The Character of Meursault in The Stranger

Albert Camus wrote The Stranger during the Existentialist movement, which explains why the main character in the novel, Meursault,

is characterized as detached and emotionless, two of the aspects of existentialism. In Meursault, Camus creates a character he intends

his readers to relate to, because he creates characters placed in realistic situations. He wants the reader to form a changing, ambiguous

opinion of Meursault. From what Meursault narrates to the reader in the novel, the reader can understand why he attempts to find

order and understanding in a confused and mystifying world.

Camus writes in a simple, direct, and uncomplicated style. The choice of language serves well to convey the thoughts of Meursault.

The story is told in the first person and traces the development of the narrator's attitude toward himself and the rest of the world.

Through this sort of simple grammatical structure, Camus gives the reader the opportunity to become part of the awareness of

Meursault. In Part I, what Meursault decides to mention are just concrete facts. He describes objects and people, but makes no attempt

to analyze them. Since he makes no effort to analyze things around him, that job is given to the reader. The reader therefore creates his

own meaning for Meursault's actions. When he is forced to confront his past and reflect on his experiences, he attempts to understand

the reasons for existence. At first, Meursault makes references to his inability to understand what's happening around him, but often

what he tells us seems the result of his own indifference or detachment. He is frequently inattentive to his surroundings. His mind

wanders in the middle of conversations. Rarely does he make judgments or express opinions about what he or other characters are

doing. Meursault walks through life largely unaware of the effect of his actions on others.

Meursault is distant from set plans, ambitions, desires, love, and emotions in general. He has a difficult time with emotions such as

regret and compassion. The reader sees the nature of his personality in the first few lines of the novel: "Maman died today. Or

yesterday maybe, I don't know." When he hears of the death of his mother through a telegram, he is unattached, and can be considered

uncaring. His mother's death serves to interrupt the flow of Meursault's life, a life dedicated to appreciating tangible things. He wished

she had not died, but her death made no real impact on his life other than temporarily disturbing his daily lifestyle. The discomfort on

the bus and the overbearingly hot burial were caused by her death. He recalls this discomfort as he shoots the Arab. But Meursault

does not force himself to fake emotions, which is probably why he harbors so little resentment. His apparent lack of emotion is what

lands him in trouble in the courtroom, for people think his nature to be that of a heartless murderer. He does have some relatively good

characteristics, such as his honesty. Meursault also possesses the ability to logically evaluate a situation without becoming panic-

stricken. Everything he does and says is in such a nonchalant manner that one wonders what it takes to make him tense.

Camus's way of creating a contrast between the two faces of Meursault is by separating the book into parts. The first part describes

Meursault as an indifferent character, the second as a changed and intellectual man. This separation is helpful in understanding the

changing nature of Meursault. Part I of the novel is just Meursault's commentary on the events going on around him.. Part II is

Meursault's commentary on his life in which he attempts to understand existence and what it stands for. He is conscious of every

aspect of his experience, both past and present. In Part I, the reader sees that Meursault is devoid of emotion and lacks the sort of
emotion that makes a person vulnerable. However, in Part II, he has little choice but to reflect on his past because in his jail cell, that is

the only thing he can do. He learns to do without the experiences he loves and he sleeps much of the time. However, he does suffer a

great deal thinking about the executioner and his blade. For the first time in his life, he thinks about his relationship with society. The

final encounter with the chaplain forces him to articulate his ideas on life and death. He is faithful to his beliefs, though they are

limited. The confrontation with death causes Meursault to open up his heart to the indifference of the universe. The only thing that

could make his death happy is to maintain his beliefs and set a standard for those to come.

As a thoughtful reader, my response to Meursault is that he is a very interesting character. His character is interesting for several

reasons, the most important being his contrast to members of conventional society. At the beginning of the book he is an almost

completely indifferent character. This is definitely different from the image of a well-rounded person that society puts forth. Meursault

cares only for the physical world. He does not dwell on other things, such as knowledge or intelligence. He is also indifferent to many

things that conventional society is emotional about. He cannot find anything in his life worth making an effort for.

It is the actions of Meursault, the main character, that make the novel and define existentialism. With his complete indifference to the

world, Meursault becomes the example of an existentialist. He sees the world as a meaningless string of events that give no purpose to

existence. Meursault has a passion for the truth. He is an outcast for this reason, and is detached from others because they cannot face

the truths of the world as he perceives them. Meursault has an indifference to other humans and their feelings, and stands out in sharp

contrast to the rest of the world. The novel did introduce the ideas of existentialism to me. Upon finishing the book, the reader is left to

ponder the meaning of life as presented by existentialism. Meursault is so indifferent that he does not recognize his emotions until he

is about to die. Existentialism in the novel really shows through Meursault's character. It is not really obvious as to whether or not he

believes there is a meaning to life until the end when he understands it. It is most likely that his indifference allows him to care less

about whether life has meaning. It was odd that Meursault becomes so preoccupied or maybe fascinated by his own death. He at least

thinks about it, which shows that he cares. Perhaps it is a way for him to redeem himself. He is an existentialist hero through his

understanding of the meaning of life. It is a complex theory in a short, simple novel.

By the close of the novel, Meursault has changed. He does not concentrate as much on the physical world. His greatest change comes

in the form of deep thinking. He begins this while in prison, where he has nothing else to do. This is definitely different from his

former stance. He also discovers that there is something to live for: life itself. Ironically, he finds meaning in his life only when he is

sentenced to die.
It could be argued that Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman is a tragic play that represents the failures of a system, but from an
existentialist point of view, however, the play solely represents the failures of an individual. By looking at the many distasteful
characteristics of the societal system embodied by the Loman's family values and dreams, and by then arguing these points from an
existentialist point of view, this essay will confirm that the play represents the failures of an individual instead of casting blame on a
socially constructed system.

Existentialists claim that to live is to be faced with the necessity of choice, and in the making of these choices we define ourselves and
influence for good or evil the lives of others around us. The existentialist claims that there are no moral absolutes, and there is also no
basis for knowing the consequences of our acts, but we must act, so we must choose and this is known as the existential dilemma. The
truth of our existential dilemma reduces us to a state of anguish, as no matter what we choose we cannot escape responsibility for our
choice and guilt for the consequences. Existentialist Jean Paul Sartre states, "we are condemned to be free" (Arts 1000 Lecture, 43),
and by this he means that we are free to choose, free to define our being, and free to accept our moral responsibility; humans,
however, do not want to face this freedom so they are constantly trying to escape from this freedom by inventing pretentious scientific
and social theories, or by making up superstitions about Gods, all in an attempt to convince ourselves that we are not ultimately free to
choose and that we are not responsible for our choices and their consequences (Lecture 43).
The materialistic values so emphasized by the Loman family are illustrated throughout the play. Willy, when speaking with Linda,
criticizes Biff for the amount of money he makes, stating "he has yet to make thirty-five dollars a week!" (16), and after Ben tells
Willy of his riches, Willy exclaims, "[he] was rich! That's just the spirit I need to imbue them with" (52). Even though Biff is content
working on the ranch, he complains to Happy, "What the hell am I doing, playing around with horses, twenty-eight dollars a week!"
(22). He goes on to add that every time he comes home he feels that all he has done is waste his life. When Happy is talking to Biff
about happiness, he argues, "it's what I always wanted . . . my own apartment, a car, and plenty of women" (p. 23).

According to existentialism, it is a choice to follow convention and conform to the norms and ideologies of society, and therefore it is
not the fault of a system that the Lomans have materialistic values, but the fault of individual choice. Willy makes the choice to think
less of Biff because he is not making much money, and he has the choice of which values to try to instill in his sons. Although Biff
claims that he is happy working on the ranch, he makes the conscious choice to return home to his hometown, and then he has the
audacity to complain and whine about wasting his life. The ideals that Happy speaks of are not the same ideals of everyone else, and
are not a result of an economic system, but are the ideals that he chooses to pursue.

One could also argue that Willy is unfaithful in his marriage with Linda because he is trapped within a cruel economic system, in
which he travels alone on the road, away from home and working in different cities. When Willy is reflecting on his past relationship
with the woman from Boston, he says, "I get so lonely-especially when there's nobody to talk to" (38). One could blame his adulterous
relationship on the fact that he is lonely, as he has to keep traveling to feed his family and pay his bills, but Willy has the choice to get
a new job that keeps him closer to his family. On numerous occasions Charley offers Willy a job making more money than he is at his
current job, but not only does he refuse the offer, he also makes the choice to continue working at the job that keeps him away from
his family. He also has the choice to pick up the phone and call Linda instead of committing adultery.

When Willy goes into his place of employment to talk to Howard about keeping him in New York to work, he is brutally fired. One
could argue that Willy is a victim of a money-hungry economic system. Critic Eleanor Clarke argues that the play is set up to show
that the "capitalist system has done Willy in" (p. 219) and that it is "our particular form of money economy that has bred the absurdly
false ideals of both father and sons" (220), but she does not agree with these innuendos. The existentialist would argue that it is Willy's
choice to accept and conform to the ideologies of a capitalist system, and that the ideals of both father and sons are a result of their
individual choices. Willy, as pointed out in the last paragraph, has the option to accept Charley's job offer, but he refuses in an act of
stubborn selfishness. One can see from Willy's comments that he consciously promotes capitalist values, when for instance he says to
Linda, "I told you we should have bought a well-advertised machine" (73), and when they bought a refrigerator they bought the one
with "the biggest ads of any of them" (36). The fact that Howard does not have any sympathy for Willy's position is indeed cruel and
unjust, but Willy chooses to work there, and he can always choose to quit.

It could be argued that the moral values reflected by Willy and his sons are fashioned by the demeaning and ruthless characteristics of
a western capitalist system, but upon further examination one can see that they are a result of individual choice. Willy chooses to
promote stealing to his sons as he tells them to go "right over to where they're building the apartment house and get some sand" (50),
and then he brags to Ben, "you shoulda seen the lumber they brought home last we. . . . At least a dozen six-by-tens worth all kinds of
money" (50). Willy not only laughs when Biff tells him that he stole a football from the school locker room, but he adds, "[c]oach'll
probably congratulate you on your initiative!" (30). Charley lives within the same social system as Willy, yet he chooses to have
higher moral standards than Willy, as Charley is the one who warns Willy and the boys of the negative consequences of stealing. This
proves that one can live within this system and still maintain some sense of moral decency. Willy, by imbuing his sons with poor
values, chooses to escape his moral responsibilities and chooses to act as a negative role model for his two sons.

The hypocritical nature of Willy and his sons is illustrated throughout the play and this behavior cannot be a result of living within a
capitalist system, as none of the other characters in the play portray this character trait. Although Happy states, "I'm not supposed to
take bribes" (25), he then admits to taking bribes when manufacturers offer him "a hundred dollar bill now and then to throw an order
their way" (25). Happy is aware that this sort of behavior is wrong, but he chooses to accept the bribes anyway. Happy then tries to
blame his moral deficiency on others, once again attempting to escape moral responsibility, remarking, "everyone around me is so
false that I'm constantly lowering my ideals" (24). When Willy is talking to himself about Biff stealing the lumber, he says, "Why is he
stealing? What did I tell him? I never told him anything but decent things" (41). Willy lies even to himself at this point, as on
numerous occasions he both indirectly and directly encourages his boys to steal lumber, sand, and a football. Charley and Bernard do
not lie to themselves or to others in the play, which proves that the negative characteristics of a capitalist system do not force someone
to lower their moral standards, but on the contrary, one's moral standards are the result of individual choice.

The existentialist would argue that to emphasize Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman as a play that focuses on the failures of a system,
as opposed to the failures of an individual, as responsible for the family's unpleasant behavior and lack of moral values, would be to
attempt to escape from moral responsibility; Willy and his sons have the choice whether or not to abdicate their freedom for
conformity or for the ideologies of a capitalist system, as in the end the choice is always our own, and we bear the responsibility alone
(Arts 1000 Lecture, 43).
 Analysis of The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock

J. Alfred Prufrock constantly lived in fear, in fear of life and death. T. S. Eliot divided his classic poem into three equally important
sections. Each division provided the reader with insight into the mental structure of J. Alfred Prufrock. In actuality, Prufrock
maintained a good heart and a worthy instinct, but he never seemed to truly exist. A false shadow hung over his existence. Prufrock
never allowed himself to actually live. He had no ambitions that would drive him to succeed. The poem is a silent cry for help from
Prufrock. In each section, T. S. Eliot provided his audience with vague attempts to understand J. Alfred Prufrock. Each individual
reader can only interpret these attempts by Eliot, allowing numerous views of the life of Prufrock.

The first section of the poem dealt with the ever-prevalent issue of death. In the beginning Eliot said, "Let us go then, you
and I."(l, 1 Eliot) The poem started off with this illusion to the Inferno as a way to symbolize Prufrock's journey, and his fear of death.
Prufrock could be looked upon as Virgil. In the poem he guided the reader through his tangled world of existentialism. When Eliot
said, "Like a patient etherised upon a table; Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets…"(ll 3-4 Eliot) it showed that Prufrock was
numb. He had no feeling for anyone or his surroundings. J. Alfred Prufrock only felt one thing. He felt the fear of life and death. In
some ways, he spent his entire life preparing for his death. Prufrock knew that his life had not provided the world with anything of
great significance. Eliot pointed this out by juxtaposing Prufrock with Michelangelo. In lines 13-14 Eliot said, "In the room the
women come and go talking of Michelangelo."(ll. 13-14 Eliot) The hollow people of the world base the merit of an individual upon
their accomplishments. Prufrock's fear to live never allowed him to accomplish anything. The issue of death emerged again in lines
26-27. In these lines Eliot said, "There will be time, there will be time to prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet."(ll. 26-27
Eliot) This statement showed that Prufrock spent the majority of his time preparing for death. In lines 37-39 Eliot said, "And indeed
there will be time to wonder, 'Do I dare?' and 'Do I dare?' time to turn back and descend the stair."(ll. 37-39 Eliot) This line showed
that Prufrock felt that he was bound to Hell. Prufrock constantly lived in fear of death. This fear caused him to not be able to live.

In the second section Prufrock realized the error of his ways. He came to the understanding that being afraid to live was no
way to live his life. Eliot summed up the entire reasoning of Prufrock in the following line, "And in short, I was afraid."(l 86 Eliot)
Prufrock spent his entire life in a wasteland, because he did not have the courage to live. At this point he knew that there was no
opportunity to regain the years that he lost. In lines 92-98 Eliot said,

"To have squeezed the universe into a ball

To roll it towards some overwhelming question,

To say: 'I am Lazarus, come from the dead,

Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all'-

If one, settling pillow by her head,

Should say: 'That is not what I meant at all.

That is not it, at all.'"(ll. 92-98 Eliot)

These lines showed how desperately he wanted a second chance at life. This second section illustrated a change in the personality of
J. Alfred Prufrock. The change just came too late. The vast part of his life had escaped him.

The final section of the poem J. Alfred Prufrock begins to actually live. He now understood that taking some chances are
worth the possible risks. He now wanted to grow old and enjoy his final years. The following lines revealed his new outlook on life,

"Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?

I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.

I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."(ll. 122-124 Eliot)

The Prufrock of the first half of the poem would have never done anything quite so daring. When Eliot mentioned the mermaids, it
showed that Prufrock now searched for love. The mermaids also showed that his imagination had been sparked. For the final part of
Prufrock's life, there was a tiny bit of hope.

"The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" was a silent cry for help. Prufrock entered into a world where he could not survive. He
became a man with no life. In the end he desired for a second chance. He wanted a new opportunity in which he could actually live.
Prufrock realized that living in fear of death was no way to live. A life like that made him afraid to live. J. Alfred Prufrock was a
basically good individual. He just had one flaw a flaw that cost him his life. J. Alfred Prufrock never attempted to live until it was to
late.