Albert Camus - The Stranger - Episode 3 - The Absurdity Of A Happy Ending???
Albert Camus - The Stranger - Episode 3 - The Absurdity Of A Happy Ending???
Hi, I’m Christy Shriver, and we’re here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.
And I’m Garry Shriver, and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast. Today we finish up our three part series on Albert Camus’ class novella L’Etranger- translated in English to either The Stranger or The Outsider depending on which side of the Atlantic ocean you reside.
We talked extensively about problems with translation when we discussed Emily Wilson’s translation of the Odyssey but it’s a subject that comes up anytime someone seeks to translate anything. How much of any translation is affected by the personal interpretation of the translator? Even in a book written so deliberately simple in its construction that most French 3 students can read it in French, the translation of this book has seen its share of controversy starting with the title, but extending to page after page. Let me give you an example from the first page and ending with the last page which we’ll discuss in full today. That famous first line that reads, “Aujourd’hui, maman est morte,”- aujourd-hui means today- est morte means is dead. That sounds pretty straightforward. But the problem is how you translate that second word- some translators translated it Mother; but others say if you do that you throw the entire book off- arguing it’s not today mother died. It’s today Mommy is dead. But maman isn’t exactly mommy, either- that’s too baby-ish- but it’s an English word with tenderness and mother is too sterile. Also, notice how we’ve also changed the ORDER of the words in English- and in a book so intent on using words so sparingly and deliberately do we miss the true impact of that first line by saying mother died versus mommy is dead?
Do you know what I have to say?
What?
It’s just absurd!!!
Yes, indeed, it’s all absurd! So absurd!! And yet it matters- which is the definition of absurd.
Well, I have a controversy to bring up in regard to mis-understanding and mis-representing Camus.
Oh really. What is it?
In 1976, the English rock band The Cure released it’s very first single and it was titled, “Killing an Arab”. The intent of the single was to reference and honor Camus’s novel. I want to read the lyrics and see, after reading part 1 of the novel, if you see the connection songwriter Robert Smith was making with Camus.
Standing on the beach With a gun in my hand Staring at the sea Staring at the sand Staring down the barrel At the Arab on the ground I can see his open mouth But I hear no sound I'm alive I'm dead I'm the stranger Killing an Arab I can turn And walk away Or I can fire the gun Staring at the sky Staring at the sun Whichever I chose It amounts to the same Absolutely nothing
Well, from a literary perspective, it’s a fairly straightforward musical homage to not just the story The Stranger but it expresses Camus’ vision of the absurd- the indifference of the universe in the face of humanity.
I think so too; however, it was not universally well-received. The Cure were labeled as racist and have sometimes chosen to sing the song with revised lyrics of “Kissing an Arab”.
Hmmmm, to be honest, as I reread the those words with no context, even though, it’s a direct reference for sure, it most certainly would be misunderstood to anyone who hasn’t read the book The Stranger- which I’ll speak for Americans, but I don’t think most Americans have, to be honest.
No doubt. In fact, if you were to read just the title “Killing an Arab” on a Spotify or Apple song suggestion today, you likely would be emotionally triggered, especially if you are Middle-Eastern or have friends or professional acquaintances that are, which, today, most of us do. I don’t think it’s even arguable. And so, it has been The Cure’s most controversial song for the last fifty years. So much so, It has been widely dropped from radio playlists. It’s been rebranded under the title Standing on a Beach which has helped, also it often contains a sleeve sticker. The sticker reads:
“The song ‘Killing an Arab’ has absolutely no racist overtones whatsoever. It is a song which decries the existence of all prejudice and consequent violence. The Cure condemn its use in furthering anti-Arab feeling.”
So, although it has had this controversial, for those of us who love music, The Cure is what introduced me to The Stranger. So it’s been a mixed reception, but honestly starting in the sixties but and even to this day, there is quite a bit of existentialism especially in Punk Rock and New Wave music- another example would be The Doors and their Song Five to One which literally says, “no one gets out alive” or Smells Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana which starts out with “Load up on guns, bring your friends- it’s fun to los eand to pretend”.
Yeah, I have to be honest, I don’t know almost anything about either of those bands either, although I have heard of both of them, I’m not that disconnected to the music scene.
Welll, Meursault would say, “it doesn’t matter, we’re all going to die either way.” Let’s recap where we are in our series on Camus and the book The Stranger. In episode 1, we introduced Camus’ home country of Algeria and a little about his life. We introduced the idea that is forever associated with Camus and that is absurdism and we got through chapter 1.
Absurdism that irreconcilable idea that the desires and passions of our heart collide head on with the apparent indifference and haphazardness of the universe we seem to inhabit.
True, our guy Meursault confronts the absurdity of the world and cannot resolve what to do with the conclusion that nothing matters. And let me just say now, although Camus will offer some sort of dogmatic answer to this question at the end of the book -He allowed his thinking to evolve throughout his l ife. The book The Plague is kind of a development from The Stranger, and when you get to the Rebel which a lot of scholars consider his best work, you see an even greater evolution of thought. But here, Camus is at the beginning of his journey into the world of the Absurd. He presents the problem of understanding the absurd nature and argues emphaticially against some ways others have erroneously, dishonestly and and actually harmfully responded to the absurdity of life.
I will say, it does help to read Camus’ companion piece, The Myth of Sisyphus, because it explains these ideas where here Camus expresses the emotions and the experience of the absurd. In The Stranger, we watch this young man deal with all the absurdity of life- the absurdity of man confronting the absolute certainty of death- whether you live to be 12, 50 or 103. And adding to the inescapabilty of annihilation, Meursault, as must we all, faces the very other inescapable burden of being a human and that is the feeling of guilt- we argued last week to look at the symbol of the sun to express this- this confusing yet perpetual and indominable discomfort. But guilt and death are not the only human dilemmas Meursault confronts. Today we add this third absurdity of being a human- our insatiable need to find meaning in a world where we are obviously just a speck. Without a grand plan or a divine planner, anything and everything we do, no matter how big or small is equally pointless if measured against the millions of years of time itself, and so we find ourselves just like Sisyphus pushing a rock up a hill just to watch it fall down and then to have to do it all over again- and if we are honest, that’s the key, if we are honest- we know this to be true. We know we are specks.
Camus decries and I quote, “Nothing is clear, all is chaos, that all man has is his lucidity and his definite knowledge of the walls surrounding him.”
The Stranger begins with death, the climactic end of part one is death and now we will confront it for the third time at the end of part 2. We talked about the vague abstract guilt Meursault experiences with the death of his mother. However, as we got to the end of part one, Camus creates a contrast with a flat out murder- a more concrete expression of death with a straightforward connection to guilt. When I finished part 1, there was no confusion in my mind as to who was guilty of murder. Yet Meursault expresses no remorse, and although it causes an outburst at laughter at the court, when asked he basically says, “the sun made me do it. And strangely enough, I, as a reader, seem to understand where he's coming from. But I do have another question. Meursault pointlessly murders a man he only identifies as an Arab. Christy, are we supposed to see anything racial about this? Why doesn’t this man have a name?
Again, an interesting question with no definitive answer. We know Camus had many Arabic friends, we know that, so I don’t think we should look at this book in terms of race. This story claims that NO one’s life has value, regardless of anything. Period. The Arab is insignificant; for sure; but so is Meursault who won’t even live one year longer than the man he murdered. It’s not about the Arab, it’s not about the woman who gets beaten up by Raymond. It’s not even about Marie- all of which could be seen as being victims- the Arab being the last and most horrific expression of victimization. This is about Meursault who cannot see that any of that even matters and so if nothing matters, what’s the difference- eating, drinking, sleeping, smoking, beating up women, getting a promotion, murdering people- it’s all the same. Total nihilism- nothing matters.
What is interesting about Meursault, beyond being pretty nihilistic is what he does with this reality- and what he does is refuse to pretend things matter when he clearly believes they don’t. He won’t pretend to love Marie, if he doesn’t. He won’t pretend to care for Raymond’s girlfriend, so he doesn’t. He doesn’t feel any sadness when his mom dies, so he doesn’t cry. He doesn’t have remorse for killing the Arab, so he doesn’t fake it. And that is how most of us are different from Meursault. We clearly understand that as social beings no matter what we actually feel, we should follow certain social norms. For most of us in these same situations, no matter how we felt about any of this, we most certainly would have expressed the proper emotions. You may not cry at your mother’s funeral, but you wouldn’t smoke a cigarette. Last episode we read a quote by Camus describing Meursault. Camus said that Meursault is simply a man who does not play the game. Today we ask, is it for this reason that he is ultimately killed-
Exactly, and is he right to not play the game? Camus says yes- and that is what makes him a hero to emulate and not a person to see as doing everything wrong.
And so what IS the game of life? What’s wrong with following social norms? What does Camus value here with this disagreeable character? And finally, why are the stakes of this game so high that refusing to play it costs lives?
Great questions- and here’s the paradoxical answer that will take the rest of the episode to explain. Truth 1 for Camus death is inevitable- start there. Truth 2 the cost of PLAYING the game of life is never living AT ALL. For Camus, many of us commit philosophical suicide pretty early on, and in doing so, confess to ourselves that life is not worth living.
As a metaphor that makes sense, I guess, but, it’s very abstract. What does philosophical suicide look like?
Enter part 2 of this book. It shows us. As we look at Meursault who never commits philosophical suicide, we see a guy who stays honest with himself until his moment of death. And let’s look at the truths that really define him. For one, Meursault is an atheist. He doesn’t like religion at his mother’s funeral; he doesn’t even like Sundays. He doesn’t believe in God. And so, he won’t pretend that he does, if he doesn’t. This, btw, is not an appropriate social belief in the 1940s not in France, not in Algeria, not in a lot of places around the world. Meursault is told that everyone believes in god. He is told that all criminals confess before they face the guillotine. Of course, a careful reader knows that can’t possibly be true. All people agree on nothing. What might be true that most of us under pressure will pretend to believe in whatever we need to to fit into our communities- be we Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Hindi, Buddhist or anything else. Many of us do believe, but many others play the game. In this culture, to be an atheist is to be an outsider, and most of us don’t want that. But Meursault absolutely cannot make himself pretend. He isn’t going to pretend to be a Christian just because the magistrate wants him to do or what the priest wants him to do- even if just a halfhearted fake confession would extend his life. He’s also not going to lie to himself about believing in Jesus so he can keep on living.
And let me add, that neither the magistrate or the priest really do anything to actually meet him where he’s at with this atheism. They don’t try to have an honest conversation or even to make sense.They do not try to cite ontological arguments for the existence of God by quoting Renee DesCarte or Soren Kierkegaard. There is no discussion about the proofs of God.
No, they make it about themselves, “Do you want my life to be meaningless? And, this of course, is an absurd line of reasoning to Meursault as well as to us the readers. It’s irrational. Camus is suggesting that they won’t have these conversation with themselves. They have already committed philosophical suicide. They want an easy answer to the problem of finding meaning in their lives- even if it makes no sense. Meursault sees this as absurd. It’s why he’s nihilistic.
I think it’s a good idea to define what we are calling nihilism. Basically nihilism is the belief we’ve heard Meursault pronounce time and time again. It’s coming to the conclusion that nothing matters. My job, my girlfriend, morality, not even my mother, not even myself. He’s consistent and very truthful, unfortunately, as Camus says, ““Man is always prey to his truths. Once he has admitted them, he cannot free himself from them.”
Meursault has admitted to himself a few truths and now he’s prey to what that means: and a few issues with his belief system are: detachment, apathy, and inertia, and guilt- you might even say a little bit of hedonism. Those are the problems he’s trying to solve.
In part 2, our absurd hero is interrogated after being arrested for the murder of an Arabic man on a beach. Part 2 feels just as absurd as part 1, but in a totally different way. In the first half, we see the absurdity in how Meursault reacts to life, but here we are going to see the absurdity in the world in how everyone else reacts to life. Meursault is locked away in prison with nothing to do. He even has to give up smoking. By sentence 3, he’s been locked up for a week and in front of the magistrate. We don’t have those in the US, but think of it basically as the judge.
A lot of time passes in the first and second chapters of part 2- 11 months to be exact, but nothing really happens. Meursault is stripped away from the world: from women, cigarettes, his job, his favorite diner, his neighbors, from everything. Meursault is put through this crucible of nihilism to see if he can subsist in a world with nothing- which he actually finds out he can- he finds once you get used to your reality, you can be happy anywhere.
Meursault, since his arrest, has watched the world play a game with him almost as a game piece. He has been the game. When he’s appointed a lawyer which is required by law, he literally says, “it all seemed like a game to me”- Mersault, as we know from Camus, won’t play the game but society will- with or without his consent- Meursault will face extreme pressure to play the game- he will confront first, the power of the state, secondly the power of culture/religion and finally the power of the absurd: the magistrate, the priest and the guillotine. He will lose only to the absurd.
This is a good time to look back at the Myth of Sisyphus and Camus’ first sentence where he says the only serious philosophical problem is about committing suicide- should I kill myself. This seems rough, and of course, he IS talking about physical suicide, yes, but more importantly- the broader idea is something he terms philosophical suicide- the idea of physical suicide is obvious, one decides that life really has no point at all and so, one physically, often despairingly chooses to take it.
Camus rejects this. Suicide is not an answer- not physical suicide but also not philosophical suicide. This second dimension of suicide is what is symbolized in this book by that powerful symbol of the crucifix and the role of the priest. For Camus philosophical suicide is just as damaging and honestly maybe even more damaging than physical suicide- for one reason is that I can lead to demagoguery, violence and murder in the name of an -ism. Camus suggests philosophical suicide is a way more common approach to dealing with life’s absurdity. It’s an easy but a very dishonest way to confront life’s absurdity. It’s hypocritical- and demands that we to lie not to others, but to ourselves. It demands we surrender our freedom of choice, of our consciouses and that is what defines us as being human. It’s what makes us alive to begin with.
And in the midst of World War 2, this was what he saw all of Europe- and the result was death, despair and destruction all in the name of the greater good. And I want to point out that Camus was, very much, a war hero. During the second World War, he joined the Combat. (pronounced comb- bah) Resistance group. He became the editor of their underground paper during the war and after the war. He faced genuine danger. Death was not theoretical in Paris during the German occupation when you are an outspoken member of the resistance. From his early days as an orphan of WW1, and the son of a woman from Spain, he saw what people did in the name of their -ism. Whatever it is. In the name of Fascism, many defied their own consciouses and followed Hitler and Franco. In the name of Communism, millions were butchered. In the name of nationalism, Algeria tore its own country apart. In a Combat editorial published on August 8th, 1945, Camus was the first to condemn the United States for dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He called it the “the terrifying perspectives opened up to humanity”. All of these are demagoguery masquerading as humanitarianism.
But religion has masqueraded as well. The name of God, in which Camus didn’t even believe, us wielded like a weapon to force us to surrender our consciouses- to commit philosophical suicide.
There is pressure from within and pressure from without to lie to ourselves- it’s just the miserably easy thing to do. Of course, from a psychological perspective it’s crippling. Every time you lie to yourself, you disorient yourself in the world.
So, why do it?
We do it in response to the absurd. We need to have meaning in the world. We want to be part of something big and meaningful and that will outlast us, define us, give us a reason to confront suffering- and so we pick something. It can anything really. It can be a career, a child, even a sports team, a delusion of a personal dynasty- lots of people do that. But what Camus saw was people in 1940 were ideologies -ism’s, religions- some of which were secular. These are hidden demagogueries which he is going to illustrate in part 2 of this book.
And what’s demagoguery?
Demagoguery is when a leader appeals to the lowest prejudices of people and the emotions tto create very simplistic cures for complex problems. Its goal is to dominate others.
In chapter 1, Meursault is interrogated by his lawyer. And as the questions progress they take on a sort of apparently non-connected line of questioning about whether or not Meursault believes in God. Meursault says he doesn’t. The lawyer returns with this line, “it was impossible; all men believe in God. Of course, we know, anytime someone says ALL people do this, or NO ONE does that- That’s the language of demagoguery. We can’t even say ALL people breath- because there are some, those on ventilators, that do not. But why make a statement like that, why even talk about God at all? What does God have to do with anything? Well, he explains it in the next lines..
“That was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt it, his life would be meaningless. “Do you want my life to be meaningless?” He shouted. As far as I could see, it didn’t have anything to do with me, and I told him so. But from across the table he had already thrust the crucifix in my face and was screaming irrationally, “I am a Christian. I ask Him to forgive you your sins. How can you not believe that He suffered for you?” I was struck by how sincere he seemed, but I had had enough. It was getting hotter and hotter. As always, whenever I want to get rid of someone I’m not really listening to, I made it appear as if I agreed. To my surprise, he acted triumphant. “You see, you see!” he said. “You do believe, don’t you, and you’re going to place your trust in Him. Aren’t you?” Obviously I again said no. He fell back in his chair.”
This is the very definition of philosophical suicide in the name of religion. This guy is throwing out cliché after cliché in ways that cannot possibly make sense. He emotionally tries to force an agreement from Meursault because if Meursault won’t go along, HIS life, the lawyer, not Meursault, but HIS life will be meaningless.
And this is the game Meursault won’t play- and it won’t matter how much pressure that magistrate, the lawyer and later the priest put on him. He will rebel; he will NOT kill his own conscious. In part 1, we see Meursault wrestle with the forces of nihilism, but here in part 2, we see him wrestle against the forces of philosophical suicide. There is a lot of pressure to take the easy way out. Turn off your brain. Accept the -ism, give your life meaning by believing in something- even if you don’t. This is what is being symbolized by this crucifix- don’t think about it- just accept it!
And, for me, this is so easy to understand in terms of religion. Today it’s actually safer to talk about this in terms of religion instead of hot button current ideologies. But both religion and secular ideologies were rampant in the Europe of the 40s. The first world war destroyed faith in a lot of people's lives, and religion began to give way to other forms of philosophical suicide. The atrocities in the world were always being done in the name of the greater good. Why did young Germans kill, it wasn’t because they believed in murdering Jews per se, it was because they believed in the Motherland. Why were millions murdered in Russia, it was in the name of Communism, the greater good. How did Che Guevera and Fidel Castro justify killing untold numbers in Cuba? For Camus, all of this starts at the individual level. If life is absurd, there is no greater good. What does it matter if you are of the left, or of the right, if you are religious or areligious, if you are of this race or that race- in the face of the absurd we are all the same. We are all going to face the guillotine in exactly the same way- alone and with total assurance it will win.
It doesn’t matter what the -ism- it is not worth killing for. It is not worth lying to yourself about. Killing is agreeing with the absurd. Lying to yourself is as well. Camus was very consistent until the day he died about this. Killing and violence are NEVER the answer- and ironically, he might have been killed for this idea. Of course, nobody knows what caused the car crash that ultimately killed him in 1960 at the age of 46, but there are some very credible conspiracy theories that it was not an accident. It’s speculation, of course, I’m not sure we will ever know, so I don’t feel justified in going into it, but if you’re interested Google it.
Oh yes, he enraged a lot of people, but one group we know about is the KGB. Camus wrote articles critical of the Soviet massacres in the Hungarian Revolt of 1956, and these were not well-received. But it didn’t matter. For Camus the enemy of man is the absurd, and we should fight it with truth. He campaigned vigorously against capital punishment. At one point he flat out said, “I’m not cut out for politics, because I’m incapable of wanting or accepting the death of the adversary,”
For Camus, death starts with dishonesty about who you are, especially the kind of dishonesty where you lie to yourself about your personal worth in this world- you think you are way more important than you are- more important than another person. At the end of chapter 1, Meursault is called the Anti-Christ which is an unusual designation- since he doesn’t seem anything like the Jesus Christ in the Bible. But Camus sees here a secular Christ because he dies for truth. Camus is not a Christian, so he sees Christ not as a divinity, but as a person who died because he would not play the game. He would not be dishonest with himself and others. That is how the analogy with Christ holds true. Camus’ idea is that both Meursault and Christ died because they stood up to a society bent on forcing them to confess lies about the nature of reality which they absolutely would not do- albeit their truths were different, but in both cases, they preferred physical death over physically freedom but mental slavery.
Christy, that makes a person’s head spin. How can we possibly understand that?
I know, it’s philosophically complex, but it’s easier to see just reading the story. Over the course of time, prison strips every pleasure out of Meursault’s life. If you remember, in part 1, Meursault pretty much lived a life with the goal of finding as much pleasure as possible. His joys were smoking, sex, eating, relaxing, that sort of thing. In jail, they strip every one of those away. That is the punishment- but it’s also somehow where Meursault will find some sort of peace and freedom from the terrible burden of guilt that bears down on him. He sleeps on boards; bugs crawl all over him, his bathroom is a bucket. It is all pretty bad, but after a while, Meursault adjusts to it. In chapter two he has this to say,
“At the time, I often thought that if I had had to live in the trunk of a dead tree, with nothing to do but look up at the sky flowering overhead, little by little I would have gotten used to it” (77). Then he remembers something his maman used to say repeatedly that you could get used to anything.
Which, of course, is what he does. For a nihilist who has said that nothing matters for the entirety of the book, the biggest paradox of the entire book is that Meursault does not want to die. He does not wish for suicide of any kind. The law kills him because he wants freedom on his own terms, and this he can’t have. He is killed in pursuit of life. He is killed because he will have his philosophical freedom even if it costs him his life. He will NOT commit suicide. Camus, in the myth of Sisyphus talks about the draw we have towards finding a meaning in a man-made construct. He says this, “There is so much tenacious hope in the human heart. Even the most desperate men sometimes give their consent, finally to illusion.”
True, if Meursault has decided anything in this life, he has decided he will not be that guy, but, if he rejects nihilism, and then if goes on to reject philosophical or physical suicide of one sort or another, then what’s left? How do you solve the reason to keep living in this world- how do you face the absurd? This is not a question Camus knew the answer to in his 20s, so don’t expect an answer, but Camus thinks he found step one in the process- and even if you are not a nihilist or even an atheist there is something to agree with here. Meursault’s life is going to get incredibly shortened, and we see him change significantly in part 2. In chapter 3, we watch his trial. It’s absolutely yet another expression of the absurd. There is never any doubt as to whether he killed or didn’t kill the Arab, the question seems to be about if he should die for it. There is a long list of personal friends that come to his defense, but mostly they revisit the death of his mother- and it appears that he is being tried not for the murder of the Arab but for the death of his mother and his reaction to her death. All of it is surreal and we get a crazy frustrated feeling as we read it. At one point in the trial, the judge calls his mother’s caretaker to the stand. The caretaker answers questions about his time at the home after his mother’s passing. After the caretaker finishes Meursault thinks this, and I quote, “It was then I felt a stirring go through the room and for the first time I realized that I was guilty.”
What is he guilty for? Killing the arab? Killing his mother. What is he talking about. It’s ambiguous stream of conscious.
Well, it is and much of the logic of the prosecution is convoluted. The justification for condemning Meursault for killing a father is that he first killed a mother…
Page 101-102.
And so he is convicted, let’s read that..’
107
Camus never knew his father. He died when Camus was 1 year old just at the beginning of WW1. Camus knew very little bit about him either, but in an essay called Reflections on t he Guillotine, Camus writes about one of his only stories he knows about his father. Let me read what Camus wrote in that essay, “ One of the rare things I know about him, in any case, is that he watned to witness the execution, for the first time in his life. He woke up in the middle of the night to get to the execution site, at the other end of the city, in the nidst of a great throng. What he saw that norning, he did not say anything about to anyone. My mother told that he came home like a gust of wind, his face overwhelmed, refused to talk, stretched a while on the bed and suddenly threw up. He had just discovered the reality which hid under the great formulas which masked it.”
What does that mean to you?
I don’t know, but this true story is embedded in chapter five, Meursault asserts that there is nothing more important than an execution. Man versus the absurd. He inserts a little bit of his personal life into this story. There is something very freeing for Camus about facing death- facing the certainty of it- the absurdity of it. It is only here after Meursault is convicted of murder that he finds strength within himself to exert any agency. He’s going to lose his detachment and passivity. He’s going to transcend the nihilism that has been the hallmark of his existence. He’s going to find courage to live. And he asserts himself by refusing to see the chaplain.
It's also here that we see him start to think through the certainty of the guillotine. He wishes to find a way to barter with it; to cheat death somehow, but that can’t be. Death will not be cheated. In his case, the machine of society is already at work. He has to embrace hopelessness. There is no hope of freedom. And that for Camus seems to be the key. It’s the key to embracing life. It’s the key to enjoying small things and not feeling compelled to find meaning in the greater good or pursuing a delusion of immortality in one way or the other.
In his later years Camus said that he had sought reasons to transcend out of darkest nihilism.
If you are a thinking person, regardless of your position on the rational basis for the metaphysical or transcendent, the way to avoid nihilism is to find agency in yourself. To create your own future. For Camus, even if the universe doesn’t have a plan, you have consciousness. It’s what makes you a person, and that is a great privilege. Don’t give that up. Don’t kill it off. Make a life for yourself- live. Camus said it this way, “it is a problem of our civilization and what matters to us is to find out whether man alone, without the help of the eternal or of rationalistic thought may create his own values.”
When the priest comes for the last time, Meursault engages him with courage and agency and emotion, unlike we’ve seen at any other time in this book. He’s awake. He’s alive. His confrontation is passionate and he realizes the man he’s talking to is already dead. Let’s read just the first paragraph of his reflection on his rant..
Page 120
After that rant, he calms down and sleeps. He says the wondrous peace of that sleeping summer flowed through me like a tide. When he wakes up, he thinks of his mother for the last time. He understands why she got engaged right at the end of her life. He feels ready to live life all over again. He opens himself and I quote to the indifference of the world and finds that’s he’s happy.
You know, after all the things Camus lived through during those turbulent decades, he never lost his faith in justice, the life of the spirit and above all, the power of truth. In a later essay titled “Letters to a German Friend” he says this, “Man is that force which ultimately cancels all tyrants and gods. He is the force of evidence. If nothing has any meaning, you would be right. But there is something that still has meaning.” In the same essay, he admits that he once had been nihilistic and thought, exactly like the Meursault of part 1 that nothing mattered. If nothing matters than it doesn’t matter if you beat up a woman or kill a person whose name you don’t know. It matters just about as much as getting married or getting a promotion. But he doesn’t stay there, instead he says this, “I continue to believe that this world has no ultimate meaning. But I know that something in it has meaning and that is man, because he is the only creature to insist on having one. This world has at least the truth of man, and our task is to provide its justification against fate itself. And it has no justification but man; hence he must be saved if we want to save the idea we have of life.”
For Camus, man is nothing endowed with consciousness and the ability to have courage. And this is where Meursault arrives, unfortunately a little too late to live courageously, or really live at all- but at least he didn’t commit suicide- he lived and died free. And so, he walks out to meet his fate with some of the strangest words to end a novel and I quote, “I felt happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.”
What does that mean? That sounds terrible. Why cries of hate?
Wouldn’t we all like to know. I wish I did know. I don’t. And that is, obviously, Camus intent. We know, of course, that Meursault always felt like an outsider. He always thought nothing mattered, not even him. But now he knows he’s wrong. It’s not that he thinks he matters now because I don’t think he does, but he does feel pride at not succumbing to suicide of any kind. He can be himself all the way out the door, and the larger the crowd, the better. If we read the companion piece, “The Myth of Sisyphus” he ends that essay with this, Garry will you read it?
“I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises the rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that. Night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle. Itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”
The Stranger is not just a book for atheists struggling with nihilism, although obviously it is clearly that. The Stranger is about confronting the realities of your existence with intellectual honesty- the futule rocks of life that we pick up and carry up the hill just to watch them fall and must be picked up all over again. Confront the absurd. Doing this is not the ending point; it’s the starting point. Don’t lie about your speckness- don’t inflate your significance, your role, resist the demagogues and don’t commit violence, …be honest at least with yourself and take courage. Build if you want; enjoy morning coffee when you want, walk in the sun. Take the pressure off, be honest at least with yourself... and last but not least- imagine yourself happy.
And so there we conclude not in the dark but in the light, perhaps we can even imagine the beautiful and bright Algerian sun. Thank you for listening. It’s been a difficult book to navigate, but we hope you’ve enjoyed our perspective.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free