I was pleasantly surprised by Camus' "The Stranger", as I found myself unexpectedly enthralled in the development of the character Meursault. I have always been intrigued by the concept of 'apathy', as I generally experience a number of complex emotions and cannot grasp how a person can be so lackadaisical about anything. From this prospective it's easy to quickly label Meursault as a person without feeling as a result of observing him in situations which would commonly invoke highly emotional responses. This, in fact, is how I would react with someone who I perceive to be responding less than expected, writing them off as someone who 'doesn't care'. However, in the case of Meursault, staying with this person and continuing to follow the development long after I would have made my judgement proved to be enlightening.
As he progresses throughout the story, it is almost as if he had concluded early on that dwelling on emotional response served no purpose and he would not be bothered with it. I do not think he is incapable of emotion, as he himself weights the responses he gives and how they are perceived by others. He even professes to feel embarrassment at some situations, such as declining to view his mother's body, when he senses judgement being passed on his reactions. His lack of emotional response seems to suggest a stunted development, prompting the Prosecutor in the story to label him as "soulless", and comparisons to 'animalistic behavior' in class discussion.
However, reading on to the end of the story, I found myself going over his words several times to find my interpretation of them. He explains, when being accused of having no regret for his actions, that he has never really been able to feel regret for anything in all his life. He states, "I've always been far too much absorbed in the present moment, or the immediate future, to think back." (Camus, pg. 63). I am inclined to wonder if his attitude toward life events is instead advanced for his era, as he seems to have transcended the common despair that comes from worrying about how his actions are identified by his surrounding society. We see in the story how the surrounding people are wrestling with the fact that his actions are not indicative of someone showing remorse. They cannot accept that a person should not have some sort of emotional response to the death of a loved one. The are almost insulted by the fact that he would chose to spend an evening enjoying himself with Marie instead of wallowing in the grief they dictate to be appropriate. Meursault, however, has none of these thoughts early in the book when he describes the morning after his mother's funeral as a sort of play-by-play, where each action he takes is merely a cause of the last action. In this matter of fact way, he describes waking and feeling a swim will do him good, so he sets out to swim. In doing so, he meets Marie, whom he incidentally spends the day with, resulting in him asking her to see a movie with him. He follows the day as it goes, not letting the past events weigh him down or interfere with his present. He notes he supposes one should feel somewhat guilty, but makes no effort to entertain these feelings past that.
I believe that what I have taken from the story is the idea of non-conforming. In Meursault's rejection of societal regard, he is labeled an outcast of this society. But at the same time, I believe he is freed from the constraints of judgement and the constant worry of what such judgments implicate for him. This, in turn, proves to be the ultimate irony as this freedom results in his being jailed and put to death.
I still cannot wrap my head around all that this story is offering.
No comments:
Post a Comment