I’ve always hated books that end with the main character dying. Death is one of the most important phases of life, so killing your main character always offers a huge theme for readers to explore within the ending. However, in my opinion, it always feels like a cheap ending. Oftentimes, it feels like the author can’t think of an interesting way to end the story, so they kill off the main character to create complexity. Because of this, I wonder what specifically makes this type of ending feel cheap to me, and if The Stranger fits this criticism.
The Stranger ends with the main character, Mersault, awaiting execution by guillotine. I think the large purpose of having Mersault sentenced to death was to show him go through various emotions, which is significant because Mersault notably showed very little emotion up until this point. Nearing the end of the book, he has an unexpected burst of anger when the chaplain comes to visit him and continues to pester him about religion. During this time, Mersault has slowly come to accept his death and has come to the conclusion that basically most of life is just waiting for death. He seems to think that since he will eventually die, it doesn’t matter if he dies now or in 50 years.
So was the ending of The Stranger the only interesting finale Camus could think of? At first glance, I feel like the ending seems to have a certain disconnect with the first part of the book. It can be hard to connect the two, because part one Mersault doesn’t have an overwhelming amount of deep feelings or insights on life, whereas part two Mersault is creating huge life and death philosophies. On closer inspection, however, I do feel like part one has many significant moments to the finale of part two. For example, the theme of death is already very important to the story, as The Stranger begins with Mersault discovering the news of his mothers death. The events in part one are also all laid out in the trial in part two, as Mersault’s reaction to his mother’s death is extremely interesting to the court. It almost felt like his actions in part one relating to his mother’s death were on trial instead of the actual crime he committed.
Because of the trial, I would say the events in part one are very significant to part two and Mersault’s final conclusion on life, prompted by his death sentence. While many books will use the ‘kill off the main character’ trope as a shocking twist in the story to surprise readers and make the ending more interesting, I don’t think that was the intention or effect of The Stranger. Camus seems to build the entire book up around the ideas of life and death, and makes many moments in the story significant to Mersault’s final conclusions on the topic. This makes for a well-thought out ending that is vital to the structure of the story. Despite this, I still wish it didn’t end that way. It makes me sad.
I've also felt disappointed when a story suddenly has a major character's death. But Meursault's death doesn't feel very sudden at all, despite Meursault and his lawyer are surprised by the sentence. I also agree that Meursault's final reflections on life felt odd to me, as I had gotten use to The Strangers complete lack of reflection.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you! I thought the last chapter of the book was really sad and also found myself wondering about other possible endings. But I think the execution also serves to drive home the point about how bad Meursault's situation became because of his indifference. It's impossible to imagine Meursault's fate as worse so it makes a really strong argument for not treating everything with indifference so that you don't get into a similar situation.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how you're analyzing the ending of the book from the perspective of the author. Another potential implication of ending the book with Meursault's death would have been to put his indifference to a test. From the beginning of the book, Meursault consistently says that things "don't matter" or "don't mean anything", which frames him as a character who makes us question whether he wants to live in the first place, and if so, for what purpose. His death sentence and in turn his reaction to his life ending helps us probe Meursault's thoughts on the meaning of life, which we can learn from his rant at the priest at the very end of the novel. (honestly though, I still don't quite understand what Meursault's purpose of life is)
ReplyDeleteYeah I 100% see what you are talking about when killing the main character sort of seems like a cheap shot. I think in other books it's often shocking and devastating but with this book it was almost expected in a way. I don't think I was really caught off guard by the death, more the initial sentence. Authors usually take the moments before death to allow the character to truly reflect but once again we don't really get that with Meursault.
ReplyDeleteThough I do agree killing the MC is often a cop-out, I think The Stranger differs in that it does not show the killing or anything after it. It focuses on the effects of the death sentence and how that affects the psyche of Meursault instead, which is how the rest of the book is anyways, so it seems relatively logical to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the entire books builds up to some kind of big shift. With how laid-back the mood is for most of the first half, I expected some kind of reckoning. This is definitely a book that deals with life and death, and their meaning in relation to each other. Meursault believes that because all life ends with death all life is the same, but that belief is really tested during his trial. For the first and only time in the novel he displays a true opinion about the direction of his life.. and the end of it. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI also thought that part 2 was slightly disconnected from part 1. I thought the ending of the book got a little to philosophical, which I disliked a bit. I wanted there to be a bit more happening rather than Meursault just reflecting, like in part 1. But, even though it wasn't my favorite ending, I think it did a great job at showing Meursault's change in character as a result of his imprisonment and the trial.
ReplyDeleteI think Meursault's execution at the end sort of urges the reader to take action sooner rather than later, or end up in a situation with no way out. The longer Meursault floats passively down this path, the closer he got to an inescapable early death, losing his connections with the world. Also, his shock and sudden emotions at the end demonstrate that the desperate situation just snuck up on him.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that whenever a character, especially the main character, dies at the end of the story, it feels extremely lazy and basic. However I think the ending of The Stranger is completely different from lazy writing. To start off, technically Meursault did not die at the end of the story, as it ends by him waiting from the day the execution arrives, leaving things up to the reader. The death and especially the scene of his rage also showed him finally expressing his emotions and opinions which could've saved him both from joining Raymond and during the trial(instead of saying things about the sun). One have to also realize this was written during the Nazi occupation in France and I feel like Camus is trying to tell the French citizens to express their feelings and fight back before it is too late.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the death sentence serves to make the fact of Meursault's mortality unavoidably clear to him--but that in this respect, it's simply formalizing a fact of the human condition. As Meursault remarks, everyone is under some kind of death sentence; his is just more specific and explicit. And this new, immediate *consciousness* of death and the finitude of life does spark a shift in Meursault's thinking about his "absurd" life, as he comes to embrace life of any kind as inherently valuable while rejecting the chaplain's consolations of faith and redemption.
ReplyDeleteBut Camus was also a strident opponent of the death penalty, and the novel is also making clear how inherently absurd ANY sentence of death would be: having one's "head removed in a public square in the name of the French people" renders this familiar sentence especially absurd and meaningless, and there's no sense in the novel of "justice" being served by this guy being subject to premeditated state murder. If Meursault shooting the Arab for no good reason is wrong, how is the court decapitating him for no good reason right?