I think in general, the ending of The Stranger is pretty satisfying. Throughout the whole novel, emotions and everything are kind of pent up. Meursault finally seems to release everything in his long rant to the chaplain towards the end of the novel, and it definitely made me feel relieved. I guess you could think of it as a flood, slowly pushing against a wall, and it finally breaks through. In addition, afterwards, there is the sense of some “calm after the storm” when Meursault talks about the stars, the salt air and the “wondrous peace”.
Despite all of this, there’s some part of me that’s not satisfied. I still have questions about Meursault that I feel like were not answered.
First, he talks about the gentle indifference of the world, and how it feels like a brother to him. For me, this phrase suggests quite clearly that Meursault recognizes his own indifference towards things in his life— especially the consequences of his actions. I don’t think we should be surprised by this at all— his actions throughout the book, his line about “to shoot or not to shoot” all reflect his attitude.
But here’s the thing that confuses me a little. Prior to his execution, Meursault feels disappointed once he realizes that there will be no scaffold to climb, as if he wished the execution was more grand and dramatic. His last line in the book seems consistent with this idea as well. Meursault hopes that there is “a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate”. These thoughts seem to suggest that Meursault almost wants to be acknowledged for his idiosyncrasies. I think he recognizes that most people do not think or act in the same manner he does. Cheers of hate would validate that his ideas and attitude are at odds with society.
If this were confirmed, I think it would make death easier to cope with for Meursault. He can die knowing that he was sentenced because of his own philosophy, not necessarily because he killed a man. Maybe there’s some triumph in that acknowledgement.
However, I feel as if these two things are at odds with each other. On the one hand, Meursault describes himself as “indifferent”, but on the other, he seems to care about who wins the moral (?) battle in the end (what they are killing him for). So I don’t exactly know what to make of Meursault’s character at the end of the novel.
I had a decent amount of trouble fleshing out some of my ideas as I wrote this, but hopefully it makes at least some sense. How did you guys interpret the last few pages of the novel?
Nice post. I also found it difficult to understand Meursault’s character completely. He seems outwardly indifferent, and comes across as a detached observer; yet in the second part seems to want a large congregation at his execution so he won’t feel lonely at the execution. When he kills the Arab, he portrays his action as accidental - a result of sun glinting in his eyes causing him to press the trigger; but I cannot understand why he shoots multiple times later. All in all, a complicated personality, and I can relate to what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteMeursault's desire for a jeering crowd at his execution might be read as him clinging to the only remaining possible "meaning" he has left--he's come to this existentialist consciousness late (apparently, during his outburst at the chaplain), and now that he knows he must make his own meaning, he's embracing the role of public pariah. Whereas he's previously been content to pass through life unnoticed, he now at least welcomes the attention. His role as "monster" may not be entirely accurate or fair, but it's all he's got.
ReplyDelete