The Joys of Ambiguities

The Stranger is the most interesting book that we have read so far in this class (for me at least), but for some reason I have been reluctant to write on it. Maybe it was simply because I was busy and didn't have any time to think about what I wanted to write about, but I think it was also partially because I didn't know what to think about it. But I think that that is why I enjoyed the book so much. I didn't know what to think, but the issues seemed to apply to our justice system and our choices about judgement, and so there were so many questions, so many different opinions that could be formed.

The Stranger is so interesting to me because it seems so current. The other books had issues that are still very relevant today; The Mezzanine showed that it is important to pay attention to the little things in life, Virginia Woolf's commentary on veterans and "shell shock" is obviously relevant to today's problems with post traumatic stress disorder, and The Metamorphosis gave insight into work and family relationships. Most of the books seem to have focused more on "matters of the soul" than on issues that have to do with the way society works. On second thought, though, that statement seems inaccurate. After all, the issues of shell shock and the problems that arose when people did not recognize it were very relevant to that time period, and they related to society and politics. Mrs. Dalloway also touched on social class and women's roles. But none of the other books were as modern as The Stranger. I read the other books with their context in mind, and the political issues that were presented were primarily issues of the time period in which the books were set. It was easy to forget that The Stranger was not set in the modern day. There were, of course, indicators--Algeria was still occupied by the French, and the legal system's emphasis on Christianity would probably not be acceptable today. Still, the issues in the book feel more current: we always have to judge people for crimes that they cannot explain satisfactorily, and whether or not we figure their morality in their own private lives into our judgement is a very important issue. In a way, thinking about The Stranger was like preparing for a debate on current issues. First you have to understand the issue, then you have to fight for one side.

The polarizing aspect of the book was the main thing that made it so interesting. We talked in class about how we mostly agreed on everything for the rest of the books, but that the issues in The Stranger were so ambiguous that lots of people had different opinions. Sometimes in class it was truly like a debate, and that was exciting. It also makes you think a lot more; when the "right" reaction to a certain character in a book is not clear, you have to spend a lot more time puzzling over it. This reminds me of the time when our Model UN team went to a conference on campus. I was part of the Human Rights Committee, and we were debating about human trafficking. At the beginning, the discussions were interesting, and there were some good insights, but the conversation eventually became dull because every one agrees that human trafficking is bad. There was no debate. There were no questions to be asked. Our discussions about the other books have been interesting, but not as interesting as this one because The Stranger is so confusing. To some people, it doesn't matter that Meursault doesn't cry at his mother's funeral, or that he doesn't appear to show any remorse about the Arab--these qualities are just part of his personality, and it is not an innately immoral personality. For others, Meursault is completely without morals or emotions, and that is not okay. In any case, it makes for an interesting debate, whether in class or while reading and thinking about the book, and a debate is always more fun.