Meursault’s dimensions: beyond boring

In The Stranger, Albert Camus describes Meursault’s outlook on the physical world as belittling and violent in order to foreshadow and push Meursault towards committing murder. This sharp, intense vocabulary, as well as poetic prose and style, parallels Meursault as a human. These parallels extend to the development and unfolding of Meursault’s true emotions. Furthermore, the murder scene starts with Raymond walking with Meursault, who was, “naturally” (58) gripping the gun firmly. Meursault has the thought that “…all I had to do was turn around and that would be the end of it. But the whole beach, throbbing in the sun, was pressing on my back.” (58). It seems as if he is using the heat as a motivation to commit this crime. This can be seen more when he says “It was the burning, which I couldn’t stand anymore, that made me move forward. I knew that it was stupid…” (60). At this point Meursault’s morality feels strong, but nature is exerting physical pressure to tempt him into murder. At this moment in the book, Camus starts to speak with forceful words and extremely vibrant images. “All I could feel were the cymbals of sunlight crashing on my forehead and, indistinctly, the dazzling spear flying up from my eyelashes and stabbed at my stinging eyes… The sea carried up a thick, fiery breath. It seemed to me as if the sky split open from one end to the other to rain down fire.” (60). Camus uses words like “crashing, dazzling spear, stabbed, stinging, fiery, split, and rain down fire.” All of these words have violent connotations, both foreshadowing the murder, and implying that the simple, boring Meursault has more layers than previously thought. After witnessing his gun shoot the Arab, Meursault flashes a few minutes back to the happiness he had on the beach. Old uninteresting Meursault now seems psychotic because he is thinking about what makes him happy after murder; immediately after, he felt the need to fire “four more times at the motionless body where the bullets lodged without leaving a trace. And it was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness.” (60). Not only is this written with more verve than usual for Merusault, but he is also having strong enough feelings to the point where he feels the need to shoot this dead body, not one, not two, not three, but four more times. Moving to Party Two, Meursault does not immediately recognize the severity of his actions. He even finds that the fact the court will provide an attorney was “very convenient” (61). After some short questioning, Meursault finally remembers that he had killed someone. Meursault seems to not make very much of this murder; he acts as if it was not that big of a deal. Merusault’s spike of feelings certainly decline when asked about his mother. “… I would rather Maman hadn’t died.” (65). As the reader, it certainly is nice, and expected, to know that if he had to choose, he would choose her to be alive; however, he strays from normality with the word “rather” and with his dismissive tone. He has no passion, no feelings for his mother; anyone else would beg and trade anything to get their mother back. Meursault, in my opinion, is guided morally correctly, but he just is not in touch with his feelings enough to recognize that what he says may cause others confusion. Meursault, again, forgets that he’s a criminal, and admits “It was an idea I couldn’t get used to.” (70). The reader can tell that he recognizes his wrong doing, but the reader, nor Meursault, nor anyone in the book, can understand why he did what he did. The reader, at this point, is skeptical about Meursault’s emotions, and questioning whether they exist at all. That being said, he saves himself by recognizing “the tone of the questioning gradually changed.” (70). Meursault is able to recognize the change in tone, thereby implying that he may be more attentive and analytical than previously thought.

First paragraph. The Stranger

In (italics:) The Stranger, Albert Camus uses stylized sentence structure and suggestive quoting mechanics to (change:) emphasize Meursault's glum view on the world.

Camus emphasizes this blandness by paralleling his writing style to Meursault's feelings.

When the narrator portrays to the reader that Meursault, the protagonist,  has finished sleeping, Camus writes. "The night passed." (11). This description lacks verve and creativity. However, when other characters are present, he says that "... the sun was overpowering. It shattered into little pieces on the sand and water." (55). Camus takes a simple act of nature, and gives it more life than Meursault. Another example of short, boring, to-the-point sentences; Meursault's mind gives us his point of view, and his thoughts flow from: "They got up." to "I was tired." (12) in seconds. These short sentences demonstrate and parralel Meursault's attitude to the world.
But, Camus' does not only shorten sentences, he also, often, takes away Meursault's voice. "'I'm going to ask them to seal the casket. Before I do, would you like to see your mother one last time?' I said no." (13). Not only is his response phrased with three (uninteresting) words, but Meursalt's doesn't actively say 'no.' Camus allows the caretaker to ask a question, but when the main character is given only a hint at what he actually says. Although this does not happen every time, it happens frequently. On an occasion where Meursault does 'speak,' he answeres in one word: "What?... Yes.... Yes.... Fairly..." (16). When reading this, the reader can easily detect a grey tone in his voice. Even besides Meursault's boring tone, he answers questions about the weather and his mother in one word. He is answering the questions, but with no flair or personality.
This lack of flair really does does become a pattern with Meursault, and eventually leads to Marie becoming irritated (marriage part).

Working prompt and the basics

Prompt: To what extent do Sci-Fi authors portray futuristic societies as dysfunctional? Do the authors suggest that knowledge eventually leads to the protagonists’ demise?

My answer: Essentially I am going to be arguing that in their respective dysfunctional societies, knowledge initially hurts the protagonists. That being said, after enough exposure and gaining enough knowledge, they are happy. My argument is based around the fact that because the characters didn't know any better, they were content before their journey. However, after learning enough, they are happier and doing better than they ever had. The books I am using are Fahrenheit 451 and Ender's Game.

Fahrenheit 451: an ending that makes you think

Although it seems that the obvious interpretation of the ending of Fahrenheit 451 is that humans will always destroy their world, but the knowledge must be retained in order to build a new, even stronger one, I find this ending sad. It is powerful, but I see it as really sad. It seems that the ending is Guy Montag struggling to find knowledge, and eventually discovering that his life has no meaning. I find it interesting that his life has no value; this kind of means that no one's life has value. But, although no single person's life has value, the collective life of those who preserve knowledge is priceless. Without the group of nameless individuals who individually don't matter, their group is the reason the Phoenix of their society can be reborn.

Fahrenheit 451: Essay notes 1

Prompt: To what extent do Sci-Fi authors portray futuristic societies as dysfunctional? As the reader, do we view this as a warning, satirical, or a prediction? How does the point of view provided by the author influence our decision?

ENDER’S GAME

How would you describe the society in Ender’s Game?

-Rigid

-Cold-hearted

-Victory at all costs driven

            -Life is a tool for success

Not in the society:

-Compassion

-No fun

-A warning for peace; militarism

-Keeping compassion and keeping your feelings

-Knowing what you’re doing; not manipulated by authorities

-Ender’s perspective is valuable for making these points because as the reader we really feel the shock at the end of the book

“a giant example of what could happen”

 more experience of “outside” à there’s more open narrative about the world; the dialogue of the teachers

this one’s about a child being set into a society, but resisting it

FAHRENHEIT 451

Describe the world:

-Upside down

-Completely different from ours

            -Don’t value intelligence, academic learning, and freedom of thought

-Trivial interpersonal relationships: conversations with the ladies

as a person, be aware for looking out for things in general

            looking out for “human values”

            the role children have – we’re jumping into this world with Guy as an adult, the thoughts of what you’re meant to do are instilled and meant to change, but Clarisse the child is able to think differently and more creatively and think with herself because she hasn't been manipulated or tainted yet

this one’s about someone’s head who’s breaking out of what’s already been set

Being in Guy’s point of view

“everyone knows the world, we don’t – all that matters to us is how some guy who breaks free from the clutches of society thinks about the society” è we see this society’s effect on one individual à totally with Montag

Fahrenheit 451: Essay Topics

-Compare and contrast Guy and Beatty's views on what books are and what books are used for.
-Explore what part of, and why Clarisse's interaction with Guy really opened his eyes.
-Discuss the point of view of the book. Is it from Guy's point of view? And if so, what insight do we get as the reader?

Is Faber good or bad?

At his first meeting with Guy, Faber seems like a pretty okay guy. They seem to get along and Faber seems to be trying to help him. These positive thoughts of Faber are mixed up when he starts to order around Guy; it does seem that he is trying to help Guy as best he can, but nonetheless, his orders give off a vibe suggesting fogginess in his character. After that, however, when Guy talks to Beatty, Beatty seems to be manipulative and, frankly, evil. I really don't like the way Beatty talks to Guy and acts like he is above him. Intellectually he does seem to be above Guy. Faber seems to be trying to keep Guy thinking clearly: "He's trying to confuse you." (103). Although Faber isn't making a huge argument against Beatty, the simple act of trying to convince Guy to think for himself is refreshing.