After a few negative reviews of center alignment, I'm trying justified.
Something I grapple with often in making moral judgement on various situations is intentions (I think I might have blogged about it last semester, too). Should someone's actions be understood in the context of their internal feelings, or is one's external impact on the world the only thing that matters? Or something in between?
In day-to-day life, our ability to understand other people's thoughts is extremely limited. Because of this limitation, in the "real world," we are urged from a young age to try and "see things from others' point of view" and "understand where they're coming from" and that "it's the thought that counts." To be a nice person is to consider others' motivations and internal workings.
But in literature, we typically have the privilege of an intimate understanding of the gears grinding in one or more character's heads. In The Stranger, we are buried deeply inside Meursalt's conciousness -- or lack thereof. And we find that motivations are quite important when we dissect the actions of a character.
Handily, Meusalt really is only motivated by one thing, indifference (which one could argue isn't a motivation at all, but whatever). We see all of his actions through the lens of his indifference. A good example is the letter to Raymond's girlfriend. Ordinarily, if we as outside observers were to watch somebody help Raymond "punish" a supposedly cheating girlfriend, perpetrating an action that ultimately leads to the woman in question being beaten, we would react horribly. But are we inclined to let Mersault slightly off the hook because we know that he wasn't fully behind the principle of hurting her, he was just going with the flow?
Or similarly, the shooting. The way in which it is written makes the murder -- athough the question was raised in class, can it be called "murder" without intent? -- seem much less dramatic than it would be to an outsider. Does his apathy cast a shadow of a doubt on whether or not he perpetrated the crime. I'm inclined to say "no," but the trial scenes disagree with me. Not on the issue of the actual act of killing -- as we've mentioned, the prosecutor doesn't really bother to focus on that --, but it criticizes Mersault for some of the outward manifestations of his indifferent attitude.
It seems that Camus is highlighting the importance of motivation. However, at the same time, he's also painting a picture of the impossibility of neutrality (with Mersault getting pulled into Raymond's side of the conflict), suggesting that, ultimately, it doesn't matter how you felt, it only matters what you do. A bit of a disjointed post, but hopefully the clean look of the justified font will ease the distressing lack of flow.
in addition to Camus highlighting the importance of motivation, I think he is also highlighting the importance of perspective. As The Stranger is written from Mersault's point of view, we don't really get an emotional picture of very emotional events (death and murder), but form anyone else's perspective it would be a very different story. If this story were written from the point of view of the sister/Raymond's mistress the book would read like a tragedy.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that being in Meursault's head, we are given a dumbed down version of events in his life. Like Ally was saying, the murder isn't really depicted very emotionally because that's not really Meursault's style. But, once we get to the trial, we are given an elaborate course of events given by the prosecutor that almost seem false because we aren't use to that much detail. I found myself laughing at the prosecutor's accusations because they just seemed too over-the-top. It would be interesting to see what the book would be like written from a different perspective. (Perhaps that book Mr. Mitchell mentioned in class would be an interesting read. I wonder how the perspective of the Arabs would cast a new light on these string on events).
ReplyDelete"It doesn't matter how you feel; it only matters what you do" is a pretty good summation of the existentialist ethical position. Actions have consequences, and a position of utter neutrality may well be impossible to maintain, as circumstances compel us to take sides (as when Raymond asks Meursault to collaborate with him). Meursault's "feelings" about Raymond are of no consequence--although we may be bothered by the fact that his negative feelings aren't more strongly aroused by this pretty repulsive person. What matters--in the sense that it makes a difference, and ends up having profound consequences to his life as he lives it--is that Meursault accompanies Raymond to the beach, walks with him in a structure of alliance as they confront the Arabs, and becomes increasingly implicated: his *feelings* of indifference or distraction or sun-based discomfort don't have any consequence. The fact that he pulls the trigger does. It's not "meaning" in some metaphysical sense that's at stake here but something more immediate and irrevocable.
ReplyDeleteI think this really speaks to the essential nature of Camus message and how it extends across cultural boundaries of national experience. Camus seems to have intended to exploit the strong expectation of a heroic protagonist is on the western reader to challenge the ideas of colonialism and racism in his French audience. He brilliantly puts forth a scenerio removed of the forms of emotional context that typically cloud our judgement in similar kinds of real world situations, but through some incredible acrobatic feat of the connection between protagonist and reader we continue to attempt to rationalize the behavior of our fictional acquaintance who's guilt is well beyond the shadow of a doubt. When mindful of themselves the reader has the opportunity to examine two things, both their opinion of the value of a mans life and the function of the French court system. However the same delima of truth and perspective still fully extend to a contemporary American audience almost a full century on.
ReplyDelete