reader is eventually compelled to question. I think Camus' use of the first person narrator (Meursault) makes the book a compelling read because ultimately I experience conflicting emotions towards Meursault. I see the world (Algiers) through Meursault's eyes in the story - I am forced to question his thoughts and actions as if they were mine and by that process I am then forced to reflect on and evaluate my own beliefs. It is as if Camus allows Meursault to put a mirror up to the reader's face and force us to look at ourselves and acknowledge the absurdity that makes up our world: the adherence to social absolutes such as truth and justice, even love and the impractical desire to find order in a meaningless world. We are constantly confronted with Meursault's honesty and this causes us to reflect deeply on our own inclination to lie or to accept without question the way in which we construct meaning. But Camus does not condone the idea of suicide in this story, or preach acceptance, but rather the need to revolt against the absurd by living a life that is authentic and not driven by abstract notions, or metaphysical abstractions. To be honest, I think that ultimately it is the reader who is the stranger - and not Meursault. We are the strangers in a universe that does not care, or even knows that we exist. Recognizing that is I think what Camus believes to be the first step towards being free.
Yes, I would totally agree with all of those assertions. We are all strangers to one another in an absurd world.
Yes, I would totally agree with all of those assertions. We are all strangers to one another in an absurd world.
Through his book 'The Stranger', Albert Camus allegorically presents his idea of 'absurdism', the central tenet of which is that there is no meaning to life and to go looking for any such meaning is the definition of absurd. For example, it would be absurd to go looking for your lost car keys if you don't even own a car, it would be a futile undertaking, an undertaking devoid of meaning. To Camus looking for meaning in life is equally as absurd as for him no meaning exists. Camus relates his concept of absurdity to the never ending trial endured by Sisyphus, but despite Sisyphus’ absurd existence, Camus concludes that we must think of Siyphus as happy. Despite Sisyphus’ existence being absurd, and devoid of any meaning, Sisyphus still has the power to decide to be happy, this is important as it is this that distinguishes absurdism from nihilism. However, there appears to be a contradiction inherent to the whole idea of his book ‘The Stranger’ and it is this, Camus writes a fictional account of the character Mersault for the purpose of being the example of absurdism. Therefore, Mersault’s life is given meaning by an external deity like figure, Camus, as Mersault’s existence is given the meaning of being an example of an absurd existence. And, like I said Camus himself is Mersault’s divine creator, controlling all of his actions, giving him his purpose and ultimately deciding his fate. Camus’ character therefore is not without purpose and meaning, as his purpose is to define purposelessness and his meaning is to demonstrate meaninglessness. Mersault does not live in a society devoid of meaning and purpose, as both meaning and purpose are provided by the story’s creator Camus. A story truly devoid of all purpose and meaning would be one with random glyphs just strewn across the page, or any novel written by Dan Brown.
a fascinating analysis - and food for thought. Camus' philosophy of the Absurd does raise the issue of paradox by asserting that human beings are compelled to question the purpose of life in a universe that has no purpose and therefore cannot provide an answer to this question. So ultimately this paradox (and many others perhaps) reveal the essence of the human condition and it seems only fitting that Camus' desire to illustrate this absurdity should also prove to be paradoxical. Your explanation is also given credence by Camus' own words, when he said that "Meursault is the only Christ we deserve".
Is Mersault's life absurd?, Or, is he just a nihilist?It is a recurring question, and despite both Satre's and Camus' denials that there is no difference between existentialism and nihilism, how do we defend Mersault against the claim the he is actually a nihilist?
With Mersault saying lines like:
"Marie came that evening and asked me if I'd marry her. I said I didn't mind; if she was keen on it we'd get married.
Then she asked me again if I loved her, I replied, much as before, that her question meant nothing or next to nothing - but I supposed I didn't."
"And just then it crossed my mind, one might fire, or not fire - and it would come to absolutely the same thing."
These statements could be interpreted as going beyond the casual indifference of existentialism and puts their narrator into the realm of nihilism. Although existentialists, and, in particular Camus' absurdism, both strongly deny being nihilists, I am lefty wondering how many shades of grey really distinguish their ideas from nihilism?
Yes Camus tells us "we must imagine Sisyphus to be happy", but can't that just be translated to mean that Sisyphus could be a happy nihilist?
Alisha wrote: "could he understand what was the excitement and satisfaction behind having sex with a woman and swimming in an ocean? "Make of this what you will, perhaps you're familiar with the psychology test in which you are asked to picture the ocean, and supply two words that you associate with this picture in your head. After you supply those two words, you are told that you have just revealed your feelings about sex.
At first I thought Mersault was numb with grief or loneliness. Then I thought that he was just out-of-touch with his feelings, apathetic or insensitive to his girlfriend. I ended up trying to decide whether I felt like he was a Nihilist or a Sociopath. Any way you slice it, he is a stranger to himself and any sort of social contract. In a way he's not more self-aware than the "idiots" in Candide and Forrest Gump. He sort of floats through events without a plan and without commitment to either principles or people. That's what makes him a stranger to himself. He doesn't know who he is and he doesn't care.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Stranger (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Eat What You Kill (other topics)The Stranger (other topics)
