Discuss Albert Camus' "L'Etranger".

“assailli”, which reflect the mood at the time. However, we know that the opinions expressed are solely Meursault’s and no one else’s due to the fact that L’etranger is narrated throughout by Meursault himself. This differs from traditional methods in which there is usually an omniscient narrator. The narration makes the passage especially interesting due to the fact that Meursault is a thinker. He is sceptical and often reflects on life in an existential manner. In this particular passage Meursault speaks of “le remords eternal”, which is to be his punishment for what he has done. He is also portrayed as melodramatic when he says ‘je sentais mon coeur ferme’. In addition to the factors I have aforementioned, Meursault has another trait which makes him different from the other characters in the book. - Heat and light have a strange influence on him and are therefore important motifs in L’etranger. His physical state is more important to him than his emotions and he is only truly affected by things that he can physically feel, such as temperature. It is to be expected that during a trial one would feel frightened or anxious, but Meursault does not seem to be affected emotionally. He simply describes to the reader that, “le chaleur était moins forte.” Following on from the previous point, I am going to discuss how Meursault is portrayed as a disinterested spectator. This is obviously most unusual considering that, for Meursault, whether he wins his case or not will determine his fate. He does not seem to acknowledge this fact in the passage and allows his thoughts to wander to other things. For example, when he says “Aux quelques bruits de rue que j’entendais, je devinais la douceur du soir,” he is thinking about the climatic situation outside rather than paying attention to what is going on in the courtroom. At one point he also states, “J’ai encore regardé la salle,” which gives the impression that he has not been looking at, or paying attention to the room and what is going on in it for a length of time. In addition to his lack of interest in the courtroom activities, there is also a lack of speech on Meursault’s part. People speak to him and at one point he replies (“J’ai acquiesce”) though it should be noted that this reply is not in direct speech. The lack of direct contact with Mersault isolates him from the other characters. He is more a spectator than a participant which is ironic since the case would not exist had it not been for his actions. In the last sentence of the passage Meursault states: “Je n’ai même pas pu répondre à son sourire,” making clear that at this point in time, he is not willing to make any contact with another. As a result, Meursault separates himself from the rest of the courtroom, though at the same time, brings himself closer to the reader. The fact that he is separated allows the reader to feel sympathy towards him and obligingly listen to what he has to say. Listening to Meursault’s reflections, it is clear that he is an intelligent spectator. He reflects critically on the events that take place around him: “Tout était dans le meme état que le premier jour.” Evidently, no one else has taken note that a substantial amount has not changed since the first day of the hearing. Camus presents Meursault as intellectually superior to the lawyers the jury and the ‘audience’. He is disinterested and bored and notices things that they do not. When taking various factors into consideration, it would appear that the whole court case is extremely superficial. The people in the court room are described as the ‘audience’ which at first sight seems inappropriate since we are reading about a murder case. This type of case is clearly not supposed to provide any form of entertainment whatsoever, however, ‘audience’ implies the opposite. Everyone involved in the hearing, excluding Meursault, is presented in the passage by playing a role. Take, for example the descriptions of the lawyer’s behaviour: “[l’]avocat s’écrier, pour finir,” and “l’avocat s’est assis d’un air épuisé.” This language suggests that Meursault’s lawyer has been performing in a play rather than acting for his client in a real life situation. Meursault has no part in this legal ‘performance’. When people speak to him and shake his lawyer’s hand, Meursault replies, but without sincerity. It is plain to see from this passage that he does not voice his own opinions. The legal system speaks for him. He defends this at one point by saying, ‘J’etais trop fatigue,’ proving to the reader once more that he is more interested in his physical self than what is going on around him. He’s living in a dream world and is utterly bored of the insincere system of the legal institution. The paragraphs above have led me to criticise the sincerity of the legal system as Meursault describes it. If the trial has parallel lines to a theatre-play, it would be fitting to suggest that there is a script which would mean that the case is pre-determined. When someone exclaims, “Magnifique, mon cher” to the lawyer, it is made prominent that what is important is not being right or wrong, it is just winning that is essential. This is why the participants put on a performance, a falsity, to cover up something that is wrong in actuality. From the above evidence, Meursault’s role in the trial has become clearer than before. Through Camus’ clever use of emotive language and punctuation, the reader is instantly plunged into the world that is Meursault’s, where everything seems dead-ended and depressing. Furthermore, when the courtroom is compared with a theatre, the reader can instantly see how isolated Meursault is from the rest of the world, and how false and dishonest everyone else seems in comparison to him. In the text, there are several examples of Meursault’s refusal to feign emotions he does not feel, even thought his life would undoubtedly be easier if he did, and this sense of being true to himself is brought out in this passage.