The Stranger discussion

Discuss below? I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks.

I thought I'd check whether there was a similar thread created previously, and this one seems to be, although your question seems more about the reason rather than intent as in that thread (although the two may perhaps be the same in some interpretations).

I read The Stranger earlier this month, but realised that I hadn't bothered to think about his reason or intent for the murder - it seemed like such a natural occurrence in his writing. There appears to be no single direct or concrete reason for his act, so discussing the reason on more of a subconscious level, the impression I got was that Meursault wanted to see whether he could feel any emotion, concern or attachment about anything. I thought that deep down, he perceived the strangeness of his own, utter indifference to his mother's death and to Marie's inquiring about marriage (he knows he should be feeling something but doesn't, and can't find himself caring about this either), so he (rather involuntarily, without actually premeditating the act) sets out to do something that should surely make him feel something.

Through the process of his trials I thought that it still hadn't, and the closing pages seem to reveal his coming to peace with his indifference - the world is indifferent and so am I.

Finding it [the world] so much like myself - so like a brother, really - I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again...

There was very little premeditation in Mersault's action, indeed it was only by coincidence that he even had possession of the gun. Throughout the book Mersault is indifferent to the three deaths that take place, his mother's, the Arab's and ultimately his own.

The novel puts forward some of the key concepts of the philosophy of existentialism, a philosophy Camus was very close to, along with his friend Sartre. Death from the existential perspective is the final absurdity of life, I am pretty sure that Camus himself once said something like "we're all going to die, the when and the how seem largely irrelevant."

Junta wrote: "...so he (rather involuntarily, without actually premeditating the act) sets out to do something that should surely make him feel something."
Interestingly, I think that's what causes psychopaths to kill (the ones who do, at least) - they can't really experience human emotions themselves, so they try to experience them through the pain and terror of their victims.

But I don't get the impression that the Mersault character is a psychopath - more that he's just indifferent - i.e., he has no reason to either kill or not kill the Arab (or do anything else, FTM). He just sort of drifts into murder the same way he drifts through the rest of his life... he just indifferently shoots the guy just for flashing the sun in his eyes off the knife blade; it will make the annoyance go away and he really doesn't give a fig whether he kills the guy or not.

The Mersault at that point in the book, lived in the moment. No concept for past or future. All his decisions were based on what was currently happening.

Note the wording at that scene. On how hot and irritating the sun was. Further, he says the trigger falls on its own accord, that he was a passive being.

Overall, why he killed him has no answer. Just like most things in life. Not everything in life has a purpose or meaning. Shit just happens.

My first introduction to this book was an audio-book read by Camus himself. I assumed that if anyone could give Mersault the right intonation in the voice, it would be him. My actual reading of the book was forever influenced by Camus' voice.

As Duane pointed out, I never got the impression that Mersault is trying to "feel" the way others seem to do. He never gives me the impression to perceive himself as having a problem to be solved, to the point that, during the trial, I found myself going "Oh FFS, he was offered a flipping café au lait!".

But on the subject of the Arab, I agree with Duane, it's not a conscious act; it happens to him, rather than to the Arab. And of course, as someone pointed out on the other thread, the death of the Arab, in itself, is as unimportant to the jury as it was meaningless to Mersault.

Laura wrote: "My first introduction to this book was an audio-book read by Camus himself."

Dang... I'm characteristically deprecatory (now there's a mouthful) of audiobooks, but I'd LOVE to listen to THAT one... at least if Camus could communicate well in English.

Of curse, some authors can't even read their own works effectively... I just adore Kathy Acker but I went to one of her readings and her delivery was as flat as a pancake.

Duane wrote: "Dang... I'm characteristically deprecatory (now there's a mouthful) of audiobooks, but I'd LOVE to listen to THAT one..."

It was the only audiobook of my life, and by accident. I was learning French, and a French friend thought it would be a nice practice, so he gave it to me. I was never at any public reading, but I figured the author would read it right... He was Mersault! (Or maybe I just think he was, and his voice is why I think what I think about Mersault?)

You can find it on youtube, but in French, of course. It has the option of French subtitles and youtube can translate them, but I would bet it isn't the official translation of the book in English and it could make you cringe if it is a Google translate. Well, just in case you want to hear the man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r85Tp...

Uh-oh... I knew as soon as I posted that that I'd find out it was in French... In which I refuse to admit to being conversant, except for lampooning the French in Franglish, of course.

But thanks for the link, which I will infestigate (And of which I will deny all ability to understand, especially to my redneck friends, and except if I'm trying to get laid by some Frenchwoman).

Mersault's murder of the Arab isn't existentialism, either, no matter what Camus thought - it's outright nihilism... (NOW we're talking).

Some of them can read, and some can't... and some just shouldn't... I just love Camille Paglia but when she showed up here she was going to read *poetry* and I thought, Screw THAT, I'm not going to even take a *chance* on ruining my appreciation of her by contaminating it with a friggin *poetry* reading... Oh well.

The level of French wasn't as intricate for me as other books in French that I read. Contemporary enough not to confuse me with elements no translator knows (Ah Flaubert!), but not modern enough for idioms and current expressions (Gavalda, I'm looking at you).

Now, about the Arab, you're going into deeper waters than my limited knowledge can swim, but oh so interesting! So I'll just make a fool of myself and talk about what I know almost nothing, just because I love this book. Please, feel free to correct, but play nice or I will spank you!

I don't see Meursault as nihilist, just because he refuses to play "the game", as Camus said. He also does things that he knows are expected of him, but always keeping his commitment to the truth (I almost went on about Meursault and feelings, his and others', but not the subject here).

There is a rupture right after the first shot, and Meursault motivations -to keep shooting- change there. He didn't go to the beach looking for the Arab and I guess you could say "the sun made him do it" -that first shot. The sun is depicted as a monster, torturing Meursault, and to hear him describe it (please bear with my translation attempts), this sun almost sounds like a creature that breathes and blows, leans on him, oppresses him, attacks him with "swords" or "blades" of light and heat, etc. Camus' voice transmits this discomfort so well, I remember being eager to move past this scene out of my own discomfort hearing it.

His discourse focuses on his face, attacked by the sun, the heat, the sweat, a veil in front of his "painful eyes". He took a step forward escaping from the sun, even when he thought it was stupid. Meursault is here the "sufferer" of the sun, the light, the trigger that went off.

The first shot lifts the veil from his eyes, and the tone of the scene changes. Perhaps that was Camus' existentialism in play. Meursault realizes what he just did -not that he killed someone, but that he broke the balance of the day- and embraces the absurdity of the situation, owns it and becomes the actor, instead of the sufferer: "alors" he shot 4 more times. It's interesting the use of "alors". It can be translated as "then, he kept shooting" or "so, he kept shooting", and the meaning subtly changes. Especially because he thinks "he had been happy" or something in this direction, and knows that's part of the past, "alors" he keeps shooting.

If you one day find the patience to hear it, you will also notice that Camus' tone of voice changes from here onwards and all through part 2, to go with the change in the wording and images evoked. Just don't use Meursault's words if you're trying to seduce a Frenchwoman...

Not to worry; I will resort to my barbaric tinge for seduction purposes (Get a look at that film "La Bonne Annee) (In French) for the technique... That's their weakness, they love animals.)

anyway...

You're just making my point (I think?) about Mersault being a nihilist. It wasn't that he thought killing the Arab had no meaning; he just didn't give a damn. You have to be willing to agonize over the meaninglessness of everything in order to be an existentialist, whereas a nihilist doesn't even care if everything is meaningless. An existentialist, for instance, is willing to commit suicide to prove how meaningless life is, but a nihilist realizes s/he isn't even worth killing. In Mersault's case, he didn't even think the Arab was worth NOT killing. I mean, you get the impression he probably shot the Arab just to see if the gun would work, and get the sunlight out of his eyes. (Which is brilliant, but I still think it's pure nihilism...).

Yeah, that book is easy reading for 2nd or 3rd year French stoonts... which is why it gets assigned... the thorough banality of which reason for assigning it would probably appeal to Camus, at least if he wasn't dead...

Which reminds me... quit overestimating me and underestimating yourself - We're all equally doomed here...

Isn't "Alors" one of those idiomatic thingumbobs that doesn't have any exact trashlation in English? (those are the most interesting words in *any* language; the ones with no translation, of curse...)

Camus is one of the key contributors to works on existentialism.

Existentialism and nihilism are often confused with one another, but existentialism differs in that it advocates that a person can bring value into their life, they are capable of actions that are of value to others, even though life itself is absurd and meaningless. Nihilism just proposes everything is meaningless and nothing you do can be of any value. The concept of value differentiates the two philosophies,

Duane wrote: "I mean, you get the impression he probably shot the Arab just to see if the gun would work, and get the sunlight out of his eyes."

Not sure... The impression I got was more in the spirit of he didn't consciously shoot, it just happened (La gâchette a cédé, the trigger went off, would be in English?), just as if he had dropped something or tripped on something because the sun was so insufferable, he could hardly think of anything else. Maybe that could fit into nihilism, but then he changes.

During this scene, Meursault's whole wording changes, goes from the short, simple and straightforward sentences of the first part (Aujourd'hui maman est morte, today mom is dead), to longer sentences, with dramatic and elaborated images, detailed sensations (Il m'a semblé que le ciel s'ouvrait sur toute son étendue pour laisser pleuvoir du feu, oh boy, how do I even translate this... It seemed to me that the skies opened on their whole extension to let fire rain?). Camus' voice accompanies this change of sense in Meursault's discourse.

You also said "An existentialist, for instance, is willing to commit suicide to prove how meaningless life is" and I can't help thinking of this when Meursault "alors" shoots 4 more times. Was he owning the absurdity of his life? He could have said it was an accident, that "the trigger gave in" or that he saw the knife and it was self defense, but he consciously shot 4 more times in cold blood, knowing it meant the end of his life. Did he know he didn't stand a chance in court, because he was a 'stranger', because he knew that things like not crying at his mother's funeral or going to the pool the day after would make him guiltier than killing a man? That sounds to me like going willingly to the gallows, knowing how absurd his trial would be.

And yes, "alors" is difficult to translate even in context, because it would depend on the intention (from both Doylean and Watsonian points of view).

*Sighs* back to my work now...

But that's the point at which I claim he was a nihilist, not an existentialist, because he didn't make any *distinction* between pulling it and not pulling it... It was all the same to him one way or another. But then *after* he does it, he realizes what he's bought himself into...

I think it's like "the whole sky rained fire on me"... Kind of like "Dawn Breaks on Marble Head" (e.g. "I blew it Big time, *this* time...").

*Real* good question about why he shot 4 more times, actually. That untranslatable "Alors" indeed comprises a lot of questions, doesn' it?

(and yeah, here in America at least a slick lawyer would get him off if he'd only pulled the tigger once. In fact he could make that out to be an accident, sort of partially maybe - he might get off with 2nd Degree Murder or even "manslaughter" for that. But when he emptied the magazine... now you did it, Bunky. There's no way that ain't "Premeditated", nohow.)

But I doubt if Camus was implying that Mersault was thinking about the consequences (or trying to make sure he polished himself off) *at all*, though... My take on it (although I'm admittedly projecting) was that the guy is "Estranged" from *everything*, not just humanity. I mean, if your alienation runs deep enough, you're basically living in the Twilight Zone... I'm reminded of that song, "Over the Edge"

"Grow up and be a man
Drop dead right where I stand..."
Camus would have loved it

Duane wrote: "*Real* good question about why he shot 4 more times, actually. That untranslatable "Alors" indeed comprises a lot of questions, doesn' it?"

Yup! And the change of style is kept through the trial and until the end. I think that's a much more difficult question than simply "why did he kill the Arab". And I think the answer will vary, according to the point of view. If you see Meursault as absolutely nihilist, you will have an interpretation of the alors and the cause of the 4 more shots; someone who goes for full existentialist, will have another.

Did anyone ever ask Camus about it? I mean, if he really did change the style of writing deliberately (Which is probably lost in translation...) there must have been 184,387 academic tweezerbeaks in turtleneck sweaters and tweed caps all over him about it... ?

Either way though Camus would probably tell you there is no "why", which condition is what makes Mersault whatever he is...

(Hmm... Looks like somebody edited one of my posts in here. cute - I didn't know you could do that)

You're missing the context. No way a halway sane French dude was going to get executed in Algeria at the time for randomly killing an armed Muslim, no matter how many shots were fired. Nothing similar happened in real life (I checked the records to make sure).
His behaviour with the prosecutor and in court on the other hand, that was suicidal. Of course if he had only fired one shot, he might not have been asked to account for his actions so I guess you could say the combination of emptying his revolver and then not playing the game was suicidal.

As to whether the killing was premeditated, well, if you'd have listened to the French, they didn't come to Algeria in order to kill random Muslims. Yet somehow they came fully prepared to do exactly that... and of course that's what they did. Camus wrote against it and was even kicked out of the CP over that stuff.
For all this spur of the moment thing, Meursault had laid down what he would do long before he went looking for the Muslim: if he pulled his knife, he was going to get shot.
This book features quite a few characters who make up convenient stories. Meursault is committed to honesty but if someone's lying to themselves, that's not the same thing as being committed to the truth.

That's a *really* interesting point... NTS as an American knowing nothing of contemporary French politics and meanwhile seeing Camus touted by the "Literati" as an apostle of existentialism, it would never even occur to me that there was some sort of socipolitical background theme in the killing of the Arab.

If in fact that was what Camus was doing, though - and particularly if he was portraying a premeditated killing based on race or culture or whatever - it nearly derails any possible theme of existentialism, except possibly for Mersault's "suicide by jury"... In such case, really it just makes Mersault look like he's gone completely off the rails, not like he's beset with some sort of existential dilemma.

In fact, there *was* a case like that in Oregon about 10 or 20 years ago - some guy systematically set about convincing a jury to convict him and give him the death penalty. He altered his appearance to look "satanic" and insisted on conducting his own defense, and then deliberately portrayed himself as a remorseless killer - and sure enough, got the death penalty. Then he appealed the conviction on the basis that the jury had been manipulated!! (No, I'm not making ANY of this up... .) But he was basically just nuts (and very likely a psychopath...).

There are quite a few literati who realize that Camus wasn't quite existentialist.

Camus is the kind of author who wrote books which have overlapping layers of meaning which can be tragic and funny on different levels. And since this book had to satisfy Nazi censorship, it couldn't have been straightforward in all respects even if the author had been the straightforward type.
I don't see why one theme would "derail" another. Rather, properly understood, I would think they'd complement each other. The author's abstract ideas were to some extent the product of bleak socio-political circumstances to begin with.

I would think, if Camus had been forced by Goebbels' minions to change anything, that he would have republished the "real" version after the war... (Of course if he was *enough* of an existentialist, maybe he wouldn't have cared about *that*, even... .)

Which would make the original, Nazified version highly collectable and worth big bucks today, of curse... heh heh

Well, the common "wisdom" (among highschool teachers and other single-celled life forms over here, at least) is that Camus was portraying his whacked-out protagonist as being the quintessential existentialist, who just killed somebody because of, somethingorother (i.e., that the OP's original question here, isn't *supposed* to have an answer, ultimately.) If OTOH he snuffed the Arab for some actual *reason*, like he was a racist or colonialist or some such thing, then he really *wasn't* doing it for "Existentialist" reasons (hmmm... are existentialists allowed to have reasons anyway?).

I.e., he probably couldn't have had ANY reason for doing it, and certainly not something as mundane as racism or whatever-ism, without putting his Existentialist credentials (Hmm... *another* oxymoron?) in jeopardy... .

And YOU are putting Camus' existentialist credentials in jeopardy (with considerable justification, I'd say... .)

There are always reasons why people do things. Only different people may have different ideas about why someone did a particular thing (this is illustrated in The Stranger's text as well as in the different ways people read the book).
Obviously Mersault didn't simply kill the Muslim because he was a racist colonist. Life is usually more complicated. The point is that he wouldn't have done it if he wasn't.
It's a singularly poor account of existentialism that claims that it's about people doing things without any reason or only for reasons that make little sense like "I shot that Muslim because of the Sun".
The reason Camus isn't quite an existentialist (besides the fact that he stated he wasn't one) is quite different. See for instance: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cam...

The role of the French in Algeria strengthens the absurdity of Meursault's conviction, in any case. On a murder trial where, quite obviously, nobody really gives a rat's ass about the victim, Meursault is seen as monstrous, even though he was French and the Arab was... well, an Arab. Well pointed out: an armed Arab. But did he shoot him because he was an Arab, or was this incidental (for him)?

That was some very interesting reading, I just had a quick glance with my mid-morning coffee, but I will take a deeper dive in later, thanks for sharing!

The trial is absurd in the sense that it's ludicrous but not in the sense that it's not rational.
If you assume that the trial isn't concerned with justice, the remaning issue is whether the accused is a danger to the community. And since the community doesn't include Muslims, the murder hardly matters as such. What matters is motive, morality and whether the murderer is willing to conform to the rules of the community. Because an eccentric with a motive like "the Sun" could very well go on to kill people who aren't Muslim.
It is quite rational to require people to account for their actions. If they can't satisfactorily do so (whether that account is honest or not), they may very rationally be judged as a threat. And so striking absurdities are borne out of trying to deal with the mess that is the world using reason...

Why is it even ludicrous, if from the court's point of view (and here I include the jury), they've excised a murderer from "society" - and one whom, as you point out, given no explanation for his actions can't be expected not to kill someone else for no reason at all?

In fact, given that much is there really any indication that it matters to Camus whom Mersault killed? For that matter, from the jury's point of view if he'd been torturing and killing animals that would argue that he was a psychopath and should at least be locked up permanently on that basis, even if he hadn't killed any humans at all. In fact, from the point of view of psychopathology, the prosecutor's focus on Mersault's complete lack of empathy for his mother in the event of his mother's funeral is not only not ludicrous but highly relevant. And Camus' taking pains to illustrate Mersault's complete lack of empathy argues against "colonialism" etc. even entering into the equation...

I'm starting to wonder if Camus didn't get to know a psychopath at some point in his life, failed to understand what it was that he'd encountered, and then used the person (if you can call one of them that... they're not entirely human) as a character in a novel because he found their behavior so fascinating. (I know one who watched someone get killed in a motorcycle accident and then when the dead boy's mother showed up at the scene, promptly asked her if he could have the motorcycle.)

That's a good article from Stanford, but now I'm even *less* convinced that Camus intended anything w/r/t cultural or racial bias, no matter how trendy it might be in today's world to focus on issues of that sort...

I just finished L'etranger and plan to take on Meursault contre-enquete (which I suspect will be a more challenging read in French than the Camus but we'll see).
I found this discussion and links very useful. thanks.
I'm wondering if there is a Freudian interpretation out there based on the mother-son relationship.

I've seen Freudian interpretations, but not on the particulars of Meursault's relationship with his mother; rather they verse on the id, lack of superego and that direction. But there may be some out there.

Hello everyone. It is my observation that Meursault is a person who is only capable of living in a specific moment. The amount of time that Meursault is able to dedicate to a moment depends entirely on his closeness to that moment. The book begins with the infamous line "Maman died today" because this was a key footnote during Meursault's day, nothing more or less. It is a grand and gruesomely direct introduction to a mentality that, for whatever reason, can only exhibit the slightest emotion towards humanity under very specific circumstances.

Meursault often made attempts at joining humanity, but never willingly, only when he felt like he was left with no other choice. His dealings with the people at his mother's funeral were minimal, but after the groundskeeper told Meursault his life story and offered him a cup of cafe au lait, Meursault thought the humane thing to do would be to offer the man a cigarette, indifferent towards the presence of his newly dead mother. When Salamano lost his dog and told Meursault of his life in a similar manner, Meursault told Salamano to stay after Salamano had offered himself to end the conversation, and Meursault even went as far as APOLOGIZING FOR THE LOSS OF SALAMANO'S DOG. Marie had to beg Meursault to marry him, and he thought the humane thing to do would be to say yes, because it would make Marie happy.

Meursault was affected by weather very much throughout the story, particularly the sun. He complained of the heat at his mother's funeral. The description of the heat on the beach as he approached the Arab made it sound like one of the most physically uncomfortable times of Meursault's life, certainly the most uncomfortable he has been(to this point) in the story. Meursault was again pushed to the point where he feels forced to attempt to feel something. Since we know that A: Meursault is a person who is only capable of living in the present moment and reacting to the circumstances that define that moment...B: By his own admission, Meursault is a man who has never been able to care about anything or anyone...and C: Meursault will attempt to reconnect with his humanity under the right conditions...his decision to kill the Arab then shoot him four more times can be looked at with more scrutiny.

The times when Meursault listened to the lifelong woes of the groundskeeper at his mother's funeral and Salamano and his corresponding reactions were his attempt at feeling compassion. His approval of the idea of marriage after Marie's excessive pleading was his attempt at feeling love. The murder of the Arab was what Meursault was on the beach to accomplish in the first place. When he shot the Arab four more times, it was his attempt at feeling misery, or unhappiness.

Meursault thought that these attempts at emotion were good enough for the world to consider him a normal person. What he did not realize is that normal people feel these emotions regularly, and usually in less deplorable scenarios. The abyss that separates Meursault from others in regard to empathy is so vast and cold that trivial facts about his personality became damning evidence against him at his trial. That Meursault could not understand why he was treated like the Antichrist until the very moment of his execution drives the discord between himself and humanity into the absurd.

Thank you for reading!

Nothing influenced Meursault to kill Arab. He does not kill Arab with knife out of fear or some survival instincts, in such a case one can argue that there is a subtle premeditation in his actions. But it is with gun, just out of fear , an impulse can kill Arab. On other hand, Arab was not just stranger, he has actually attacked him once. Nothing wrong on the side of Meursault. He is being just different.

The author tries to bring out his nature from the way he perceives both loss of his mom and death of a stranger committed by him. And finally how will he take his own death which is due to improper judgement. Everything he encountered actually happened accidentally or he is put in such a situation.

Indifference. Meursault is so abstracted from life that the consequences of his actions have no moral or practical bearing he can possibly comprehend. He cannot relate in meaningful ways to people. He is found beyond redemption, incapable of human empathy on any level. i.e., he is utterly alone, being unaware of how other people may perceive him from the outside, so to speak. Consciousness for Meursault is empty space, a void.

I would say that because of the sun and the heat Meursault has killed the Arab.

David wrote: "Indifference. Meursault is so abstracted from life that the consequences of his actions have no moral or practical bearing he can possibly comprehend. He cannot relate in meaningful ways to people...." I agree with this <3

Laura wrote: "My first introduction to this book was an audio-book read by Camus himself. I assumed that if anyone could give Mersault the right intonation in the voice, it would be him. My actual reading of the..."
You have that luck to listen to the great thinker and his great book the outsider that tells you from the time you decide to be honest the entire world goes against you. what happens for the individual happens in the world too . Isn't it the extension of the same idea in the outsider we see in the plague that the germs are always there in animate and inanimate things to strike again.

Imaginary wrote: "The Mersault at that point in the book, lived in the moment. No concept for past or future. All his decisions were based on what was currently happening.

Note the wording at that scene. On how ho..."

I've read this book twice now and plan to read it a third time. My main takeaway is that there really is no point in life if we will all die anyway. This is why Meursault doesn't have a panicked reaction when they sentence him to death. He realizes that anything he does, good or bad, will always be punished with inevitable death. It's honestly a little peaceful to think about.

To answer the overarching question, Meursault has little to no premeditation in his murder. Could it be because of racial tensions? Perhaps he wanted to get back at the man? Not even he knows. What we do know since the beginning of the book is that he is detached from society. Every detail about his morals and the situations he comes across leads up to his actions during the murder. In this case, no premeditation could very well be the answer we are looking for.

As a personal theory, I believe Meursault did have a personal reason for the murder. He kills the man in order to feel something, anything. When he can't feel this, he fires more shots. He fires four more shots until there are no bullets left in the gun. He's left, once again, apathetic and unsatisfied. It isn't until the very end of the book that he feels an emotion he can exactly pinpoint. He states, "And I, too, felt ready to start life all over again. It was as if that great rush of anger had washed me clean, emptied me of hope, and, gazing up at the dark sky spangled with its signs and stars, for the first time, the first, I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe."

In the end, every book is up for personal interpretation. We can argue left and right whether there was premeditation or not. However, we can all agree on the facts. A man murdered another man on a beach with a gun.

i believe people understate the influence of maman's death. naturally, one would interpret the novel from an absurdist perspective--hinged on the belief that life is inherently meaningless. i'd argue mersault's loss of his mother triggers his attitude, the driving force of the story. it's in the very first line of the story: "Maman died today." this sets the stage for his actions. his mother dies. he kills a man.

Duane wrote: "Junta wrote: "...so he (rather involuntarily, without actually premeditating the act) sets out to do something that should surely make him feel something."
Interestingly, I think that's what causes..."
I completely agree. He drives no pleasure or emotion from killing the man so I didn't really take him as a psychopath but I can see why people do. I think he's someone who can't feel much emotion on both ends of the spectrum. He feels no emotion when his mother passes and while he has a romantic interest he's not really interested in her

I like your review on it! I agree with you

I don't think even he knows, I think it was a case of delirium and apathy, or maybe an unconscious human urge, like an intrusive thought.. I don't think he had a premeditated plan. Although, It does bring up the question of why he went back to the Arabs, I think that also could be prescribed to an unconscious inclination.

1. Heat and Sensory Overload: Throughout the novel, Meursault is portrayed as someone who is detached from conventional emotional responses and influenced by immediate sensory experiences. The heat of the sun and the glaring light could have disoriented him, affecting his judgment and leading to a spontaneous, irrational act.

2. Existential Nihilism: Meursault's worldview is characterized by existential indifference and nihilism. He sees life as devoid of inherent meaning or morality. His killing of the Arab could reflect his belief in the absurdity of existence and the arbitrary nature of human actions.

3. Conflict and Provocation: The altercation between Meursault and the Arab appears to be a culmination of tension and conflict that had been building up. Meursault, already in a state of existential detachment, may have responded impulsively to what he perceived as a threat or provocation, although the novel leaves this ambiguous.

4. Symbolism and Fate: Some interpretations suggest that the killing symbolizes Meursault's confrontation with the inevitability of death and fate. It can be seen as a metaphor for his existential struggle against the absurdity and meaninglessness of life.

It has been a few years since I read it, but it was only recently I realized that Meursault is behaving in this instance the way a person with autism, or at least someone with sensory sensitivities, would respond to being in extreme heat, and then having the sun reflection in his face. It would at least contribute to his reaction, in addition to his psychological issues.

Meursault’s decision to kill the Arab in Albert Camus’s The Stranger is influenced more by existential and absurdist themes than by a clear motive. His detachment from societal norms, combined with the oppressive heat and a sense of disconnection from reality, culminates in the act of violence. This moment reflects Camus's exploration of how external circumstances and inner emptiness can intersect to drive human behavior. Platforms like MyPriceZone provide insights into various philosophical topics and their real-world interpretations. Meursault’s actions ultimately serve as a lens to examine the absurdity of existence and the human condition.

Arshad-Gafoor wrote: "Meursault’s decision to kill the Arab in Albert Camus’s The Stranger is influenced more by existential and absurdist themes than by a clear motive. His detachment from societal norms, combined with..."

I agree, he had no motive no reason and when I explained this part of the book to others it was difficult to not sound ridiculous while also trying to make the book sound good which it is. Part of the reason it's so good is exactly what you said, it captures a disconnect we all may have in part. Meursault had it in full and embraced it. But I don't think he was disconnected from societal norms. He knew how to act. Meursault was detached of purpose he had no intent no reason to care he saw the indifference life had towards people and simply reflected it back. Ironically the only time he felt connected was when he realized how little life cared about him.

'It was because of the sun'. Perhaps the point's that all motivation/action is as trivial as that from the existentialist perspective.

il faisait chaud

That's the whole point. I think if Camus were here to answer this, the answer would probably be "there is no why".

Why everything that people do have to have a reason?
We would really save some energy and maybe face the reality better if we stopped asking why and just accept the fact that some things don't have to make sense. Specially when we discuss about the human's "wants and needs".

Of course that if we go on this route, justice and ethics would be blurred, but that is another discussion. One that Camus invites us to wrestle with, not resolve.