zBlogging the Literary Life - AP College English

Meursault is NOT a role model

Does Meursault have a complete life?

No matter how many people view Meursault as a hero, I still cannot see him as someone I would want to emulate.  Yes, I can see that he is a tragic hero, and I even find myself sympathizing with him a little bit, after hearing what everyone has to say about him.  But is he really that worthy of admiration?

Yes, he does not conform to society, but he does not even think about it.  He just does what he does, feeling only hot, tired, irritated, content, or full of lust for Marie.

WHERE IS HIS PASSION????

OK, I can see how he has an admirable quality (singular, because his only admirable quality is not being obsessed with societal systems), but on the whole, I do not believe that he is a person worthy of role-model status.

Would any of you want to live a life devoid of true joy, of true love, of true pain, of any emotion where you really experience human life?

Would you really want to live a life where annihilating another human being does not cause a second thought?

Low Testosterone?

All throughout our reading of The Stranger I kept thinking back to this program I heard this program a couple of years ago on National Public Radio. The show This American Life did an episode one day on testosterone. During the first part of the show the hosts (both men and women) shared the results from medical tests they had all taken to learn their own testosterone levels. They determined that the level had very little impact on personality. The second part of the show (the part actually relevant to our English studies) was called “Life at Zero.” It consisted of an interview with this man who had a disease where his testosterone level decreased throughout his adult life and eventually reached zero. He had no testosterone. The results were fascinating. I don’t remember whether he said it had any effect on his physical appearance, but what I do remember is him describing the indifference with which he approached life during this period before he was diagnosed and treated. He was not depressed, nor was he ever happy. He just existed without reason or motivation to act. He simply went through the motions. He said he would walk through a park and see a flower and his brain would tell him “that flower is beautiful,” but he felt no pleasure from recognizing this beauty. I remember him saying that he saw a lot of beauty in the world during that time, even though it meant nothing to him. I think it’s especially interesting that that’s the “default” for the human  brain.

As I read this program continually surface in my memory. Meursault also lived his life with no passion. He was not, in my opinion, depressed, or angry, or hiding in fear. He was simply lacking in passion. I’m not suggesting that Meursault had a case of chronic testosterone depletion but I find the similarities in the stories of these two men interesting. Both lacked the drive and the love and lived each day simply going through the motions.

The Meursault Report (Think Colbert Report)

Contrary to Bryant's thesis, this idea proposes the opposite. I felt that this was so important, that I felt like writing my own entry.

Camus, specifically put the theme of non-determinism into this novel. It’s there, it cannot be denied. Why it’s there is entirely different, and will be explained in my paper. This is a corner stone, if not the vast majority of my paper’s ideas, I couldn’t be forcing my arguments even if I tried.

Non-determinism is paired with existentialism, in a sense, while maintaining its own individual concept. Non-determinism means that every person in control of their own actions, and the consequences of those actions, the opposite of determinism. Essentially, Camus was trying to say the exact opposite Bryant was proposing through Meursault.

I strongly disagree, therefore, with the idea of pre-destination in The Stranger. Meursault has control of EVERY action he is taking. If he didn't, his flip out with the priest would be nothing short of irrational. With Bryant’s idea, the priest has the same ideology as Meursault. The priest stands for everything Meursault doesn't, supporting the idea that a higher power has control over his life. That's why Meursault dislikes him, that's why he ends up going into a furious rage, the priest is an opposite to Meursault.

Why does Meursault reflect on the court system as being nothing short of ridiculous? Because the court is controlling him, exactly opposite of what he stands for. Again, Meursault makes his own choices and accepts the consequences, supporting an idea of free will more than an idea of determinism.

Meursault has a tendency to notice similarities and differences to his own life. The dog, for instance, while first notion would seem to not have control over its own life, and therefore be a representation of the Meursault you notate. But, the dog LEAVES, with free will and choice, because it is in control of its own destiny. It just does no questions why, it chooses to. Meursault is no different. He is that dog, and while society puts banter on him, he still has the power to make his own decisions.

Meursault confronts the Arab men. I can understand why this passage would seem to indicate determinism, but it doesn’t. Every possible choice he has before he actually kills the Arabs, to him, “doesn’t matter” Every possible choice is a choice he could make, but they would all be the same because they would all have a consequence, that to him, is virtually identical in retrospect. The consequence, therefore, doesn’t matter to him, and neither does the choice. But he does recognize that he has control over the choice. If a higher power were to choose for him, this would have some effect on him. Recognizing that he chose this choice, and that every other choice would be no different, Meursault is completely unfazed by his killing of the Arabs.

That’s the Meursault report (silent “t”… alright?)

The World is Numb to Me

The World is Numb To Me
-Kate Pearson

There is a plane that is going
going down, down, down
and my heart it feels nothing
it just beats to the sound, sound, sound
of crying babies, blinking signs
that are headed towards the sea, sea, sea
and again I feel nothing
because the world is numb to me
just last week
put my mom in the ground, ground, ground
and my family all gathered
to lay her down, down, down
they had weepy eyes and crying heads
I felt nothing instead
am I real? I cannot be
because the world is numb to me
is it ever gonna be alright?
well i guess, just for now, I'll breathe in and out
here we are again
this time almost ten
looking down, down, down
at my mothers still body
stretched out on the ground, ground, ground
as my father walked right it
said son, "I can't believe what you did"
this is the first time you see
that the world became numb to me
is it ever gonna be alright?
well I guess just for now
I'll breathe in and out
I guess just for now, I'll breathe in and out
I guess just for now, I'll breathe in and out

This song reminded me a lot of The Stranger.  There is a lot of emotion it in, which doesn't really work for the stranger, but if you look simply at the text, it's a lot like Mersault.  Obviously, it starts out with someone burying their mom, the family is crying, but the person in the scene isn't.  Much like Mersault, this person feels nothing.  It made me think that maybe I have been reading Mersault wrong.  Maybe M. really does have emotion, but he represses it because emotion makes everything harder.  If M. didn't have to deal with the pain of losing his mother, than he wouldn't be troubled with it, just a thought.  The singer also says, "am I real? I can not be," this reminded me a lot of Mersault in the way that M. feels so detached from the rest of the world and, I think, he sometimes questions if he is another being from everyone else around him (not an alien or anything like that, that's just silly) because he does not feel the same way as others.  Finally the song ends with, "I guess for now, I'll just breathe in and out."  That line is where I almost disagree with myself, if that makes any sense.  I think this relates to Mersault because he is so detached from life that he is just a being, just a thing taking up space, like all he is doing is living in the physical way (breathing) bu other than that he is nothing.  Then I also feel that Mersault may have been right when he said that he was the one who was alive ( I believe he was talking to the priest) because he was not buying into  all the superficialities of life.  I guess I am a little confused about how I feel about it.  it would be cool to see how others interpret any of the subjects/ lyrics I just brought up.

*Kate Pearson is my sister's friend and you can check her and her song out on mysapce.  The song is called, "The World is Numb to Me" and her myspace address is, www.myspace.com/katepearson.

Ambiguities

I've spent a considerable amount of time throughout the last few days trying to sort out my ideas on The Stranger, yet still, no discernibly intelligent thesis seems to come to mind.  I've been trying to find the general theme, but, as I peruse the novel, there appear to be many, and at times they conflict. 

I think I've realized, though, why I'm having difficulties deciding what to write about: Mersault is a bland character.  It's very hard to write about someone who has nothing to contribute.  He appears to defy the very idea of humanity, but in contemplating such a possibility, one is confronted with a question: what constitutes humanity?

The Stranger causes us to reexamine how we define what we consider the most important aspects of our lives, just simply because the main character greets such aspects with such little enthusiasm.  We wonder why he can be so apathetic with regard to life, only to begin to question the value of what we consider important.  Could Mersault have a point in his outlook on life?

Such is my own conundrum regarding the work:  every time I sit down to try and formulate a coherent idea, I become wrapped up in a circular argument which, in the end, only confuses me.

Who Has It Right?

I have decided to use my thesis and see what you all think.  Let me know if you agree or disagree or if I give you any other ideas.  It will all help!

Meursault is cast as a stranger in society because he does not lie about the way he feels.  He refuses to act sad at his mother's funeral, to tell Marie that he wants to marry her, and to say that he regrets killing the Arab man.  Instead of lying to himself and others to satisfy society's desire for sense, sameness, and systems, Meursault stands beneath Camus', "sun that leaves no shadow."  In The Stranger, Camus intends to convey society's preference of a pretty lie over an ugly truth.  In Meursault, we find a man who is so close to the "truth", that as members of systems in our society, we cannot understand him.

Meusrault just makes me question who has it right.  Does he really know everything or know the real "truth"?  I don't think it is better to live life like Meursault because I think it is just a waste of time.  I question why he doesn't commit suicide if he thinks life is so absurd, but then I remember all the things in my life that I think are "absurd" and how I do them anyway for the same reasons all of you do.  For example taking the ACT and SAT and all the classes I'm uninterested in and know I will never use.  Meursault always says that "it doesn't matter" and "it doesn't mean anything".  The only logical meaning I take from Meursault's view on life is that in "truth", nothing really matters in itself.  If a human decides that something does not have meaning there is no "one" to say that it does.  Everything in our society that has value, has value because humans have given it that value nad they can take it away just as easily.

Salamano and His Dog in the Movie "Trust"

In the movie Trust, there are a number of relationships being played out.  One is that of the main guy.  At work, fixing computers on an assembly line, he is quite confidant and violent.  He actually quits and puts his superior's head into a clamp.  But once home, he becomes submissive to his controlling and manipulative father.  It is quite obvious that the man can overtake his father, yet still for some reason he submits to the emotional and physical abuse.

Perhaps this circumstance is comparable to Salamano and his dog in the novel The Stranger.  Constantly, Salamano would beat his dog, and his dog always stayed with him.  The dog had grown up with Salamano, and knew nothing else.  Yes, sometimes the dog would be separated from Salamano, but always the dog would come back.  Salamano is incomplete without his dog, so he never actually gets rid of the dog, though finally , when the dog is old, the dog runs away.

In Trust, the man has grown up with the father, he knows nothing else.  He stays with his dad because that is the only home life he has known, it is the world he has been brought up in and he cannot really imagine it as different.  But, as in The Stranger, I believe that his exposure to the outside world, and his more mature age, will finally allow him to break free of his father and move out of the house as he was suggesting he would.

Any thoughts on if he can survive on his own?  Or will he end up like Salamano's dog, that was most likely caught by the pound and put to death?

What's Up with the Court Clerk and the Robot Lady?

Today in class we discussed the significance of the court clerk and the robot lady during Meursault's trial, although I'm not sure we really came to a conclusive answer.

The text reads: One of [the clerks] was much younger than the others...pen laying in front of him and he was looking at me.  All I could see in his slightly lopsided face were his two very bright eyes, which were examining me closely without betraying any definable emotion.  And I  had the odd impression of being watched by myself...I recognized next to him the little woman from the restaurant, with her jacket and her stiff and determined manner.  She was staring right at me..." (85-86).

Somebody suggested that perhaps the court clerk was similar to Meursault because he was young and he seemed somehow apart from the rest of the crowd, with no trace of emotion on his face.  However, we were unable to explain his connection with the robot lady, and with that we let the qustion go unresolved.

I've been thinking about the passage and the relationship between these two characters, and now I have an idea about why they might be significant.  I think that the court clerk and the robot lady both represent all individuals of society who, unlike Meursault, seem to have schedules and absolute order in their lives. (We saw that the robot-lady was like this earlier in the book, and a court-clerk has to move quickly and record everything meticulously).  They watch Meursault so tirelessly in court because they cannot understand the irrationality of his decisions (to be indifferent about his mom's death and to kill the Arab).  Yet Meursault had no reason for these actions. Therefore, as the clerk and the robot-lady watch him, they represent society's constant search for reason in a world that has no reason and is, instead, absurd.

I also think it's interesting that the robot lady appears at the trial to watch Meursault, when earlier in the novel Meursault was the one watching her (at Celeste's restaurant).  Maybe Camus did this to show the difference between Meursault's way of observing and the robot-lady's way of observing.  When Meursault watches people, he doesn't really judge them; he simply notices all the details about their actions.  I think that this is how he perceives the world as well, because he doesn't really place meaning in things, but rather thinks about all the physical details.  The robot-lady (and society) on the other hand, watches Meursault and judges/criticizes the way he lives. They try to find rationality or purpose in him, and they condemn him because they can't find it.

"I just want to live without a lie"

Over the weekend, I was thinking about my thesis statement for a paper on The Stranger. I jotted some notes down about what I wanted to say, but then I had to go do something.  Before I returned to my notes, I read Camus' preface to the American edition of his novel.  After reading it I was convinced that my thesis made sense.  It seemed to go along directly with his message.

However, I'm not sure about two things.  First, is it necessarily a good thing that I agree so readily with what the author says the book means?  After all, some would argue it doesn't matter at all what he says, but that the only relevant things are the text and/or my reactions to it.  Second, does this thesis make sense to you guys?  Do you have any suggestions on how to improve it or proceed from here?

Here's what I have so far:

"Camus uses Meursault in The Stranger to show that one who lives in modern society cannot live without lying.  Because Meursault refuses to lie about his family, feelings (or lack thereof), or morals, he is condemned to be killed by society."

Feeling or No Feeling?

It's very easy to focus on Meursault's lack of emotional feeling throughout the book.  And I absolutely agree that he often holds his physical needs above his emotional needs (if they are mentioned at all).  But, is that constant throughout the whole book?  A few passages really struck me as being different then the norm.

"He seemed to be asking me what else he could do.  I said nothing; I made no gesture of any kind, but it was the first time in my life I ever wanted to kiss a man." (93)

"What did it matter that Marie now offered her lips to a new Meursault?" (122)

These two quotes appear near the end of the book, and it seemed to me that Meursault was beginning to feel more emotions as well as answer some of the open ended questions in the beginning of the book.  What really struck me was the wording of the quote^^ appearing on pg. 122, because it seemed strange that Marie was even included in his thought process of being with another man if he had thought about her so little during his entire period in jail. He was in fact, thinking about other women and very rarely thinking about Marie.  Was Meursault's epiphany about Marie rooted in the fact that he really didn't care about her as anything more then a physical object of pleasure and therefore ending up not phased by the inevitability of her relationships with other men after his death? Or is it rooted in possible realization of his possible feelings of attachment towards Marie causing the jealousy of these other men?