Something I found incredibly interesting throughout the novel was the development of Meursault’s complex character and his unique set of morals, or lack thereof. This greatly contributes to his unexpected actions and the absurdity of his character. 

Meursault doesn’t have a developed sense of right and wrong, and any stance he took was weak and often inconsistent. He seems to lack a moral compass and instead bases his actions on truth and his genuine reaction to the situations he is in. Many of his actions lack a deeper meaning or ulterior motive and sometimes even contradict what one might expect. He didn’t express any grief at his mother’s funeral because he truthfully felt indifferent to her death. He didn’t mean it to show any disrespect or resentment towards her, but it was definitely an out-of-the-ordinary response to the death of one’s mother. This contradicts many societal expectations that one would usually be distraught or mournful. Later in the book, throughout his prosecution, the prosecutor uses this apathy to highlight the threat he poses to their society. The prosecutor argued that since he didn’t properly react to his mother’s death, he was a dangerous psychopath with no regard for the value of human life. I believe that Meursault thought there was no meaning of life for him to pursue, and concluded that his actions throughout his life were also meaningless in the grand scheme of existence. So, he acted freely and outside of right versus wrong, and therefore didn’t fit society’s expectations for citizens. 

However, he also often allowed others to influence his beliefs and values, as he changed his views the second someone disagreed with him. I don’t think he changed his views to fit in more with society; he did it simply because he didn’t care enough to defend his stance. When he was first asked to write a letter to his friend’s ex-girlfriend to get her to come back to him so he could get revenge, he immediately said no. However, after some persuading and justification, Meurault was convinced and agreed to do it. He bent his own view of the right thing to do in this situation to align with his friends’ views. He didn’t try to defend why he wouldn’t do it originally, he never questioned his friend’s motives, and didn’t seem to care what came of it. His apathy allows him to take on the morals of others despite never believing in them himself.   

In The Stranger, a novel by Albert Camus, Camus uses imagery and metaphors of the Sun and Earth in contrast to reveal characters’ emotions and philosophical ideologies. In one particular scene, Camus uses the sun to represent a character’s purpose in life, contrasting it with the earth. The earth in this case represents Mersault’s nihilistic belief that nothing matters and life has no purpose.

In particular, the scene with the Chaplin in some of Mersault’s final moments is the clearest example of celestial bodies being used to express the differences in characters’ philosophical ideologies. First, the Chaplin and Mersault are debating whether divine justice or human justice is more important in determining the guilt of someone who has committed a sin. During this discussion, the Chaplin looks through the skylight at the bright sun. Mersault, on the other hand, stares at the ground. Then the Chaplin suddenly switches the topic of conversation, “Every stone here sweats with suffering, I know that. I have never looked at them without a feeling of anguish. But deep in my heart I know that the most wretched among you have seen a divine face emerge from the darkness” (119). This dialogue is very striking in an otherwise straightforward and clear novel. The priest is not talking about stones and earth in a literal sense. Instead, he’s asking Mersault whether turning to religion or god has ever crossed his mind, calling for him to abandon his nihilistic ideas. Using the earth as a representation of nihilistic world views.  As well, he talks about the stones sweating with suffering, referencing how he’s seen firsthand how seeing the face and ignoring leads to suffering, choosing to ignore following a purpose, and keeping their nihilistic views.

Then Mersault brings up the topic of the sun, responding to the Chaplins’ comment, “Maybe at one time, way back, I had searched for a face in them. But the face I was looking for was as bright as the sun and the flame of desire- and it belonged to Marie. I had searched for it in vain”(119). Mersault agrees with the priest; he had searched for a face (God) in the stone, but had only found a face as bright as the sun in Marie. Referring to his “Flame of desire”, telling the priest the only thing that gave him purpose and light in life was his desire for Marie, not finding purpose in God or Religion. Finally, telling the priest his search for a different worldview was in vain. A very upfront metaphor using the sun and the earth to reveal characters’ emotions and philosophical ideologies

Throughout Albert Camus’ The Stranger, the most covered topic is the absurd and nonsensical nature of life. Meursault battles the repeated hardships of life that seemingly come to him with no rhyme or reason, finding himself pulled into situations that one would never imagine. Over the entire story, no character helps to demonstrate this absurdity than the Robot woman.

Meursault first meets the woman while eating at Celeste’s. He describes her as efficient and focused, the exact opposite of Meursault. She completes a variety of seemingly random tasks and then leaves, leaving Meursault incredibly curious due to her opposition of his nature. She clearly demonstrates the absurd nature of life through this, as Meursault’s odds of running into his foil on pure coincidence is absurd.

However, what is more absurd is the fact that she appears at his trial. His trial, while one likely well known among his friends, is not one that you would expect a complete stranger to attend. Yet the woman is there, and not only is she there but she is focused on Meursault and Meursault alone. Her steely-eyed nature towards keeps the reader wondering how this seemingly random and coincidental character plays such a major role in Meursault’s psyche.

The coincidence and random nature of the woman is not accidental. Every day we meet random people, some with a lasting impact on our lives and some with none, some who are just like us and some who could not be further from ourselves. In Meursault’s experience with the robot woman, Camus not only details a normal part of the human experience but emphasizes how the human experience as a whole is random and nonsensical.

Many complicated symbols, metaphors, and motifs appear in Albert Camus’ The Strange, varying both in frequency and importance. Entities such as the sun, characters, cigarettes, and more appear periodically throughout the novel, and each unearth an additional layer of meaning in the story.

Firstly, the sun is prominent throughout Meursault’s journey. At the beach prior to the murder of the Arab, at the funeral of Maman, even glimpsed from the distant reaches of Meursault’s cell: the sun appears to be everywhere, yet it is never referenced for more than a sentence or two at a time. Meursault’s indifference in his own life is exemplified by the presence of the sun, since it very conveniently appears whenever Meursault’s life reaches a crucial point. Meursault is, in a sense, “shielded” from this crushing meaningless during his time in prison, which also plays a part Meursault’s eventual epiphany towards the end of the novel.

The priest/chaplain, while only being present for one short scene, plays a massive role in the development or Meursault. Meursault, despite his usual can-do attitude and willingness to help others(mostly due to indifference, but that’s beside the point), finally reaches his own breaking point and goes berserk on the chaplain. The chaplain, and more generally, religion as a whole, represents the exact opposite of absurdity: an attempt to disprove existentialism and provide meaning to life. Likewise, Meursault spits in the face of this idea, rejecting any possibility that life does indeed have a meaning, and that every human being has a purpose. Of course, the chaplain isn’t the only instance of religion in the text, but he is perhaps the most important.

Moreover, Albert Camus weaves The Stranger in such a fashion that proves that bigger is not always better, and that oftentimes something originally dismissed as irrelevant and silly may represent a large and very crucial part of the work.

In The Stranger, by Albert Camus there are many controversial ideas that are expressed through Meursault’s actions and thoughts. Whether its his careless nature, or his thoughtlessness when making seemingly big choices, Meursaults character is like nothing most have ever encountered before. Through learning about his perspective, I have been questioning whether Meursualts way of living is the key to total freedom, or the most selfish way of living.

On one hand, one could make the argument that Meursaults way of not caring about anyone else and only doing whatever he wants is the best way to achieve total freedom. In this way of living, Meursault doesn’t have to answer to anyone. He is completely living for his own wants and whatever will be fulfilling to him. This is initially seen when we read about Meursaults reaction to his mom’s death. He reaction does not reflect him not caring about his mother, but it reflects his ability to not let anything around him affect his being. He is so conscious in his self that he is able to recognize that breaking down over hims mothers death is going to make his life worse and more dreadful. Because of this Meursault is objectively living with the greatest freedom their is because truly nothing is going to effect him, or change his mind about something that he believes.

On the other hand, you could argue that Meursault is just a selfish guy who doesn’t care about anyone but himself and lacks emotion. This is seen when he relentlessly kills an Arab, doesn’t regret it, and then still feels nothing when he is sentenced to death because of it. This is the more logical approach that everyone wants to take when they are first reading because that is the social norm. It would be irrational to think that such a selfish guy could have cracked the code to living a free life, but when you take a deeper look, you may be able to see from Meursaults point of view. Maybe his ability to not regret anything that he’s ever done is the truest form of freedom.

In The Stranger, Albert Camus introduces us to a puzzling character who seems to be oddly (and almost inhumanely) indifferent to the world around him. This character, Meursault, is a frog. Or rather, he should’ve been a frog.

One of the most important traits that humans possess which separates us from other life forms is the ability to look to the future. We can hope, we can dream, and we can (occasionally) consider the future consequences of our actions. Humans will spend their entire lives trying to bring new innovations and ideas just for the betterment of the lives of the humans that come after. However, due to the terrifying uncertainty that one finds when they look into the deep dark unknown of the future, our obsession with tomorrow often causes us to spiral into a bizarre crisis of existence. Thus, our ability to look forward in time is both a blessing and a curse. It is what makes us both the greatest and most unreasonably anxious species on earth. It is human nature to be scared of the future, and thus it is just as natural to question and attempt to give reason to the unknown.

Love, family, friends, children, competition, achievement, money, these are all constructs that humans employ to attempt to give our lives meaning. Do these things actually have meaning? No, not really. However that doesn’t mean there is no purpose in them. Wars have killed billions of people, empires have risen and fallen, we’ve made buildings that touch the clouds, we’ve been to space, is none of that real? The concepts those things were built on might be made-up, but that doesn’t make the resulting innovation and progress any less real.

Existentialists believe that the only way to live an “authentic” life is to accept that the concepts which we use to justify our existence are pointless and that living under them is living under illusion. It’s hard to tell if Camus himself supports an existentialist point of view, but assuming he does, and assuming that Meursault is an existentialist character, I believe from the deepest part of my heart that Meursault (and perhaps Camus as well) would’ve been much better off had they been born as frogs.

Frogs, like most other animals, live completely in the moment. Just like Meursault, they go about their day, spending most of their time sitting and blinking as simple thoughts drift around in their teeny tiny frog brains. If you pick a frog up with your fingers pressed on it’s belly and back, and begin to squeeze, the frog will only try to wiggle out once it can no longer breathe. The implications of what might happen if it remains under the increasing pressure doesn’t matter until it becomes clear that death is imminent. It doesn’t fear death, because it can’t imagine death. It can’t imagine the future, it can’t think of the possible consequences of staying locked between two giant fingers pressing on either side of it’s body until those fingers are nearly touching.

Frogs never change their expressions, nothing in the world aside from food, sex, and death will ever cause them to take motivated action. They are, in the simplest way possible, alive. But they are not living.

Meursault upsets me, as I can’t imagine that anyone would ever consider his an authentic life, as if we should all follow his example. Meursault achieves nothing in The Stranger, his lack of imagination and fear of the future is borderline inhuman. To regret the past, to overlook and undervalue the present, to fear and imagine the future, nothing is more human. People like Meursault may see it as a fault, it may annoy him, but to lack these feelings on the past, present, and future is to me the most inhuman trait one could possibly have.

Existentialists may believe that they are above others, that they have somehow unlocked the proper way to live, but at the end of the day they too are just trying to cope and comprehend the incomprehensible. Frogs are the true existentialists, as they truly could not care less about why they’re alive or where they’ll be a week from now. They just go around sitting in mossy ponds and dirty gutter puddles with their black beady eyes looking for the next way to have babies or eat the nearest thing that can fit in their mouths, whichever comes first.

That sounds like a fitting life for Meursault, I think he’d find himself much happier in a society where he can exist without questioning, one where nothing more than remaining alive is expected of him, and one where the only purpose he needed to acknowledge was to live and die (probably in the mouth of a bigger, more bumpy frog).

The story of the Czechoslovakian man on pages 79 and 80 is seemingly random. It is a small, insignificant break in Meursault’s thoughts from prison. It just doesn’t look like it fits within the story. The first time I read it, my eyes glazed over as a skimmed the paragraphs, whether from boredom or misunderstanding, I don’t know.

However, after rereading, I began to realize that the story of the Czech man is arguably the most important 2 pages of the entire novel, because it is parallel to Meursault’s own story.

The Czechoslovakian man’s trajectory of his life almost identically mirrors that of Meursault’s. Both characters start out with almost everything they could have in life. The Czech man gets riches because he moved away, and also builds a family. Meursault has a steady job, an apartment, and he has his time with Marie.

Then, in absurd events, both characters lose everything. The Czech man dies because he tried to trick his mother and sister, so they killed him. Meursault shoots the Arab and is arrested and imprisoned for murder.

In its essence, the story of the Czech man is a much more dramatized and obvious version of Meursault’s own story, and he recognizes this. Meursault says the story is both highly unlikely, but that he can also see how it makes perfect sense. He sees the story in his own life, how both his life and the story went from ups to extreme downs in an instant.

Additionally, Meursault mentions that he thinks the man got what he deserved because he gambled with the life that he had and ended up losing it. This is one of the reasons why Meursault isn’t distraught in prison and can accept the fact that he is being punished. He knows that he gambled with his life and lost, just like the Czech man.

He doesn’t feel remorse for what he did, but he is able to understand that he deserves what punishment he gets because he took that risk. His recognition of this allows him to find peaceful moments in prison, most often in his own thoughts. This allows him to begin to live his life to the fullest, his prison life, as he calls it.

If he spent his time wishing he weren’t in prison, he would be further wasting the life that he still had. However, he thinks about Maman’s philosophy that one can adapt to any environment they are in, and coupled with the story of the Czech man’s gamble on life, Meursault adopts a mentality that allows him to be stable and almost happy in prison.

His life took an absurd turn because he gambled with it (shot the Arab), and therefore he is living the rest of his life in prison to the fullest extent by recognizing that this is the life he is living now, and is unable to change it.

At the end of the book, it is assumed that Meursault is guillotined, which lends itself to the last comparison between the Czech man. They both die. Really, this is the least absurd part, because all lives end in death. Camus is showing the reader that through the mirroring of the story of the Czechoslovakian and Meursault. That in the end, one lives an absurd life, and then they die, both in “unusual” ways, but their fates are the same.

The story of The Stranger and the mini story of the Czech man show that life, at its core, most pure self, is unpredictable and absurd. And that is okay. That is how it should be. It is up to you to live your life the way you want, because it is absurd, and also in opposition to that absurdity. If you make a mistake, pick yourself up and dust yourself off. Adapt. That is what you are supposed to do with life, keep living it.

I think this lends itself to gratitude. Appreciating what you have in the moment, and appreciating where you are, whether or not you want to be there. Because at the end of the day, this is your life, and all you can do is accept it. There will always be parts of it that are absurd and out of your control.

In The Stranger, although Meursault’s mother never appears directly in the novel, her death serves as a constant presence that shapes the novel’s events and meaning. Through Meursault’s detached response to her passing and society’s harsh judgment of it, Camus uses Maman to expose the absurdity of social expectations and to highlight the novel’s central tension between individual authenticity and societal conformity.

Throughout the novel, Meursault shows an incapacity to express human emotion, often appearing detached and passive about his life. A prime example of this is the opening line in Chapter 1, where Meursault says, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know” (3). Immediately, the reader is hit with his emotional detachment as Meursault doesn’t express any grief or sadness over her death. It also shows a test of society and moral expectations: how will he react to the death of his mother, an event that would make most people grief-stricken?

But Meursault doesn’t respond in the way society expects him to, as his indifference continues and can clearly be seen at Maman’s funeral and vigil: Meursault does not cry or want to see his mother’s body, and instead smokes a cigarette and takes a nap. Then, after the vigil is done, he returns to work completely normal and ready to continue on in his life. For Meursault, he found it hard to feel and express human emotions, and as a result, he doesn’t cry at Maman’s funeral, something that would be expected by society to happen. This robotic-like behavior later becomes evidence against him, showing how society judges based on social norms rather than personal truth.

Moreover, society fixates on finding an explanation for Meursault’s actions, only focusing on his response to Maman’s death, rather than the actual murder. During the trial, the prosecutor emphasizes Meursault’s lack of reaction to Maman’s passing, pointing out that he didn’t cry, and the day after, he went to see a comedy with Marie. They only briefly go over the timeline leading up to the murder before fixating on Maman’s death. The prosecutor even says, “Gentlemen of the jury, the day after his mother’s death, this man was out swimming, starting up a dubious liaison, and going to the movies, a comedy, for laughs. I have nothing further to say” (94).  The jury desperately wants to find an explanation behind Meursault’s actions other than his blaming the sun. As a result, Maman’s death becomes central to his conviction, not because of the murder, but because he violates emotional conventions, revealing the absurd priorities of human justice. They point their fingers at Maman’s death as an explanation for why Meursault killed a man.

Through Meursault’s reflection on his mother’s death, he can accept that life has no inherent meaning, conveying Camus’s theme on life. In his final hours, Meursault has a lot of time to think and mull over his life. He realizes why Maman took on a fiancé so late in her life, as she accepted that life has no higher purpose and the universe doesn’t care about the comings and goings of humans; therefore, you should live freely, as every individual dies one day. He says that she “must have felt free then and ready to live it all again” (122). This final recognition of his mother’s acceptance of life’s absurdity mirrors his own, linking her symbolic role to the novel’s existential awakening: When people accept the inevitability of death and the indifference of the universe, they free themselves from the illusion that life must have a higher purpose or lasting meaning. This acceptance allows them to live more honestly in the present, unburdened from false hopes or fears about the future. In recognizing life’s lack of inherent meaning, individuals can find peace and fulfillment in simply experiencing existence as it is.

A philosophy that heavily influenced Camus’ novel The Stranger is existentialism. On its own, existentialism discusses concepts that make a great deal of sense especially to young people battling with conflicts in faith and hopelessness. The main idea is that life is inherently meaningless, and therefore we do not owe anything to anyone by participating in common societal structures of community,  love, family, etc.

On the surface, this is a very freeing realization: our lives have no determined purpose, which therefore allows us to live our lives without responsibility to anyone around us to maximize our own happiness and freedom in our lives. Unfortunately, there are many flaws to this lack of responsibility.

As a whole, humans exist as a social species. In ancient times, without someone to pick up the slack when we fell ill, we would die. Our survival hinges on the fact that when someone falls down, there is someone who can help them to their feet again. Within existentialism, this is a “societal expectation” that can be brushed away.

But we do owe kindness to each other. When someone trips in the hallway, there is a reason that our hearts jump in concern for just a moment and that is because we instinctively do not want other people around us to be hurt. An airplane announcement telling us to put our own masks on first before helping those around us is because people will try to assist children or the elderly or shake those who are asleep awake: we, as a species, care, and for good reason. It has allowed us to survive and flourish to an astounding degree.

I agree that our lives have no intended purpose. Personally, I believe in no god, and I believe that there is no sentience within the universe that pre-determines things. However, that gives absolutely nobody the excuse to avoid participating in community. Our lives may have whatever meaning we give it, but that doesn’t give you a pass to avoid kindness.

People forget that we as humans are part of nature and part of the universe. To say about a suffering animal “let nature take its course” is to ignore the fact that we are nature. If we want to slow down and avoid hitting an unintelligent squirrel that ran into the middle of the road, then nature wants that squirrel to survive. If we all contribute kindness to the world around us, then we make the universe kind.

To put it most simply, the universe as a whole may lack sentience, but we as humans are part of it. If we care, about each other, about life, about the world, then so does the universe. Live your life with whatever meaning you want to give it, but don’t forget the people around you just because you don’t have a societal obligation to be a kind person. Do it anyway.

In The Stranger, Albert Camus uses the sun as a powerful symbol of Meursault’s journey to understanding absurdity. From the beginning of the story, the sun serves as more than a backdrop; it’s a force illustrating Meursault’s unique behavior. Moments before Maman’s funeral, he emphasizes that “today, with the sun bearing down, making the whole landscape shimmer with heat, it was inhuman and oppressive” (15). The sun mirrors Meursault’s emotional detachment and alienation from society. Instead of grieving his mother, he experiences physical discomfort from heat–which illustrates Meursault’s inability to conform to standards of mourning and a disconnection between him and morality.

The sun returns again in one of the most monumental scenes of the story, when Meursault kills the Arab on the beach. He claims “all [he] could feel were the cymbals of sunlight crashing on my forehead and, indistinctly, the dazzling spear flying up from the knife in front of me” (59). In this moment, the sun’s violence seems to drive Meursault’s actions more than his own conscience. The murder appears to be less of a choice and rather a reaction to his surroundings. Camus transforms nature into a symbol of existential pressure, highlighting that Meursault’s actions are not driven by deliberate cruelty but by his collision with Earth’s natural forces.

At the end of the novel, through his imprisonment, encounters with the chaplain, and death sentence, Meursault recognizes life’s absurdity. He acknowledges the idea that life has no inherent meaning or purpose, and he consequently finds peace knowing that he can live independent of societal expectations, fear of judgment, and uncertainty. In the last few pages of the story, he highlights “as if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world” (122). Camus replaces the scorching sun with the quiet light of the stars to demonstrate Meursault’s moral awakening. The Sun blinded him to his truth, and the stars brought clarity to it. The stars reflect Meursault’s newfound understanding that life’s lack of purpose should not bring despair, it should be celebrated. Through this shift in imagery, Camus conveys that peace is found not through meaning but in the acceptance of life’s absurdity and indifference.