Published November 12, 2005
What can I say? Not a particularily easy book to read, not due to any real complexity of language but down to the nature of the main character. Meursault does not conform to the emotional norms, he feels not distress at the death of his mother, but rather, to put it in his words a sense of annoyance. Later on Meursault is driven to an act of violence, but when he is brought to trial for this it is not so much his act which condemns him, but more the fact he doesnt feel sad that his mother is dead or remorse for his act. I felt that this did make it very hard to actually emphasise with Meursault, but this is in essence the point of the book, we find someone who doesn't feel how we feel so alienating that we condemn them to death. Who is the badguy in this book? and what is the true crime of this existentialist messiah?
Points:
Time spent:
IP address:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
141,736 Literary Works • 675,643 Reviews
true...about the title
when lucidity comes back I'll reply again...
Bett
L'Etranger doesn't translate as stranger, its meaning is closer to someone being strange rather than being an actual stranger which implies someone we don't know, outsider implies someone not within our society although we may personally know them, which i feel fits with the actual content of the novel better.
The Stranger begins poking at what Heidegger and Sartre both elucidated in their exegeses of humanity: "loss" and the way language breaks open that container.
In some ways, you could say Existentialism is confined strictly to an analysis of the (post?)apocalypse: the birth of language as the exposition of loss? Post-apocalyptic in that the entrance into language is the confrontation, per se, with the understanding of loss, emptiness, etc. This explains our fascination with post-apocalypse texts, because in effect they are the extreme form of our everyday real lived experience, albeit that which are entire collective cultural effort is in the process of (but never finishing the process of) forgetting.
The Title varies with the translation in french its L'Etranger, sorry about my previous post im not sure it makes any sense.
uh...I just realized this, the title isn't it The Stranger? umm...yeah...when I wrote that it was really, really late/early I'll type something more worthwhile to think on later today.
ahhh debating definitions funfunfun...
so anyzways I'll get back to you on my thoughts.
Bett
Hmmmm interesting to understand or to empathize, is it easier to understand why he feels how he does, i never felt you were given any reason for why he doesn't feel in the same way as us. But to empathize with him we must actually be able to feel the same as Meursault and emotions are something which although we can suppress (or is it repress) we feel none the less. I'm not sure where I'm headed but I'm sure there's an interesting discussion in there somewhere, and if there isn't and I'm just arguing over definitions i apologies, there's a lil too much caffeine in my system
Blam Meta
This Contains Spoliers...
Had to read this last year as part of the curiculum for class. I have to say it was a very interesting read, and sparked very interesting discussion about how people think.
Camus in this book, brings up a very interesting observance, that as people we are more readily to be lax with a person who commits a crime and shows if regret as such, than a man who shows no feeling at all. To take a modern parrellel, the Scott Peterson case is a prime example. The jurors were more likely to render a guilty verdict because of his indifference. Some even said that was what clutched it - his apathy.
So back to the book - I thought it very interesting that the reason he gives for killing the arab is that the sun was blinding and glinting in his eyes. I think empathizing is the wrong word, understanding more like it because his views are so abstract from the mayority of the populous. I felt it was rather easy to understand Meursault, Camus gave enough verbage on him that I could see where he was coming from, even if I necessarily didn't agree.
I gave an example in class for this book. Who would you more readily condem to death: one, a man who goes into a house a shots a woman, or two, a man who goes into a house shots a woman and then makes himself a sandwhich and drinks a beer? interesting thought...huh.
To answer your questions Met - I don't believe there really is a 'bad guy' in this book but that Camus is laying down the foundations of his beliefs, his existentialism and how it conflicts. He is posing the question to the reader, about actions, consequences, why we do the things we do and such... What is the true crime - hmmm I'll think on that and get back to you, it's really late and my lucidity is leaving me.
tata
Bett