Honesty and Cooperation: The Death of Meursault
The Stranger’s Monsieur Meursault is an almost inexplicably unique character: his actions and thoughts are so unlike most of ours that it can be difficult to pick apart his decisions and explain them in terms that make sense to us. Most confounding of all, I would say, is his unwavering attachment to the truth: not rooted in a moral inclination to pursue an honest lifestyle, as is the motivation for most, but rather an unconscious inclination he has to speak the truth. Essentially, his honesty is not one of moral obligation, but of bluntness. Honesty is widely seen as a much preferable option to dishonesty today, lies often being hurtful and the truth being the better option in the long run. However, in The Stranger, Meursault’s constant narration of the truth is essentially his downfall. Though he could have easily provided a somewhat untruthful defense in a case that could have been significantly tilted in his favor, he never once spoke a statement that wasn’t the bare truth, and that, arguably, was his downfall.
Though being honest is the default in most people’s daily lives, there will almost inevitably come a time where it is better to lie, whether for self-preservation or to preserve another individual’s feelings. Meursault, however, seems to be unable to lay down his candidness even in the most dire of situations. No situation could be more dreadful and important than a trial in which his life is on the line, and despite all of this Meursault still does not shy away from reality, from his true feelings and observations. In the trial, he is eventually threatened with the death penalty and in defense he, “fumbling a little with [his] words and realizing how ridiculous [he] sounded… blurted out that it was because of the sun” (Camus 103). He could have just as easily defended himself by claiming that it was in self-defense and that he was threatened by the knife-wielding Arab who had just wounded another of his friends. But instead of saying any of that, he naturally blurts out the raw truth, no matter how damning it is in this critical moment. He is laughed at and dismissed, and yet he tells the ridiculous truth instead of saving his own life. This is a type of brutal honesty that is incredibly rare in any society or time period, especially today.
This honesty, however, is rather oddly contrasted with Meursault’s uncanny desire to be accepted by those around him. One could even go so far as to describe him as a people-pleaser, which is very odd when you consider his predisposition to telling frank truths. At his mother’s vigil, his primary concern at one point seems to be that “[his mother’s friends] were there to judge [him]” (Camus 10). This man who does not shy away from telling the caretaker most candidly that he is not interested in seeing his mother’s body and that he would like to smoke during the vigil, is equally conscious about possible feelings of judgment being cast upon him. In many other occasions as well, he shares exactly what is on his mind but still acts based on what others around him want of him. When Marie asks Meursault if he wants to marry her, his answer is “that [they] could if she wanted to” (Camus 41); however, when immediately asked after whether he loves her or not, his answer is that he “probably didn’t love her… [but] that it didn’t really matter and that if she wanted to, [they] could get married” (Camus 41). In the same conversation, he says that he both doesn’t know what he wants and whether he is in love, but also that he will get married if she so wishes. This is a very odd combination of honesty and compliance, and it is what makes Meursault such a difficult character to understand and analyze.
This odd combination of characteristics, honesty juxtaposed with cooperation, can be bafflingly difficult to follow and rationalize. What makes these characteristics as they manifest in Meursault are even more fascinating, because two characteristics we today would actually consider rather socially beneficial traits are significantly responsible for what leads Meursault to the death penalty. Important characteristics in socially successful individuals often include the willingness to be honest and also the ability to cooperate with others (although hopefully not to the extent that Meursault seems to take this). But in this novel, these characteristics are his downfall. In a harsh society that seems keen to prey on Meursault’s emotional differences from the rest of them, these pure characteristics are, in a twisted way, what led Meursault to his unfortunate fate.
Camus, Albert. The Stranger. Translated by Matthew Ward, Vintage International, 1988.
I agree that honesty was what got Meursault killed. To be very honest in a way that gets you killed from a person that lacks a moral compass is quite interesting.
ReplyDeleteI never thought about the contrast between Meursault's bluntness and his fear of judgement, but it's certainly true that the court would have judged him less harshly had he stretched the truth a bit. I'm really stumped on why he doesn't just lie, since clearly everyone judging his character makes him uncomfortable (as seen when he describes "this stupid urge to cry" on page 90). He's such a difficult character to understand. Good post, though!
ReplyDeleteMeursault's relentless honesty and candor is indeed at the bottom of much of what makes him track as "strange" throughout this novel, and at the same time, I'd say that this is also what makes him appealing in some ways to some readers--it seems wrong somehow to critique a character for being "too honest" or "too real," and to say that we'd prefer if he behaved more in accordance with arbitrary social conventions. He is an exceptionally trustworthy narrator, for example--we never question his account of the sun "making" him commit murder, even as he (and we) are fully aware that this "explanation" will get laughed out of court. He is the only surviving witness to the shooting on the beach, and his reliability as a narrator is enhanced by the fact that he refuses to lie in order to save himself. Presumably the police get the entire narrative of the murder from HIS testimony alone--his lawyer is baffled that he keeps saying things that won't "save himself." He' s a good example of why your lawyer will always advise you not to speak without legal representation--Meursault has no use for Miranda rights!
ReplyDeleteThe one place where he breaks his code of strict honesty, off the top of my head, would be when he agrees quite casually to serve as a "witness" for Raymond and to testify that his "mistress" has been cheating on him--something Meursault knows NOTHING about first-hand, and is only repeating what Raymond has told him. He is also dishonest when he agrees to write a letter "for" Raymond. And, of course, it is these moments of dishonesty that set the chain in motion that leads to his arrest and imprisonment.
A strict code of honesty might SEEM like a moral code, and surely it can be, but with Meursault, the code of honesty is always trumped by the need or desire not to upset another person. He wants Raymond to be happy, so he testifies (and bears false witness) on his behalf. But he's completely open and candid about this choice when he narrates the scene to us! He's a morally flawed incredibly *reliable* narrator, and that's somewhat "strange" in the annals of literature.
I also found that Meursault's honesty, which is usually a good quality, leads him to being on death row. I think it's almost admirable that Meursault didn't try to lie and get a shorter sentence. However, he doesn't see it as an act of nobility, it's just his natural way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting post! You bring this up briefly but I think it's a really interesting thing to consider: Meursault doesn't only lack care for others, he lacks care for himself too. I'm not sure how obvious this is, but I had never explicitly thought of it before. He doesn't act selfishly or try to play things in his own favor, which kind of goes against the idea that he could be a sociopath, since they tend to have selfish characteristics.
ReplyDeleteExcellent analysis, Kruthi! I especially like how you highlight the tension between these traits and how they ultimately lead to his downfall. I find your point about honesty being socially beneficial but also destructive in Meursault’s case fascinating. I both agree and disagree with your take; I think his honesty is less a virtue or flaw and more a reflection of his detachment from societal norms. While it seems to lead to his demise, it also feels like Camus is using this to critique society’s inability to accept those who deviate from the expected (but this is not to defend the actions that led to the trial). Do you think Meursault’s fate is more about his traits or how others perceive him?
ReplyDelete