Meursault's Change?

After listening and reading much discussion, I stand my ground on my perspective on The Stranger. There is a specific impression that retains in my thoughts of Meursault. I believe that Monsieur Meursault is generally a static character. Whereas many people argue that the transition between parts 1 and 2 marks a large change in character for Meursault, I beg to differ. In fact, I challenge that Meursault continues to maintain his character all the way until the finale (that is, the end of the novel).

Throughout the novel, Meursault carries around a sense of contentment. He does not falter when faced with distress until he is bent by something extremely frustrating (for example, the Arab that provoked Meursault with the knife at the end of the first part). Similarly, in part 2, Meursault remains distant during his trial up until the ending pages. There is no obscene description of Meursault’s condition during part 2, thus it would be false to assume that he was extremely distressed or extremely calm. I believe that Meursault generally maintains composure during the majority of the second part with some moments of distress here and there. It is at the end that Meursault becomes enlightened after the confrontation with the chaplain. Meursault realizes his contentment with his life, in that he lived happily, and looks forward to leaving with a bang.

Meursault may seem like a different character between the two parts of the novel, but the lack of description leaves us to only wonder how he really seemed to others. I believe that Meursault is a person with rational beliefs that are set in stone. He lives by these ideas, and when he is challenged, his walls get weak, allowing a few emotions to overcome him. This goes against the idea that Meursault becomes more open to his emotions in the second part, which is what I argue against. I say that Meursault has always been one to hold against his emotional state (which he even says himself) and that the display of emotions in the second part does not prove that Meursault has changed. It is completely possible that he has had similar experiences in the past, so it is incorrect to say that the trial changes Meursault.

Monsieur Meursault

The Stranger by Albert Camus, begins en media res with the protagonist Monsieur Meursault discussing his mother's very recent death. Meursault attends the funeral and follows through with the common ritual for the deceased, but there is an uncharacteristic ambiance about him and his attitude toward the whole situation is questionable.

His contentment with life and complacent attitude during the ordeal and after seem to irk many people. In fact, a few argue that it is inhuman of him to be so unresponsive to his family tragedy, even saying that he could have a mental handicap.

The fact that the book begins during this event of the loss of a loved one makes it difficult to identify Meursault's true personality. One could presume that Meursault's actions following the funeral reflected his normal behavior. But I argue that this is not the case. In fact, Meursault's decision to flirt and fondle with Marie, a "love interest," and his many other decisions only reflect his coping mechanism, which is to build a wall in opposition to emotions of intimacy and drama.

Throughout the first part, rather than addressing deep feelings of grievance as expected by most of society, Meursault takes time to enjoy the simple pleasures of life, in fact spending a whole Sunday afternoon gazing at the vista. Furthermore, when the topic of the death of his mother is brought up, the conversations are consistently short and Meursault is quick to return to enjoying life, living on the edge. For example, when Marie is told of the tragedy, there is just a fleeting moment of sorrow, and then the two return to enjoy themselves.

In addition to the brief moments of discussion about Meursault's mother, Meursault is surrounded by references to intimate relationships ending poorly. One of which is his aged neighbor, Salamano's relationship with Salamano's mangy old dog. When Salamano loses his dog, he is devastated, even though the two's relationship was portrayed negatively, as if the dog were being abused. Rather, it is later revealed that Salamano and the dog were content with each other. A second reference would be another neighbor's relationship. Meursault "gains" a pal named Raymond who is very abusive to his wife and other people in general. During the later half of the first part, Meursault sees (technically hears) Raymond's intent. During these two encounters, neither seem to phase Meursault a lot, rather, there is hidden tension being built up inside Meursault.

Finally, in the sixth chapter, my suspicions were confirmed that Meursault had suppressed his emotions about his mother as a defense mechanism. At the very end of the part, he becomes enraged and shoots a Moorish man five times, not only because he was avenging Raymond (who had been injured by the man), but because memories of his mother's funeral began pouring over him such as the massive heat under which he similarly marched behind his mother's casket.

The last words, "And it was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness," referring to the four extra shots he took, signify that the barrier against his grief for his mother had been broken.

Not just at the end is this idea of a defense mechanism apparent. In the beginning while Meursault and others kept vigil over Meursault's mother, as he was sitting with the other mourners around his mother, a friend of his mother was the only one crying (because his mother was her only friend). When she finally stopped, Meursault thought, "Then finally she shut up," which may implicate feelings of bitterness towards the people who were closer to his mother than he before her death.

Perhaps my interpretation of Meursault's feelings is completely incorrect. That would be fine because I have only completed the first part, but given the information, I find it much more probable that Meursault is so emotionally troubled by this loss that he does not deal with it, and rather indulges in the physical/simple pleasures in life.

Kafka, What I Missed

The Metamorphosis is filled with ideas given its short length, but one major idea was missing for me to consider the novel complete.

Each (major) character in the novel is given an extremely rich and unique personality. Every member of the Samsa family had their own quirks and traits which become clearer and clearer through the novel. For example, Gregor Samsa's father is portrayed as an easily angered, frail yet strong, and aged man. His encounters with and treatment of Gregor say a lot about his virtues (that he relied on his son quite a bit and expected as much).

While each character had their unique traits, none of them, the father, mother and sister of Gregor, seemed inhuman. In fact, Kafka gives the family a very strong (and expected) family-type bond, in the way that they rely upon each other. For this reason, I do not understand at all why nobody in the whole novel ever even showed the slightest sign of action towards curing Gregor's condition as a cockroach. Sure, Gregor's sister Grete takes care of Gregor by bringing his food and complying to his apparent needs, but never does she interact with Gregor directly, as if assuming that watching over the insect would truly do anything progressive. The only moment of the novel in which anyone considers the possibility of Gregor changing back into a human is when Gregor's mother worries about taking away Gregor's humanity by removing his furniture. This thought (which should have lasted much longer in a normal situation) is short lived when Gregor remembers his humanity and ends up getting in trouble. In fact, even Gregor takes for granted his situation, on occasion, even enjoying his condition. This completely inhuman ignorance of the situation is quite confusing and my only explanation is that the mother and father already gave up hope, and there was a mutual expectation that the situation would resolve itself (which is outrageous).

Everyone continues to wonder if the treatment that Gregor's family gave to him nearing the end of the novel was fair, and I plead that it was. Take a step back and look at the irrationality of this situation, in which Gregor, not once, seems to want to be proactive and find a way to fix the problem. In fact, I believe that Grete's kindness towards Gregor at the beginning of the book was only a product of hope that Gregor would find a way to repair himself. After months of waiting and realizing that Gregor was not showing any signs of trying to fix the problem, it was only logical for Grete to stop caring and truly wonder if there was any humanity left in Gregor.

I felt as if Gregor and his family were just waiting for his life to end. None of the family members showed any expectation of having the sudden transformation fixed. It was as if Gregor had no capability of rationalizing the fact that he was an insect, and that his family was just deluded into sheltering some random, over-sized cockroach in their spare room.

However strange it may be that nobody showed the will to seek an answer to Gregor's transformation, the characters of The Metamorphosis indubitably symbolize something greater than just the members of a family that fosters bug-children. It may be unclear to myself and my narrow mind, but I feel that there must be a reason why Kafka excluded such a vital part of humanity: the will to face such a problem (or maybe it was because the situation was so absurd that the Samsa's did what many people would do, which is nothing).

Response to Previous Post

I had previously written a post exploring the familial relationships in The Metamorphosis based on first impressions of the novel. The first section somewhat introduced the characters in a different light in contrast with the more intimate view of the characters later on.

I gladly retract my statement about the intent of Kafka writing this novel with this premise. In the following few sections, I found the characters to be even more profound and mysterious that initially presented. The progress of time is quite subtle in the novel, but over the apparent month since Gregor's realization of his transformation, I find that he is comparable to Howie from The Mezzanine due to their similar curiosities. Gregor for his fascination in his new life of being a bug, and Howie for his interest in the small details of daily life.

Kafka could be writing this novel based on personal matters rather than going as far as to criticize society but so far, the progress of this novel has been shown to be nothing less than surprising. For all I know, Kafka could have written The Metamorphosis because he actually secretly wanted to live as an insect rather than a human.

Creepy, Strange Kafka

The Metamorphosis begins with Gregor Samsa awakening to his "surprise," as some form of vermin. His astonishment, or lack thereof, is what tips me off. At first, the composure Gregor displays during this situation induces a dream-like state of mind, but when it becomes apparent that Gregor has actually become a bug, I have to question Franz Kafka's (the author) intentions.

Following the shock of realizing that Samsa has truly become something otherworldly, I ask myself, what is the point? There is a myriad of possibilities as to what message is being sent by Kafka, but what strikes me the most is the possibility that Kafka is judging some aspect of society. That aspect, which is not completely clear to me as of now, is blown up in a situation in which a person and an insect are interchangeable. Perhaps Kafka is mocking the idea of children subduing to the parents' bidding as shown by Gregor's otherworldly devotion to his responsibilities to his parents. By turning Gregor into an insect, Kafka is comparing children who live for their parents to insects (which, in my view, has a negative connotation).

Kafka stuffs so much into just the first few pages that it is hard to pinpoint the main premise of the novel, but this type of open ended chaos allows for reflection upon personal ideas and ultimately results in a new perspective, like how I now know that I will not be 100% responsible for my parents when I become independent in fear of being changed into a cockroach.

Brett.

To me, there were things I disagreed with as the novel pulled to a close. The novel ended with Brett and Jacob being "together", but not really. I especially did not like how that would be the closest to which Brett and Jacob would get. 

There is much evidence that Jacob enjoys life more when he is away from Brett, minding other things, while when around Brett, Jacob readily drinks to his content. The fact that Jacob realizes that he is being strung along by Brett may prove his loyalty or may just be the fact that people want what they cannot get. Either way, evidence shows that Jacob is happier away from Brett (such as when he goes fishing). Brett may have an excuse for distancing herself from men when the relationship grows too strong, but to use her history (the abuse by Lord Ashley) as an excuse for such actions is not justified in the least, which is why I do not like how she always expects Jacob to be at her side when she is in need. I say her excuse is not justified because to be set on this path of constant swinging and stringing along different men is not reasonable. Sure, for a while, she may feel the need to distance herself in her (many) relationships, but to continue this trend based on one experience is not plausible because humans are adaptable. 

For Brett to be pulling Jacob into everything she does and be so passive about it just unnerves me. If I were to end the novel, I would have preferred closure: an ending in which Jacob and Brett establish larger boundaries because obviously, Jacob is incapable of being Brett's lover, so it would only be fair to Jacob that he not have to be her emotional support.