How did you like the book? Was the second part as you expected?
It seems that the absurd honesty of our protagonist, the anti-hero Mersault, reaches its highest in this second part. For instance, when after being asked if he regrets the criminal act, he says that, after reflecting on it, it is rather boredom than regret what he feels. Also,when he talks about the conveniences of the legal system, or on how nice the policeman was that he felt like shaking hands…
What is the point of such long trial trial when there is no doubt, denial, remorse or regret for the crime? And what is really the focus of the trial? The protagonist's murder of a person, or his attitude at his mother's funeral? Society's seek of a "rational" explanation of the crime leads to a process that makes no sense, for is hopeless and irrational.
How do you feel about our protagonist in this second part where he seems to start feeling something and gaining consciousness? What is he really feeling?
This has been a reading full of opportunities to reflect on our very own existence, along or in opposition to the protagonist's process.
"You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life". Albert Camus
Hi cookies,
ReplyDeleteI have enjoyed the book a lot. I have found the beginning grey, almost boring, with the description of the burial and the life in the neighbourhood. But, as the story progresses, with the death of the arab and the trial, I got hooked. I find that the book is masterly written, even if the character is quite weird (I think there are plenty of weird people around the world), the descriptions are very good (the atmosphere in the justice palace, for example) and everything is linked to have a rounded story. I also think that the author's way to tell us the story, always through the eyes of the main character, is unusually great (even the conversations/dialogues are mostly told through him).
And, moreover, all this intensity, deepness, absurdity or critical standpoint (the author criticizes, among others, society, press and media, religion, justice, even mistreatment of animals or marriage) comes in a book of less than 200 pages.
Chapeau Mr. Camus!
I did enjoy the book: I didn't know what to expect. I had read on Wikipedia that Camus' style was considered existentialism and/or absurdism, but that didn't mean much to me. The style surprised me and got my attention immediately.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the quality of the descriptions. I have to disagree about the first part: I found the description of the burial amazing; I could almost feel the heat on the way to the cemetery, the bizarre atmosphere during the funeral service, the stress of the bus trip to the funeral. It comprises so much in such few pages. So much to think about.
The second part, after the trial, when he is in jail, I found it too slow at times. But it goes up again with the visit of the priest and the very last part of the novel, when he suddenly shows a sign of humanity and show some feelings.
The murder made really no sense, but what does in this novel? As Jorge points out, the world is full of weird people (or are we the weird ones?).
Chapeau to you too, Mr. J! Good choice.
Hi Arantxa,
ReplyDeleteI think that the first part descriptions are good, very good indeed, but it did not catch my attention. Moreover, all the greyness we can feel reading this part, I think is an excellent beginning to describe the weird (short) life of Mr. Mersault. Everything has sense now we have finished the book, but it didn't at that moment (at least for me).
Has anybody found strange the way the death penalty was executed?
Thanks all the cookies for voting, I only proposed ;)
Btw, if you want to see a very good film, somehow related to this book, I would recommend "a separation". It is not the kind of film for Holliwood fans, but very intense (and not so weird people:)
ReplyDeleteFinally, a little late, I finished the book. First of all, I have really liked it, even though it is a simple story, with a boring anti-hero leading the action, it gets you in it very quickly.
ReplyDeleteMonsieur Mersault is a man that lets himself be absorbed by the flow, he won't protest, he won't decide anything, the others do it for him... I really like the way his reply goes when Marie asks him if he wants to marry her, really frustrating. But I do believe there are people like this, that let themselves be pushed around because they cannot make a decision, because they don't care, or because it is too much trouble to do otherwise...
The fact that the novel is written in first person is also very compelling, puts you in the action, makes you feel more responsible to his actions.
The descriptions, though short and not very adorned, I agree with you all, make you imagine in perfection the surroundings, the burial of the mother, the beach, the fight with the arabs, the imprisonment and the trial. You do get into all these situations.
So what was Camus trying to say? Protest against the system? Against death penalty? About the situation in the colonies? About family requirements? Morality? Religion? Sincerely, what I read in the book is a protest about every single imposition in life, and maybe about life as a decision taken by others as well.
Existentialism, I suppose.
I, like Arantxa, was caught up by the book since the very beginning.
ReplyDeleteI liked the description of the world, particularly the burial, seen through Mersault's eyes. As Rocio, I felt it was very compelling that is written in first person. Also, since the beginning I was curious to find out how somebody who lives life like him, would end up killing another person.
At the trial, it was interesting to see how society was expecting somebody with a "reason" for the murder. It seemed to me that some characters were ready, in some way, to support an individual with bad feelings and wrong decisions, but not somebody who did not have either feelings or motives. Is it that what mades Mersault a stranger?
Regarding the death penalty, I found very hard and macabre his reflection about the moral collaboration that way of execution requires, since it is in the sentenced person's interest that the mechanism works well...
After I read a little bit about the author, existentialism, your comments, and some analysis of the book from the philosophical perspective, I feel I have to read the book again to understand, or at least to recognize, all of the deepness, philosophy and social critic content of the book.
Thanks to this introduction into Camus' literature! I am now interested in and open to reading more of his books. Any recommendations?