The New Jesus Christ
During panel presentations, one of the groups presented Arthur Scherr's "Meursault's Dinner with Raymond: A Christian Theme in Albert Camus' L'Estranger". The article claimed that Meursault was the Jesus Christ of the French immigrants in Algeria, showing the injustice of the treatment of the Arabs. Raymond and the gangs formed against the Arabs like him need to be saved by Meursault and shown how terrible their actions are, so Meursault shoots the Arab as Raymond probably would've done sooner or later, and takes the consequences of the sin so that the rest of society doesn't take it (as Jesus died for society's sins). Similarly, the turning point in the novel, with Meursault first meeting with Raymond on a dinner invitation, can be a parallel to the last supper with Jesus.
Scherr argues that Camus uses Meursault's Christ-likeness to show what a real Christ would be, endorsing his ideas on existentialism/absurdism. In many ways, Meursault failed at being Jesus. He was an "unwilling" Christ, didn't show the injustice of court through mentioning the Arab in any way, and he looked for an appeal almost throughout the whole book. As Camus puts it, Meursault is "the only Christ we deserve" on Earth, since there is no meaning to life in his theology.
However, there are some things I didn't agree with. I don't think that it was implied that Raymond was going to shoot the Arab anyways, giving Meursault the title of Christ for doing the sin for Raymond instead. We saw previously how Raymond was already over it, talking about the bus ride when they were walking back from the second showdown with the two Arabs. So to say that Meursault did the sin for Raymond isn't very accurate to me.
Secondly, it got me thinking about the choice of character for Meursault. Meursault isn't just a random man in the street. He is an exceptionally emotionless man, who puts his lack of emotional sensitivity into his abundance of physical sensitivity. Could Camus have used a more "normal" person in the society, and reach the same conclusions of the meaning of life in the novel? Would the same events lead different people to the same conclusion as Meursault of the indifference of the world and absurdity of fate?
What do you guys think?
Scherr argues that Camus uses Meursault's Christ-likeness to show what a real Christ would be, endorsing his ideas on existentialism/absurdism. In many ways, Meursault failed at being Jesus. He was an "unwilling" Christ, didn't show the injustice of court through mentioning the Arab in any way, and he looked for an appeal almost throughout the whole book. As Camus puts it, Meursault is "the only Christ we deserve" on Earth, since there is no meaning to life in his theology.
However, there are some things I didn't agree with. I don't think that it was implied that Raymond was going to shoot the Arab anyways, giving Meursault the title of Christ for doing the sin for Raymond instead. We saw previously how Raymond was already over it, talking about the bus ride when they were walking back from the second showdown with the two Arabs. So to say that Meursault did the sin for Raymond isn't very accurate to me.
Secondly, it got me thinking about the choice of character for Meursault. Meursault isn't just a random man in the street. He is an exceptionally emotionless man, who puts his lack of emotional sensitivity into his abundance of physical sensitivity. Could Camus have used a more "normal" person in the society, and reach the same conclusions of the meaning of life in the novel? Would the same events lead different people to the same conclusion as Meursault of the indifference of the world and absurdity of fate?
What do you guys think?
I think that it was necessary for Camus to write specifically about Meursault, since few people could match his level of sheer indifference. If it had been another perhaps more normal person, it's unlikely that they would have responded in the ways that they did (shooting the Arab and then refusing to cooperate with the courts, for example) and that would have made the philosophical message of the story come through much less clearly. I agree with you that it's not a given that Raymond would have definitely shot the Arab later anyway, and that this complicates the Jesus metaphor we were discussing. Overall, I think that Camus made a very deliberate choice to design the narrator he did, and a different one would not have sufficed in communicating the Sisyphus problem as well.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we deserve an indifferent Jesus. I think this is a cool theory, and it might fit with Camus' ideology. Firstly, he was an atheist and existentialist; in his thinking, nothing really does matter, and his Jesus would reflect that. The "last supper" is a trope in itself-- a dinner seals the deal, whether on your death or alignment with the criminal. Whether that came from the bible is its own discussion and research. My only issues with this theory is "Jesus" shooting a guy, and differentiating "the arabs" so strongly from himself. What Would Jesus Do? Probably not murder anyone.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Jesus analogy is interesting, but I too find it hard to believe. One way that I don't think that Meursault fits this perfectly is because after Meursault is killed for his murder, nothing changes in society. The people who follow the trail are very set on trying to distance themselves from Meursault because of his absurdity, so therefore they do not see their own racism in his actions and nothing is changed in society. Therefore, Meursault died for nothing so his death being a "sacrifice" doesn't really make sense to me. The idea of his dinner with Raymond being a "last supper" is interesting, yet it is not Meursault's last supper. Maybe his meal with the women and Raymond and his friend is a closer analogy to the actual last supper, especially with all the wine they were drinking. Very interesting post! Great presentation of a thought-provoking idea.
ReplyDeleteI also don't really agree with the analogy of Meursault as Jesus Christ for a lot of reasons. In general, when a character is related to Jesus it's someone else stretching the text to fit what they want it to say. I think that that is also the case for this. They are two very different and very separate stories.
ReplyDeleteBut in this case, it's not a stretch, since Camus said himself: “I have tried to portray in this character [Meursault] the only Christ we deserved.”
DeleteI can't say I saw Meursault as a Jesus-figure--he's condemned and misunderstood, but I think the similarities end there. In fact, he seems kind of like an anti-Jesus in that his religion seems to be apathy. If Meursault was after an absurdist Jesus, he may have touched on something--I'm just not sure that was what he was going for, but it't an interesting argument.
ReplyDeleteIn defense of Scherr's argument:
ReplyDelete- Scherr argues that Meursault is a human Christ figure with human faults. The symbolism in his trial and death are what make him Christ-like.
- Meursault's character is nothing like Christ, and Scherr readily acknowledges this fact. Meursault never thinks about being a Christ figure.
- Scherr argues that Meursault ends up serving a role of Christ by taking the sins of pied-noir society on himself and giving wider coverage about the social injustice against Arabs through his trial. In this way he serves a sacrificial role. Saying that Raymond would not have shot the Arab is a perfectly good counterargument to this point.
- Scherr also argues that Meursault fails at being a Christ figure because of how he fails to bring about a change in society.
- Some similarities in terms of pure symbolism:
- Both Meursault and Christ play the role of scapegoat in their trials
- Silent while accused
- Their sentences are atypical (pied noirs almost never were executed for killing a pied noir, and Jewish law prohibited capital punishment which is why Jesus was killed through the Roman legal system)
- “It is finished” quote (“For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate”)
- In addition, to say that this argument is a complete stretch in order to fit an argument Scherr made up is incorrect. Consider this quote from Camus himself: “I have tried to portray in this character [Meursault] the only Christ we deserved.” Scherr is essentially trying to explain Camus' own words.
A lot of people in this comment thread have made valid counterarguments to Scherr's argument, however it is wrong to dismiss it outright. I happen to think this literary criticism adds valuable insight into the novel.