Choose a critical lens that interests you. You may choose the lens that you looked through in class, or you may choose any other from the critical theory packet.
Please respond to the following questions and agree or disagree with ONE other BLOGGER:
1. Identify the lens through which you are viewing this text.
2. Based on your reading of the text, WHY did Meursault do what he did? Why did he shoot "the Arab," first once, and then four more times? Use at least one key piece of evidence to support your interpretation.
3. Through your lens, why does this text matter in the world?
Due Thursday, Jan. 22, before class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
The lense that I am looking through is that of the priest. While reading the text I came to the conclusion that Meursalt shot the Arab because the Arab tried to shed the light of God upon him. The author describes the light reflecting from the sun off the Arab's blade as a weapon. Meursalt reacts to that weapon as if it's threatening, but it is a weapon of God because God creating the sun. There are other times where Meursalt doesn't enjoy the bright shine of light:when he was at his mother's funeral the white walls and the intensity of the light were too much. All connotations of God. That light is the universal judgement. This explains the four shots after the first. Meursalt detested the "judgement" so much he wanted to make sure it was put to sleep forever. That would also explain why he attacks the priest at the end before his execution while he was trying to get Meursalt to repent. Amen!
Camus's novel "The Stranger," leads us to the understanding that having no religious affiliations or spiritual connection with God renders us emotionally numb. That same emotional inability creates a socially self-destructive persona no matter how much we want social acceptance. Ultimately, God is good.
AMEN!!! (Church music)
The lense i am using is the Freudian.It is using this method of thinking that i have a come to an idea of why the Arab was shot. From analyzing Meursault and his character it is evident that he has emotional issues. To be specific he has deep emotional scars towards possibly his mother. In the story there are 3 son and mother relationship all but 1 are portrayed negatively. The story about the mother killing the son and Meursault and his mothers relationship. It is because of his mother's failure to give him a sense of protection and safety as a child that he developed a wall around him and detached him self emotionally from the world.It is also possibly that he has bottled up feelings of anger and resentment towards his mother blaming either himself or his mother. Now when he felt threatened by the on coming Arab he had no choice but to defend himself and the other four shots have to do with his bottled up anger because of his poor relationship with his mother. It was his inner demons coming out when they had the chance from years of having been bottled up all the negative feelings. The reason why the novel matters is because it shows us the dangers of having an emotionally detached society. If we all felt no remorse what would stop us from killing each other over a twinkie or anything insignificant? In response to Bengosha it seems that he has some good points. I can see the connection between the light and God. That is a really strong argument. His connection to why the text matters kind of is in the same neighborhood of what i was trying to say.
For my arguement I will be using the Freudian lenses.
Both Bengosha and nando have made good points.
The word choice Camus decided to use for Meursaults defense was "the sun made me do it"
Now looking throught the Freudian lense there are some clues associated with "his need for his mother"
Throughtout the book there is the noticeable theme of water.
Water in the book is identified to be an association with his mother as he longed for a connection with her (as Nando pointed out)which as a solution, he often finds comfort being by water.
He describes that the day after his mother's funernal,he went to the beach and "dove into the channel"
(19) Already we see he finds escape in the comfort, peacefulness of water.
A sentence later he says "In the water I ran into Marie". Marie as we might refer to her under the Freudian lense has fulfilled his longing for a sexuall union (as we are aware they have sexual relations). The word channel can be seen as a phallic and the fact that he finds Marie IN the channel also hints a sexual reference.
I think the syntax, as a sentence after he enters the water his sexual desires are somewhat fullifilled, shows how effectively the water works as his escape as he rapidly find his sexual desire meet.
NOW !!! why does this even matter....
Okay..
So I'm going to try!!! my best to explain myself clearly since I couldn't during class.
Water is his comfort right...
And Meursault says the sun made him shoot the Arab.... right...
So I understood that the sun was destroying the peacefulness he found in water.. (Still with me?)
Okay.
So this is how i intrepreted that part of the text.
I thought of the sun as fire. Fire is the opposite of water and is seen as destructive.
He compared the sun at the murder scence to be the same as the day his mother died. This emphasis of torment form the sun could be a remember of his mother and the idea of his hope for creating a bond with his mother, which died that day at the funernal. Again the sun acts as a reminder of that hope that was destroyed.
SO... at the scene of the crime the sun is describe to be tormenting Meursault; "Strained every nerve in order to overcome the sun" The intensity of the torment of the sun is unbearable for Meursault as he says "is was this burning, which I couldn't stand anymore, that made me move forward." (This is after he sees the Arab.) Again with the sun beating on him, he starts to feel this explosion of anger and frustration and just wants to escape, just like Nando said.
At this point his explosion leads him to shoots the arab once. After releasing a small portion of that frustation he says "I shook off the sweat and the sun" so when see small hints of strength escaping from him. However his strength had not yet reach the point of his comfort as he says "I knew that I had shattered the harmony of day, the exceptional silence of a beach where I'd been happy." Then he shoots the Arab for more times. There Camus reveals how the water was Meursault comforts and infers he wants to be there. That intenisty of frustation and torment lead Meursault to feel defenseless and lead him to commit an act of desperation once he remembers how comforting the water is and he realizes he was to be there to escape.
So now..
WHY is this important?
It reveals how under pain, we are left to feel helpless and are desperate to find an escape; desperate enough to even commit murder.
Lens: Existentialism
The book The Stranger supports the existentialism theory. This is because its worldview ties back to existentialism. The worldview is that we as a society have the desire to make rational decisions despite existing in an apparently irrational and absurd universe. When Meursault kills the Arab the is no contextual evidence that there is an actual reason why. The more we try to find a reason the less we will get close to one. This not only shows the absurdity of the world but pokes fun at our search for rationality. We, the readers, try to find a rational reason as to why Meursault shot the Arab. We might come up with conclusions just like the lawyers did during the trials but there is not truth to the conclusions we will come up with. The lawyers during the trial make up two different versions as to why Meursault must have shot the Arab but we know that both explanations are wrong.
I think this lens is super important because I truly believe that this is the idea that Camus was trying to get through the reader. The Stranger is like the perfect example of existentialism.
Although I believe there is some truth in Fernando’s Freudian Criticism I view the text through the Feminist Lens. I believe that Meursault does have emotional issues relating to his mother. He possibly felt abandoned by her seeing as she would be his sole provider after his father’s death. She would have been unable to fully care for him which as Fernando mentioned made him develop “a wall around him and detach him self emotionally from the world”. This caused Meursault to bottle up his anger. He shot the Arab once and then four more times because he felt threatened by what the Arab was fighting for. The Arab was fighting for justice for his sister, whom Meursaults “friend” had badly beaten. Meursault knew this and remembered the anger he had toward his mother and unleashed it. The Arab was a good target for trying to protect his sister and on a larger picture all women. Another example of Meursaults disregard for women is his relationship with Marie; Shown when Marie asks if Meursault loves her he simply responds that “it didn’t man anything but I didn’t think so”. This shows how he was only interested in sex and did not care about any other type of connection. This text matters in the world because it shows the disrespect men have toward women’s physical and mental being.
--Daniela Godinez
I agree with both Fernando and Brian in that Meursault has some sort of emotional issues involving sex. I believe that Meursault shot the Arab the first time to signify some sort of sexual initiation. The entire passage of the event mentions the immense heat, the glare from the sun, sweating, and labored breathing which can be interpreted as a sexual act. The following four shots symbolize the fulfillment of the sexual union. This shows how Meursault is so concerned with the physical being and nothing else.
Miriam Orrego says:
The lense in which I want to argue about is of historical criticism in connection when Marie-Antoinette and the French Revolution. During the 18th century there were many conflicts in which the society were at war with each other when deciding the fate of France. There were many groups formed fighting against catholocism and the monarchy. In the novel, Camus, has Mersault's lover's name be Marie who could, in a way, be compared to the late Marie-Antoinette and Mersault be the opressed while the jury, chaplain, and the magistrate can be connected to the rest of society. Just like Mersault and the people back in the 18th century if they did not believe or would defy the church they will be prosecuted and excuted which is the same thing that happened to Mersault. Back then there would not even have trials. Yes, Mersault did have one, but, technically he did not because his fate was already predetermined which was not fair for Mersault. Should society always shun those who do not follow with the status quo?
Sometimes you would like for people to understand and be in favor of your ideas and beliefs but that is not always possible and of course, you are not going to force them either.
As for Mersault shooting the Arab, it all comes down to the anguish and desperation of society and the closest people around him.
I come into agreement with Alex Castro in regards of why Mersault shot the Arab. The things we want are not disposed to us and others are replaced in its case just like religion or fate which we do not want.
In my opinion, I believe that this all connects to religion. The sun is always represented as God and the belief that he "is" or "gives" us the light to guide us. Mersault does not want nobody to guide him. Like David had said in class, he has his own moral code. Just when the Arab reflected the sunlight with the blade into his eyes it blinded him instead of making him "see."
As for the four times, I believe that sometimes doing things once does not make something useful. As doubt or confusement one does things more than once. Mersault shoots four times, again, like Alex had said, "it gives him comfort" knowing that his frustration is exposed.
This shows the unfairness of society on its people and how we are deprived of exposing our beliefs because of criticism and punishment.
This is Alicia
The lense I chose was Freudian as well.
I agree with Daniela that women are being portrayed disrespectfully by men but I don't think that is why he shot the Arab 4 times. There is definately that lack of connection from mother and son. As others have mentioned, he has emotional problems. Meursalt seem to be in need of some sort of motherly comfort and love. He continuosly read the article of the mom killing his son and then her killing herself for doing it.(as a relief of his resentment perhaps?). Then there was the mother and the son in the jail. "I noticed he was across from the little old lady and that they were staring intently at each other"(75). This scene kept Meursault interested until Marie was talking. He looked again. This helps shows how he didn't have that connection with his mother. This lack of connection creates an urge to feel numb emotionally. This text matters because it helps see that when people hold in emotions, they will let it out sooner or later in the right or wrong moment.
I will be arguing for the Existentialism lens. This is because Albert Camus himself believed in this lens. Beyond that however I believe that this book is a perfect example of how the world can be seen through an existentialistic way.
One we have Meursault who is as we can obviously see the main dilemma in the book. We are always asking thins such as why does he do what he do? And why is he the way he is? This is a basis for this lens which states that human beings are the central dilemma.
Also we see that:
1. Meursault is a very isolated person.
2. He has no human truth or values or meanings to his way of life. 3. Also he is cast upon a strange situation which is a murder.
This brings us to the murder itself, an existentialist believes that all choices are possible to make. So Meursault could have walked away, could have shot only once, or shot him once, paused and shot the Arab four more times.
I believe we all know which one he chose to do.
Also nothingness=nothingness this is also a belief of this lens. We see this clearly as Meursault and his mother have the same fate, death. There insignificant (nothing life) because nothing through death which happens to all. While this happens in the middle there is nothing but anguish and absurd events.
Lastly to believe in god is a leap of faith. One which Meursault never takes and doesn’t want to take. He would rather believe the prior which is I am nothing and will become nothing.
--Ben
This is Diana.
The lens I am looking through is the existentialist’s. Through this view, I see Meursault’s life as being insignificant and absurd. He himself finds it unimportant and that is why he was condemned as an evil man. Society could not accept his world view and they decided to kill him to destroy that idea so that they could go on living their lives as if it mattered. The choice that Meursault made to shoot the Arab once then four more times was a possibility and any life because the world has no sense. As Gina said, there is no point in trying to draw conclusions to his actions because we can’t find a true conclusion and the reasons are insignificant are our lives.
The protagonist is looking through this lens throughout his life. He accepts the idea that he made his choices and that they were followed with consequences; “I had lived my life one way and could just as well have lived it another,” (p. 121). Meursault own statement proves that he holds this view; “throughout the whole absurd life I’d lived,” (p. 121). I have to disagree with Bengosha about why Meursault and the priest argued. The priest was wrong and he knew that his idea about God was false; “Nothing, nothing mattered, and I knew why. So did he,” (p. 121). The author holds this idea of a meaningless life to be true as well and that’s why he presents us with a character such as Meursault. This text is important to the world because it brings an understanding about the truth about life and that is what the author was trying to accomplish in writing this.
Existentialism
First of all, I want to clear something out. Ben you are wrong; Albert Camus did not believed or considered himself to be existentialist. We have labeled him and his work as existentialist because it is in fact a perfect example of it but he did not necessarily intended to make it for that purpose.
Now as to my argument, I have to say that Mersault is not to blame and that Camus was simply trying to portray, more or less, the absurdity of humanity. This is more evidently when Mersault is being tried. However, he is not so mucn being tried for the actual murder, but rather for his lack of emotion towards his mother's death. Even the text itself points at this when Mersault's lawyer says, "Come on now, is my client on trial for burying his mother or for killing a man?" (96) This, through the lenses of an existentialist, portrays our society's absurdity.
This is also seen when Mersault by chance happened to have bumped into the Arab as he was walking on the beach. It seems almost as ironic or even a satire of our society. This was not even Mersault's fight to begin with, it was his friend's and at the end, he is the one that gets blamed for it.
Nonetheless, this text matters to the world because it shows a mirror image of who we are and who and what we point fingers at without us even having an idea of why we do it. Hence, because life has no true meaning and we think it does, we are just really being absurd.
Ana
This is Magaly Franco.
I will be using the existentialism lenses.
Both Gina and Ben make very good arguments for the existentialism lens. I agree to everything they are saying, but would like to add on to it. As Gina said, “The Stranger” does make fun of the way people are always trying to figure out a reason behind every action because sometimes there really isn’t a reason and even if there is, it doesn’t matter. For example, when Mersault shoots the Arab the first time, he does for no logical reason what so ever except for it being a reflex. “The Stranger” is written based on Mersault’s thoughts and at times can be interpreted as a stream of consciousness and never does Mersault say that he going to look for the Arab. Instead all he thinks about is getting away from the women. We know that Mersault also didn’t intentionally shoot the Arab the first time because he clearly says, “My whole being tensed and I squeezed my hand around the revolver,” (p 59) which shows that he only shot because his body tensed up when he saw the sun. In court, however, the lawyers are constantly trying to prove different explanations that we obviously know are wrong. The fact that the lawyer keeps going back to topic of Mersault’s mother represents how desperate people have become when it comes to figuring out the meaning behind things. In the end, just as the lawyers never figured out the truth, people fail in finding that meaning because in reality there is no meaning. After his pause, Mersaults shoots four more times because he knows it doesn’t matter since his fate will be same: he will die, there will be no after life, and the world will continue and not care. Camus creates Mersault to be a sympathetic character by giving him qualities such as honesty, loyalty, and not being judgmental. By creating a sympathetic protagonist, the reader is led to agree with the protagonist’s point of view. In “The Stranger,” Mersault’s view is that nothing matters, which he states continuously like for example on page 114, “Since we’re all going to die, it’s obvious that when and how don’t matter.” Therefore, he shoots the Arab four more times because it doesn’t matter. So as a result of Camus creating Mersault as a sympathetic character, we are also led to believe that nothing matters in the world because we are all doomed to die. Not only that, but we are also led to feel that nothing matters because as we read about Mersault’s life, we can see that he is happy with his life even though he always settles for what he has and lives without any emotional attachments or ambitions. This leaves us with the question: Why are we currently building bonds with other people/animals and creating goals for ourselves if we can be just as happy and end up in the same place (death) without trying or caring for anything? It is all pointless.
So why does this text matter? According to the text itself, it doesn’t. However, if I must establish a significance for it, it would have to be to show other people that their efforts are pointless, so they shouldn’t care so much or overwhelm themselves because they’re going to die anyways.
This is Anali
The lense that I'm looking through is that of Existentialism. I agree with Gina in that this book pokes fun at us and our search for rationality. I also agree with Ben in that Meursault shot the Arab because he chose to, not because he was destined to. All of the absurd events that happen in the text don't really matter in the end. This is why Meursault seems pretty indifferent about most situations. For example, when Marie asked him if he loved her, Meursault responded by saying "I told her it didn't mean anything but that I didn't think so" (35). Even love possesses no real human value. It means nothing.
This text matters in the world because it shows that it doesn't really matter what we do in life or how we react to certain situations since there's really no meaning in them.
I am looking at Camus through an "extententialism" lens..
Aside from him being human, throughout the book we see his lack of emotions, for things that in society we are expected to react. For example, when his mother died, everyone critized Mersault because he didn't do like we would all do: cry. You can also see this in other situations, where he just does not show any kind of emotional attachment towards Marie, who he becomes really intimate with. Camus made Mersault kill the arab, and (then shoot him 4 times) to show us how much of an outcast he is in society.This lens shows how he himself was portrayed as an isolated individual, as in the book we never have evidence of him being really emotionally attached to anyone...not even his mother!
So i believe Meursault is living in a world without sense, and Camus did the killing of the Arab thing to really enhance that through Mersault. I agree with Ana's interpretation as well, when she says that Camus was not an extentialist himself, and he is trying to portray the absurdity of humanity. As in the trial, it is true that rather than questioning him about the MURDER, they question him about his lack of emotions!?
The lens I am looking through is existentialism. Based on this lens I would have to say that Mersault shot the Arab because he is an isolated human being. He shot him because he has no true emotions and believes that it doesn't matter what he does because it makes no absolute difference. He is indifferent to the world because either way what he does or says makes no absolute impact since according to him "nothing, nothing mattered." According to him "what did other people's deaths or a mother's love matter to me; what did his God or the lives people choose or the fate they think they elect matter to me when we're all elected by the same fate..." He shot the Arab because he is different from everyone else. He feels no emotions and believes live to be absolutely meaningless therefore the concepts of death, emotions or any other things don't matter. This is also why he shot him four other times because to him doing so means nothing more. I agree with Ana and Anali when they say that this text really helps emphasize on the idea that looking for meaning is absurd because everything is meaningless in life.
Looking through an archetypal lense I would have to say that Mersault shot the Arab and more importantly does what he does because he fits the idea of an outcast. He is not in agreement with society as seen from the fact that he lacks emotions, doesn't believe in God or anything, etc. He can also be seen as some sort of Christ figure in the sense that his death in a way occurred in order to preserve humanity. Although, he didn't die voluntarily in an attempt to do so like Christ, he died because society was threatened by him. This can be seen from the line "nothing, nothing mattered, and I knew why. So did he." Also from the fact that even the magistrate tells him " do you want my life to be meaningless?" when he is trying to convince him that there is a God. It kind of shows how by him and his views being alive he would destroy humanity.
The text matters because it emphasizes on the idea that in life everything is futile. Nothing matters because in life we are destined to die. We live in a world were our actions are meaningless because life in itself is meaningless. No matter what we do at whatever time it is we do it we are all destined for the same fate: death.
This is Miriam :)
1. EXISTENTIALISM
I agree with Gina about the overall worldview of the book being existentialism
2.
The reason why meursault did what he did was because he was potrayed as something out of the ordinary. Which in this case Mersault is seem as rare since he does not follow what society expects of him.
Mersault shot the Arab as reflect he had from the sun.Also because just like a EXISTENTIALISM he sees no human value which in this case it was with the Arab.
“I had lived my life one way and could just as well have lived it another,” (p. 121)
Through this quote we are shown how Mersault was not very interested in his life and cared less about his lfie being different. This shows how he was uninterested in himself as well as everything around him.
3. Through my lens this story matters because it shows how people can have an unsignificant life and/or thoughts with which through the story it demonstrates how somtimes human actions are "without sense"
Through the lens of Haruki Murukami:
I would like to first state that Murukami can be seen in many different views, but the most simplistic and realistically attainable view that i believe everyone would agree with would probably be that Haruki Murukami is a person with limited emotions. I mean this when i say by example his characters in his book who only show emotion in some sort of extreme or unusual situation that have been either stirred before or have been locked up in a character for some time. For example, In "the little green monster", it took the apparation of an actual little green monster for the woman in the story to deal with some of the emotions she had been dealing with. In "Barn Burning" the only way the main character feels for the woman in his life is when he is unable to reach her anymore and has lost contact with her and realizes the ways in which he truly cares for her. In "the second bakery attack" we see that the only time the male main character reacts to his own emotion is after he realizes that he has ROBBED a McDonalds (R) and acted so because he had some sort of desire stated in his own words that he felt some sort of need within him to rob another place and so on and so forth as with other characters.
In The Stranger we see that Mersault explicitly says that he shot the Arab because the sun was bothering him. As plain and simple as that is, we must accept it as the reason that he did it because it is the only theory that we can conjur with the authors evidence. But that is not to disprove other theory's that he did it for other reasons than the sun bothering him, but the sun plays into a symbol for all the emotional things that were brewing in him (like his mother's death, and the beating of his friend, and the indifference towards marie), or the way his life seemed meaningless. I think that the sun envelops and covers all of these subjects.
I believe that it is more than feesible that Haruki Murakami would argue that Mersault would shoot the Arab, repetitively because something as extreme as the "sun" provoked him. I think we can argue that Haruki Murukami would go on to examine the way in which Mersault supresses his feelings towards the things in our lives which would normally get a reaction from average people, such as the death of a mother, or the experience of being loved, or getting married. I think Muruakami would argue that because Mersault could no longer contain his feeling which were brewing inside of him he acted upon something as strange or as simple as the Sun because it was the straw that broke the camel's back, and an outlet for his emotion in a very sadistic sort of way.
I think that this lens is very important to understanding that for one, not everyone in the world is the same. Two, not everyone acts in the ways which you would normally expect them to, like grieving. Three, i think this lens shows us that some of the most simple to extreme, normal to strange things can spark our most inner emotions and make us do things which we normally wouldn't do.
Daniel Martinez
Post a Comment