A Strange Stranger

Philosophical questions have no answer.  People have answered many of them many times, yet they remain unsettled.  Famous thinkers in literature have many times driven themselves to perdition pondering these questions.  They have resorted to leaving them unanswered, and simply leaving a blank for the reader to interpret.  In Camus’ novel, this technique is used often. 

The most obvious and blatant example of this technique being used would be the title.  The Stranger.  Someone, somewhere, is a stranger to something or someone.  Of course that can be narrowed down to fit the character traits of Meursault in Algiers.  But what is he a stranger to?  Camus is careful to not include an adjective in the title, which he leaves open-ended.  He never tells us what makes Meursault so strange, yet in most analytical pieces written about the book, it is rare to find references to the most integral part.  My twisted understanding is that Camus wants the reader to assume that the “strange” part is that Meursault feels no remorse for murder, or sadness for death.  Yet the real underpinning of the title lies in the author’s own identity.  Albert Camus wants to hide in the semblance of a lack of feeling.  In truth, the strange part about both him and the main character is that they are authentic.  Yes that is the proper word.  Authentic.  They are existential beings.  They judge themselves and allow no outside feeling to penetrate their layered belief system.  Is it acceptable to kill an Arab in a beach?  But not to mourn the death of your mother?  Camus/Meursault will decide for himself.  One could say that they are odd in that sense…or strange.

A minor example from the text could be found in the hundredth page.  “’Not once during the preliminary hearings did this man show emotion over his heinous offense.’ At that point he turned in my direction, pointed his finger at me, and went on attacking me without my ever really understanding why.”  Here the reader is missing a why.  Why don’t you understand that shooting a person that you don’t know four times at point blank should evoke some kind of reaction?  It is understood that Meursault thinks that he is to judge himself.  And he is perplexed by the notion of a stranger accusing him and a jury judging him.  The lack of information is to the reader what the lack of feeling from Meursault is to society.