The Stranger; Existentialism Between the Lines

Albert Camus’ novel, “The Stranger”, delivers existentialist ideals through Monsieur Meursault’s actions and lack of emotions. The fact that he is detached from his mother’s death and apparently unaffected by it is the ultimate example of Camus’ personification of existentialism; which, as it is commonly known, deals with the whole purpose of human existence and the philosophy that life has no meaning and therefore nothing in it really matters.

In the first four chapters of the novel the reader can begin to understand Meursault’s attitude towards life; “Then I felt like having a smoke. But I hesitated, because I didn’t know if I could do it with Maman right there. I thought about it; it didn’t matter.” (Page 8). Meursault is using the classic existentialist phrase, “It doesn’t matter.” So what if I have a smoke in front of my mother’s dead body? Camus infers that Meursault’s habit of smoking probably bothered his mother, but at the same time the man has no problem with opposing this even when she lies dead in front of him. As Meursault might have thought so at the time, mankind has free will and nothing that he does has any importance.

Although throughout the novel Meursault seems indifferent towards his mother’s death, the culmination of this hypothesis occurs in page 24 where he states, “It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now… and that, really, nothing had changed.” Nothing had changed? His mother had just died! Anyhow, it is not like Meursault even knows when this occurred, as shown in the first pages of the novel where he questions whether his mother’s death occurred yesterday or the day before that.  One might believe on existentialist philosophies but it is absurd to become indifferent of your mother’s death, especially because that is simply disrespectful. However, Meursault is just like that; objective, euphemistic, detached. Will the sorrow of losing his mother ever come to light?

Another thing that stood out for me was how the first four chapters of the book ended with an interesting contrast between characters. Mr. Salamano, Meursault’s neighbor, approaches Meursault because he is deeply concerned about his dog’s disappearance. Despaired and trembling, Salamano asks Meursault, “They’re not going to take him away from me are they…? Otherwise, what’s going to happen to me?” (Page 39). This stands out to me because it happened just two days after Meursault buried his mother, and while he seems totally untroubled by that, his neighbor is loosing his head over a dog. Regardless of the relationship this man had with his cocker, it is ridiculous that he falls into an anxious breakdown for a dog while Meursault enjoys the day after his mother's death. Nevertheless, Camus once again throws hints of his existentialist ideals through this; Meursault is enjoying the day, isn’t that the only thing that matters?

Although I am liking the novel, I find Meursault’s detachment slightly perturbing and worrying. I respect Camus’ existentialist believes but I think the human being is incapable of hiding these kind of overwhelming emotions forever. Will Meursault ever fall into them?