Unlike the world who in their endless search for purpose judge, condemn and decipher life, Meursault only keeps focus on the tangible. Throughout the novel there are several instances of watching, one is when Meursault sits on his balcony and observes life on the street underneath him. In his description of what he sees he only describes the physical, as how the “sky clouded over” (p. 26), noticing how the people caring “little suitcases” (p. 27) were “yelling and singing” (p. 27), how the local girls “had their hair down” (p.27), how the young men had positioned themselves to make the bypassing girls “giggle” (p. 27) and “turn their head” (p. 27). Descriptions containing no deeper thoughts or greater meaning, neither judgment nor contamination, just observations. This is the total opposite of the jury in the courtroom (which symbolizes society as a whole), whose job is precisely to judge and condemn. In the courtroom, we, including Meursault, hear what the other characters testifying thought of Meursault and his actions. Unlike how Meursault only sees the physical, the other characters always dough deeper than the surface. Under the questioning in the trail, the warden of the home said it “surprised him” (p. 86) that Meursault hadn’t know how “old mother was” (p. 86) and commented that he “hadn’t cried one” (p.86). Other references to how Meursault had handled the death of his mother came up more then what he was accused of, killing the Arab. This was all done so that the jury men would get an understanding of Meursault as a person, to delve beyond the physical and not focusing on the actual killing. This way of looking at things was unfamiliar to Meursault, who soon found himself being “accused of murder and then executed for not crying at his mother’s funeral” (p. 116).
As a result of Meursault not seeing the need to give life more meaning than what can be seen, he doesn’t see and need to believe in God nor religion. While in prison, God is linked to the meaning of life numerous times, where Meursault’s actions and views on life where it has no meaning is a result of him not believing in God. During the first interview between the magistrate and Meursault, the magistrates said he firmly believes that “all men believe in God” (p. 68), adding “even those who wouldn’t face up to him” (p. 68), stating that if this wasn’t true, his life would “become meaningless” (p. 68), which is what Meursault believes and what Camus is trying to convey. Throughout the interview God and belief in him came up frequently as more and more attention was directed towards the subject. Where in the end the magistrate says he had never seen “a soul as hardened” (p. 69) as Meursault’s, explaining this by his lack of fait in God giving Meursault the nickname “Mr. Antichrist” (p. 70). Meursault really didn’t care what the magistrate said of him, it didn’t matter and “had nothing to do with” (p. 68) him, so Meursault only gave the “impression” (p. 68) he “was agreeing with him” (p.69).
Another person who misinterpreting Meursault is the chaplain in his attempts to give Meursault’s life meaning through God. Again it isn’t accepted that a man cannot believe in God and he tried to understand the reasons behind this lack of faith. The chaplains first thought was that Meursault was talking “out of utter despair” (p. 111). Meursault simply answers that he “wasn’t” (p. 112). With the chaplain still trying to understand, he might have thought that Meursault didn’t to put his trust in God was because he had nothing more to do on this earth than die, and therefore tells him there “could be asked more of you” (p. 113). That he may be asked to look for a “divine face” (p. 113) in the darkness of the walls. Meursault says he’s been looking at these “walls for months” (p. 113), he knew no one better, and there wasn’t “anything or anyone” (p. 113) there. Still, the chaplain will not accept the fact that Meursault doesn’t share his views on religion, and concludes with that fact that his “heart is blind” (p. 115) and that he “shall pray for” (p. 115) him. This triggered an emotional outburst from Meursault not seen before in the book, showing the chaplain that Meursault’s heart is far from blind.
In the final pages of the novel we truly see a new side of Meursault, he finally opens himself up to us and pours all his thoughts out in frenzy. This stream of thoughts and feelings he says came from the “bottom of my heart” (p. 115) and are describes as being a “paroxysm of joy and anger”. This is very different from the Meursault we have learnt to understand throughout the novel. A person who at the most scratches the surface now digs deep into the very essence of human belief and tears apart all hope of a greater meaning. The chaplain “seemed so certain” (p. 115), yet none of his certainties was worth “one hair of a woman’s head” (p. 115). Meursault finally says more than what is needed and explains that noting but one thing is certain, that is all that mattered, and that was death. We all know this, therefore all who “called themselves my brothers” (p. 116) were privileged, “there were only privileged people” (p. 116), meaning there are no privileged people, they too would be “condemned one day” (p. 116). This new emotionally philosophical side of Meursault came on so strong and struck the chaplain strait in the heart leaving him in tears.
When Meursault finally got it out of his system he felt “calm” (p. 116) and liberated. From here to the end of the novel, only happy feelings are being described, such as the “wondrous peace” (p. 116) around him, and the “shining stars” (p. 116) on his face. However, only until the “scream of sirens” (p. 116) announcing his departure to a world where he is forever neither good nor bad, right nor wrong, too much nor too little, neutral, indifferent. Meursault finally reflects upon his life and concludes that he had “been happy” (p. 117), and that he was “still happy” (p. 117). I believe he understood that he was different, and that he had always been different, people had never shared his view on life and he liked it that way, he had “been happy” (p. 117) with that. So that is the reason why Meursault, to “feel less lonely” (p. 117) wished that he would be greeted with a “crowd of spectators” (p. 117) all with “cries of hatred” (p. 117).
Meursault truly did die with a legacy, his views on the meaningless and absurdity of life. However his views weren’t favored by the world he lived in and because he didn’t compromise and held on to his views he had to pay the ultimate price, his life. And so, if you look at it in this way, it isn’t totally wrong of Albert Camus who compares his character Meursault to another, who also had to pay with his life for his views on the world, Jesus.
