INTRODUCTION
In Camus’ The Stranger, one of the more interesting characters is Meursalt, a strangely detached, numb, borderline misanthropic figure who does not have any sense of right or wrong, good or evil. It is as though he feels nothing; he is an atheist, and reacts with cool detachment to proposals of marriage or the death of a family member. At the same time, he is filled with turmoil, particularly once he is given the death sentence because of a murder he commits. Meursault is the quintessential existentialist; he sees no point to the world, and attempts to merely view it as it is. He walks very differently from the others he encounters, and has an indelible impact on them, and they on him. In this essay, Meursault will be compared with two other characters in The Stranger – Raymond Sintes, the harbinger of Meursault’s downfall, and Marie Cardona, Meursault’s lover.
MEURSAULT & RAYMOND
Meursault & Raymond Sintes have a very strange relationship, and their philosophies and character traits differ substantially. Meursault goes through life not knowing right or wrong, but simply not caring about which is which. Raymond, however, simply does evil for evil’s sake. Raymond has a mistress, whom he treats quite badly; Meursault’s future victim, the Arab, is nearly killed by Raymond before Meursault stops him. What’s more, Raymond is a far more proactive figure than Meursault; he is often the one in their friendship to suggest things to do, like going to the beach and taking dinner. When they fight with the Arabs for the first time, he is the one to go after them.
Their friendship starts off very strangely; the entire relationship is predicated on the fact that “I realized that [Raymond’s friendship] would save me having to cook for myself and I accepted” (Camus, 1989). While Raymond offers his friendship, Meursault merely receives it and gives none of it back, despite appearances; Meursault helps him with a number of things in his life, remaining impartial over the beating and writing that letter. As Raymond’s drinking buddy and beach companion, he certainly seems to take an interest in Raymond’s life, which is what Raymond wants out of the relationship. However, this could not be further from the truth, as Meursault simply does not realize that what he is doing could be construed as friendship. He has lost the ability to analyze and interpret what he does, thus robbing actions of any significance for him. He has no filter and no compass; he goes through the motions of life. However, this seems to work, particularly for Raymond (Francev, 2010).
Raymond and Meursault’s relationship is very one-sided; Raymond very much takes advantage of Meursault in many instances, manipulating him to do all manner of things, like helping Raymond to punish his mistress, and corroborate his story once he is with the police. Because of this level of help, however, Raymond is tied to Meursault inexplicably; he sticks up for him when the charges of murder are presented. “Raymond said that it was quite by chance that I happened to be on the beach. The prosecutor then asked how it was that the letter which lay behind the intrigue had been written by me. Raymond replied that it was by chance” (“The Stranger,” 1989). Raymond attempts to attribute all of the events of that night to chance, thus absolving Meursault of guilt.
Meursault seems to have a hypnotic effect on the people around him; the existentialism, the nihilism, the charismatic indifference to the world, all of these things draw people to him. Raymond is no exception; Meursault’s strangeness is fascinating to him, and that is what connects them inexorably. Due to Meursault’s isolation from the world (he does not show any compassion during Raymond’s beating of his mistress), Raymond admires him as someone who is free from the trappings of the world, and who should be applauded for their nihilism (Francev, 2010).
At the same time, Raymond tends to ground Meursault to an extent; he is a good friend, which someone of Meursault’s personality would in all likelihood not have. Having no care for anyone else, there is no reason for Meursault to seek out friends, leaving it Raymond’s responsibility to seek him out all the same. The defense lawyer mentions that Meursault is popular; his friendship with Raymond is evidence of that.
MEURSAULT & MARIE
Marie and Meursault, unlike Raymond, have a somewhat symbiotic and like-minded relationship. This is mostly predicated around their love for sex; they both enjoy the physical act of love, but while Meursault only needs it for physical pleasure, Marie starts to feel deeper feelings for him in return. She is often recipient of his emotionless nature; after Maman’s funeral, Meursault seeks her out, not for emotional comfort but to have sex. As he is completely obsessed with her, there must implicitly be something about her that draws him to Marie; however, it is clear that he acts completely on his need for sex, and nothing more (Francev, 2010).
Her ultimate goal is to marry him, but he continually displays a lack of interest in that subject, to her frustration. At the same time, she wants to continue on with the relationship despite these rebukes; she may even enjoy the weirdness of Meursault on a strange level, loving his peculiarities. One other reason she may want to keep Meursault is that very same distance that would allow her to maintain a carefree woman; due to his lack of jealousy or interest in her life, he is the perfect man to keep around for her.
Her draw towards Meursault is much the same as Raymond’s; Meursault is such a fascinating, mercurial figure it is impossible to not be around him and attempt to experience what it is like to have him in their lives. For Marie, this comes in spite of the dramatic cruelty with which Meursault treats her – “Marie came round for me and asked if I wanted to marry her. I said I didn’t mind and we could if she wanted to” (Camus, 1989). This is hardly the attitude of someone in love, nor what someone in love with them wants to her.
However, this is Meursault’s philosophy writ large; seeing no point to the world, and thus having no emotional investment in it. For Meursault, Marie is just a hole to fill; but Meursault fills a hole in Marie’s life as well, an emotional need to have someone in her life. Meursault has no care for the way in which he treats Marie, and even admits to himself that Marie is no more special than any other woman, and he could get what he wants from any of them as well. Meursault is a tragically honest figure, never assuming anything more than what will exactly happen to him and to the people around him. (Francev, 2010). When he is in prison, he starts to wonder if Marie is dead at one point; however, he then realizes that “I wasn’t interested in her anymore if she was dead” (Camus, 1989). Her loyalty remains true to Meursault even throughout the trial, though she does not embrace the absurdist solace that he does. She continues to cling to hope in order to try and get him free and save his life; however, as Meursault eventually gives up and embraces “the indifference of the universe,” Marie fails to do the same, leaving her, in the eyes of Camus, a less enlightened figure.
CONCLUSION
Meursault’s mercurial and emotionless path through life is, nonetheless, charismatic, and it attracts all manner of people to him. Friends like Raymond, who use him but are delighted by his presence, still stick up for him and wish for him to be alive and free. Lovers like Marie, who are to Meursault interchangeable and unspectacular, still seek to marry him in spite of his atypical feelings on love. This is all due to the uniqueness of the man, the strangeness that pulls people toward him, if only to see what he will do next. His charisma and effortless charm prevents him from seeing that, if he were any less incredible to be around, he would have absolutely no one in his life. He simply does not work hard enough to keep them around.
Works Cited
Camus, Albert. The myth of Sisyphus, and other essays . [1st American ed. New York: Knopf, 1955. Print.
Camus, Albert, and Matthew Ward. The stranger . New York: Vintage International, 1989. Print.
Ed. Francev, Peter. Journal of Camus Studies. Walmut California: Camus Society, 2010. Print.
