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.
2 comments:
Hmm, interesting argument. I agree with you that Meursault seems to have set his rational beliefs. But rather than in stone, I would think that he sets them in a much more changeable material. For me Meursault lives entirely by the moment. His beliefs are there, but they shift without pause. For instance, consider his reaction to the chaplain and to the prosecutor. Whereas one is trying to "save" his soul and the other is trying to condemn, he reacts to both in a similarly passionate way. To the chaplain, he breaks out in anger, and to the prosecutor, he feels the urge to weep.
Does this mean that he has necessarily changed? Yes and no. While the second part does elicit more powerful reactions from Meursault, the latter part also presents him with more shocking stimuli. Yet at the same time, considering the fact that this is the guy who didn't cry at his mother's funeral and couldn't remember his mother's age, and then taking into account the fact that he recalled the story about his father vomiting after an execution and straining his face against the window of his jail cell for the outside freedom, can we not say he has come some way?
I'm not sure if I was clear or not. But I found your post really enjoyable and I couldn't help but reply. Good job!
One way to look at it might be that maybe nothing fundamental changes "inside" Meursault as a character, but his *circumstances* change dramatically--he loses his freedom--and this leads him to assess his life, to view it in a new light. The trial doesn't change him in the specific ways society expects (and demands, really)--he doesn't suddenly develop "remorse," or plead for mercy. But whereas earlier he'd taken such a passive role in his own life, once he's sentenced to death, he becomes obsessed with the idea of *escape*, with "evading the machinery of justice." This isn't, as you say, maybe a fundamental change--but compare his violent response to the chaplain to his more laid-back response to the examining magistrate, who also interrogates him on his religious beliefs. What's the difference between these two moments? The trial and the sentence. He explodes on the chaplain, losing his calm detachment; he embraces his anger, and it seems to *matter* to him very much what he says to the guy--his *justification* of his life as he's lived it. Earlier, he'd had no justification; he just lived it.
Post a Comment