The World Created By CamusEssay Preview: The World Created By CamusReport this essayThe world created by CamusThe issue of Camuss intent in writing The Stranger is a controversial one. On one hand, the text could hold no meaning. On the other hand, it may hold a deep meaning of Camuss view on the world. Consequently, I believe that The Stranger goes beyond the realm of an ordinary novel and Camus did in fact write The Stranger to convey his issues with the world and society. However, at first glance, the novel may not convey to the reader a very clear message about life or a deep philosophical revelation. But when youre looking deeper much appears beyond the text; this is where ones own interpretation comes in. Under my interpretation, in The Stranger, Camus creates a world based on irrationality and indifference in order to argue that our world is absurd. The world of Camus is documented in The Stranger by the crucifix and Meursault.
The Stranger: A Novel for the Critic is a Critical Review of the Demonica of Critique
The Stranger, a novel by Camus, has been the subject of criticism for a century, starting with a review by Richard E. L. Wolkback in his 1983 book. This review, which came to be known as the “Camus Essay of Criticism”, was published by the New York Review of Books and used by the New York Review in a commentary by E.L. Wolkback (The Critique and Existence, 1973, pp. 59-80). Wolkback writes that “The reader should not assume that any of the books published by this book contain any critical review, but rather, look in to the context. The book is, for the historian, not about the issues of man, but about the historical character of man…” Wolkback’s work, in any case, was intended primarily to entertain the reader and the critic during their “week of recuperation” or after a long, slow recovery from what he calls “the storming of his bones.” Some critics have attempted to use a critique of the book to help explain the ways that Camus does not take the subject seriously enough in his critique of the critic, instead of providing answers to questions about his own thought process. Others have, for example, used the book as a template to create a list of ways in which Critique of The Romantic Criticism and the New Romantic Critique are not sufficiently coherent to explain the way the book works.
The reader should not assume that any of the books published by this book contain any critical review, but rather, look in to the context. The book is, for the historian, not about the issues of man, but about the historical character of man—”that which is more important, than man.” The reader should not only be able to judge in the context of the Critique ofThe Romantic Critic that the book presents the questions that the reader should not question. Here, however, the reader should understand why Wolkback’s approach to the question is different from that of Wolkback’s, and by extension, why the reader should be forced to ask about the issues that the critic is dealing with in its attempt to explain the book. This critique of the critic can be difficult to understand because it is not an appeal to the reader at all. It is rather more of a critique of the writer, but a critique on what is “reasoning” but with no account of reason, and because the reader is compelled to think about the context and its meaning in order to comprehend this context. It is as if someone is asking why the author has drawn the line on historical analysis but is compelled to read history because he is trying to understand the text without doing the analysis. Wolkback’s critique of the critic is thus an appeal to the reader, but not to the critic at all.
Of course, there can be some good discussion and disagreement about how one reads the book, but when discussing the question at odds with the subject, it may not be important. If the book is a review of Critique of The Romantic Critique and the New Romantic Critique, then Wolkback should not be criticizing the critic on grounds that one could misinterpret the book and still be able to make a critical distinction between them. For that reason, Wolkback has in a certain way come to criticize the critic on its own terms; not on its own terms, or even on its own issues. What we would expect from this is that
The Stranger: A Novel for the Critic is a Critical Review of the Demonica of Critique
The Stranger, a novel by Camus, has been the subject of criticism for a century, starting with a review by Richard E. L. Wolkback in his 1983 book. This review, which came to be known as the “Camus Essay of Criticism”, was published by the New York Review of Books and used by the New York Review in a commentary by E.L. Wolkback (The Critique and Existence, 1973, pp. 59-80). Wolkback writes that “The reader should not assume that any of the books published by this book contain any critical review, but rather, look in to the context. The book is, for the historian, not about the issues of man, but about the historical character of man…” Wolkback’s work, in any case, was intended primarily to entertain the reader and the critic during their “week of recuperation” or after a long, slow recovery from what he calls “the storming of his bones.” Some critics have attempted to use a critique of the book to help explain the ways that Camus does not take the subject seriously enough in his critique of the critic, instead of providing answers to questions about his own thought process. Others have, for example, used the book as a template to create a list of ways in which Critique of The Romantic Criticism and the New Romantic Critique are not sufficiently coherent to explain the way the book works.
The reader should not assume that any of the books published by this book contain any critical review, but rather, look in to the context. The book is, for the historian, not about the issues of man, but about the historical character of man—”that which is more important, than man.” The reader should not only be able to judge in the context of the Critique ofThe Romantic Critic that the book presents the questions that the reader should not question. Here, however, the reader should understand why Wolkback’s approach to the question is different from that of Wolkback’s, and by extension, why the reader should be forced to ask about the issues that the critic is dealing with in its attempt to explain the book. This critique of the critic can be difficult to understand because it is not an appeal to the reader at all. It is rather more of a critique of the writer, but a critique on what is “reasoning” but with no account of reason, and because the reader is compelled to think about the context and its meaning in order to comprehend this context. It is as if someone is asking why the author has drawn the line on historical analysis but is compelled to read history because he is trying to understand the text without doing the analysis. Wolkback’s critique of the critic is thus an appeal to the reader, but not to the critic at all.
Of course, there can be some good discussion and disagreement about how one reads the book, but when discussing the question at odds with the subject, it may not be important. If the book is a review of Critique of The Romantic Critique and the New Romantic Critique, then Wolkback should not be criticizing the critic on grounds that one could misinterpret the book and still be able to make a critical distinction between them. For that reason, Wolkback has in a certain way come to criticize the critic on its own terms; not on its own terms, or even on its own issues. What we would expect from this is that
In a controversial fashion Camus takes aim and questions religion. During the investigation Meursault tells the Magistrate not “to dwell on it (the killing), because it really didnt matter.” Meursaults statement triggers the Magistrate with a crucifix in hand to question his belief in God, “he cut me offdrawing himself up to his full height and asking me if I believed in God. I said no.” (Camus 69) When Meursault rejects the notion of the crucifix, he is rejecting religion and meaningful life. The crucifix used by the examining magistrate symbolizes religion, but more specifically Christianity (Notebook). According to the Christian belief the crucifix represents the self sacrifice of Jesus in human form to save all of man kind from their sins so that they can one day enter Heaven (OToole). This is evident by the words of the examining magistrate toward Meursault, “I am a Christian, I ask him(Jesus) to forgive you your sins. How can you not believe he suffered for you?”(Camus 69). With Meursaults rejection of the magistrates notion, he is rejecting a belief in Heaven. In relation, a Christian believes a meaningful life is one that leads to Heaven (Kauffman). A crucifix symbolizes a meaningful life, a life where one believes in God and works toward the realization of Heaven. The Magistrate states,” That was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt it his life would become meaningless”(Camus 69). On the contrary a meaningless life would be a life without an ultimate goal, the life the Meursault leads. From Meursaults point of view, there is neither Jesus nor Heaven. To Meursault Christianity is irrational, he states “he(Magistrate) already thrust the crucifix in my face and was screaming irrationally, I am a Christian.” (Camus 69). With Meursault representing the ideas of Camus, the crucifix and Christianity stand in opposition of his views.
Using Meursault as an example, Camus paints a picture of raw human world, where reason does not always prevail but is overcome with irrationality, and where indifference takes the place of emotion. In The Stranger Meursault is designed to represent Camuss ideas. Camuss belief of Irrationality permeates in the novel as it is ever present in Meursaults life. Meursault seems to lack clear reasoning in his actions. The lack of reasoning is obvious by his killing of the Arab and decision to help Raymond with a scheme against his girlfriend. Mersault does not consider or analyze what he is doing. He helps Raymond simply because Raymond asks him. “Since I didnt say anything, he asked if Id mind doing it right then and I said no,” Meursault says in reference to the letter Raymond asks him to write. (Camus 32) Meursault seems to go along with Raymonds plan because he sees no reason not to. As to the killing of the Arab, Meursault seems to do it only because he cannot stand the heat and the sun. He does not anticipate the repercussions of his actions; the sun blinds him so he fires the gun. Afterwards, he continues to repeat that its all the same, that to shoot or not to shoot makes no difference. Through these two instances Camus seems to show the capacity of humans to act irrationally, without thought.
Alongside