Young Writers Society

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