(I wrote this essay for an English class. I needed to write a four page essay on something I enjoyed, and it didn’t necessarily need to follow normal essay standards. I chose to write it on one of my favorite stories, Albert Camus’ “The Stranger”. Since it’s been a few months since I’ve read it, it’s entirely possible I misremember some of the implications I mention or forget to reference interesting details or possible motives. For this, I’m sorry, but I hope you enjoy my little essay anyways.)
​
The French author Albert Camus, in his excellent 1942 novella “L’Étranger” (Also known in English as “The Stranger” or “The Outsider” in earlier translations) paints a brilliant picture of an amoral man becoming an outcast because of his horrible actions committed simply because he thought they would be the “human” thing to do. The novella’s climax happens when at the end of “Part One” (around halfway through the story) the main character and narrator Meursault murders an unnamed man known simply throughout the novella as just “the Arab”. This essay is about the many motives suggested or implied by the novel, the real reason as for why Meursault did what he did, and the dark humanities or lack thereof within each of the possible motivations that led to Meursault murdering a man in cold blood.
The best place to start the list of motives would most likely be the trial in which Meursault is the defendant, which with the prison cell Meursault spends this time living in, takes up most of the time used within the novella’s “Part Two”. Two motives are explicitly stated within these chapters. The first and most apparent is the idea that Meursault murdered the Arab simply because he could, and that there was no reason behind it. This motive is the one that ends up being believed by the jury, and is what leads to the trial being ended with Meursault given the death penalty. This is easily the least interesting motivation Meursault could have had. However, it can be argued that it is the most absurd reason why Meursault could have killed the Arab, which does in a way make this a more likely motivation, especially considering the fact that the novella’s author Albert Camus is well known for having created the philosophy of absurdism in his famous text “The Myth of Sisyphus”.
During the trial though, a much more profound and interesting motivation for why Meursault could have killed the Arab is said by the man himself at the trial. When Meursault possibly lies to the court by saying he had no intention of killing the Arab, he is asked what his motives for the crime were due to the Judge not understanding the murderer’s defense, to which Meursault “tried to explain that it was because of the sun, but I spoke too quickly and ran my words into each other. I was only too conscious that it sounded nonsensical, and, in fact, I heard people tittering” (Chapter Four, Part Two). This is an extremely fascinating response for Meursault to have chosen. It is seen as absolutely nonsensical by the court and is never mentioned again afterwards, yet it feels so true at the same time.
Meursault spends the entire novella trying to be human, but due to his lack of empathy and amoralism, he fails deeply. An interesting note is that Meursault is not truly a moral or immoral person throughout the book: he rarely if ever thinks about the moral implications of what he does or even realizes his actions (and the actions of others) can be read as moral or immoral by others, assuming he even knows what morality is. He isn’t moral because he doesn’t ever do anything because he thinks it would be the kind or right thing to do, but he certainly isn’t immoral because he never does anything because he enjoys being evil; he is amoral because he is completely without understanding of morality. He is completely without morals.
Meursault spends much of the story trying to do what would be the human thing, and without even meaning to, him saying that he killed the Arab because of the sun is arguably the only time he succeeds at being human, even if he is disregarded in the action of saying this. Why is the sun a “human” reason to commit an atrocity? It is of course not a “good” reason to do such a thing, as there is (as it can be argued) none, but it is an extremely human one. What Meursault is referring to when he says the sun caused him to commit homicide is his feeling of discomfort under the sun when he kills the Arab on a beach. During the pivotal scene in the novella in which he commits murder, Meursault spends a strange amount of time describing how the sun felt on his skin, a feeling he remembers perfectly. It is a completely uninteresting detail that doesn’t seem to have much to do with the scene, but it fits so perfectly. The contrast between the horrifying climactic scene and the unnecessary details creates a feeling of confusion within the reader, one which can also be compared to the feelings of Meursault later in the novella as he tries to understand the outcome of the trial and what will happen to him as he seemingly has a panic attack. The possibility of the Sun being why he kills someone is also able to be related to ancient religions and mythologies with Sun Gods being gifted sacrifices. Meursault possibly chooses to kill the Arab because of the completely absurd reason of feeling slightly painful heat upon his skin, heat which may be from Gods he doesn’t ever consider believing in.
Racism, too, can be considered a motive for Meursault’s actions. There is not much to write about this theory, as racism is never directly referenced within the novella, but there are things pointing to the idea. It’s notable that the man Meursault ends the life of is never named. He is only ever referred to as “the Arab”, as if it does not matter who he was, but what race he was. It also is implied in the trial that at the beginning, most people assume Meursault killed the Arab because of racial hatred towards the man, and are willing to give him a light sentence because they would agree with his hatred. It’s only when they find out that this is unlikely and that he may not have a motive at all that they decide he must be put to death. It’s entirely possible that Camus wrote “L’Étranger” to make a commentary upon racism within his country, considering how the novella implies that the people hope that the murder was committed because of racism. This theory is also somewhat likely due to the political affiliations that Camus had: he was deeply influenced by the socialist German author Franz Kafka, he had a long-lasting friendship with the marxist playwright and philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, he wrote for anarchist publications such as “Le Libertaire” (The Libertarian) on several occasions, and the fact that throughout his whole life he supported and aligned himself with left-wing political ideologies and parties. All of these would point to Camus most likely being a deeply anti-racist man, which could certainly explain why he may wish to write a story that would go against racism.
Of the three motives mentioned so far, each has been completely and utterly absurd. There is almost certainly no chance that Meursault committed the murder for no reason. It’s unlikely he just committed the murder because of being made uneasy by the Sun’s heat or because of gods that are never referenced within the story. It’s also very unlikely he killed the Arab because of hatred towards the man’s race, considering that Meursault, due to his inhumanism, is unlikely to be a racist, something that is in a way, extremely human to be; historically, humanity has many times been racist arguably just because it is a part of humanity to be needlessly combative and hateful. However, you can accept all three theories if you create a new one: that the Arab was killed simply because of absurdity, that the killer was not Meursault, but the whole of all strangeness, confusion, and absurdity within life.
Unfortunately, deciding on any of these four motives would ultimately be a choice of abandonment on the novella’s astounding ending, and also the title of the story. Camus’ brilliance shines through so many aspects of the story, that while there is a clearly developed motive by the end of the story, there are so many other ideas that can be uniquely thought upon. These motives for murder in “L’Étranger” ultimately add up to something else, that Meursault kills the Arab because he fails to be human. He kills a man in cold blood because he does not understand what it is to feel or be truly human. Meursault is a pathetic man who does something extreme and awful simply because he is humanity’s failure. He cannot even have a true motive for his actions because that would be something human. Due to his lack of empathy or understanding, he spends the ending of the novel as a complete outcast, shunned by the people for his inadequacy in being a person. He becomes “The Stranger” to society.
by Dragon__Chan