During the first day of discussion on The Stranger, we were asked to write down our initial reactions to the story as well as the narrator himself. I wrote down things like off-putting and matter-of-fact, but didn't have a full justification for thinking those things. As the story went on, I felt empathetic for Meursault, however I was offput by a lot of the ways that he handled situations or filled his time. I think that much of this stemmed from his focus on the physical world as opposed to the critical and emotional reactions of what is going on around him.
The first example of this is what triggered my response in my notebook, when Meursault is told that his mom has died and his subsequent reaction was not one of emotion but of question over the day in which she died. At first I thought, oh he has an interesting way of coping with emotion. I don't fully agree, but everyone deals with emotional trauma in a very different way. However, as the book went on this hyper-focus on the physical world was only heightened. He was not focused on the fact that his mother had died, but rather the heat of the day. He was not focused on the connection that he had with Marie, but rather the fact that she would have sex with him. He wasn't focused on the implications of shooting the Arab, but rather the sun was in his eyes. For me it was frustrating because in his own way he was a good person, he just missed the mark so many times.
I think that to me his conscious was unpleasant because I am the opposite way and identify as a very emotional person. I think about the ways in which I would react to the situations that Meursault has been through and how my reaction would be completely opposite. It makes me think, are his reactions off putting because of the way that society creates ideal emotional reactions, or is it off putting because we ourselves would not react in that way?
The first example of this is what triggered my response in my notebook, when Meursault is told that his mom has died and his subsequent reaction was not one of emotion but of question over the day in which she died. At first I thought, oh he has an interesting way of coping with emotion. I don't fully agree, but everyone deals with emotional trauma in a very different way. However, as the book went on this hyper-focus on the physical world was only heightened. He was not focused on the fact that his mother had died, but rather the heat of the day. He was not focused on the connection that he had with Marie, but rather the fact that she would have sex with him. He wasn't focused on the implications of shooting the Arab, but rather the sun was in his eyes. For me it was frustrating because in his own way he was a good person, he just missed the mark so many times.
I think that to me his conscious was unpleasant because I am the opposite way and identify as a very emotional person. I think about the ways in which I would react to the situations that Meursault has been through and how my reaction would be completely opposite. It makes me think, are his reactions off putting because of the way that society creates ideal emotional reactions, or is it off putting because we ourselves would not react in that way?
I think it has a lot to do with the expectations of society. At first, Meursault comes across as a free spirit who is not bothered by how anyone around him perceives him or his actions. But his reaction (or lack thereof) in many other situations makes me wonder if he is deficient in human empathy in some way. As you point out, after shooting a person the last thing anyone ponders is the sun bothering his eyes. However, Meursault does not seem to judge anyone, including himself on what we consider as normal terms. In this way, he is a stranger in the very society he lives in. This, to me, seemed like the reason the court judges him more for his lack of emotion or feeling than for killing the Arab.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Meursault is very off putting as society teaches us that when something happens, we should feel emotion for it. Meursault doesn't follow the rules of society by being indifferent as possible because he truly believes that life is meaningless. With that kind of attitude in life, it seems perfectly normal for him to be devoid of emotion and only focus on his biological needs (the role of any living being is to reproduce).
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting point. I was also uncomfortable with Meursault's reactions, but I was hesitant to call him a bad person because I saw his thought process. He is very much focused on his physical being rather than his emotional, which is why in our eyes he made bad decisions and didn't react the "right" way. He shot a human because he was uncomfortable, which sounds pretty self-centered but means a lot to Meursault. And yet, his society can't process his thinking and therefore fear the abnormal and wish to cast him out for his lack off emotion.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of his behavior can be explained with the fact that he felt as if he navigated the world with a "gentle indifference". Meursault is not trying to be an evil man on purpose. It's simply due to his belief in what seems to be nihilism-- the belief that life has no essential meaning or value. I think this philosophy, not Meursault himself, is what society feels threatened by. I think that reflects a lot of what happens in the trial: the focus is not the murder itself, but rather Meursault's own philosophy that the court deems unacceptable.
ReplyDelete