Mersault Who?

Throughout the whole novel I tried to find what was already in front of me. I wasted thought on what was obvious and in effect what  I already knew. Nevertheless I refused to acknowledge it, even if it was screaming out to me. What is this thing I'm talking about you might be asking? It's about the main character of course.
Meursault: a detached human being from society as well as his emotions; lacks sensitivity or importance. 
Although being the narrator and main character, he barely displays any feelings or concern for anything. I kept on trying to figure him out, to get a sense of who he was on the inside but not once did I get anything more than what I stated above. My eyes pictured him more like a robot than a real person. At times I even compared him to a square, perfectly symmetric with no other purpose than doing things for a clear reason in an impeccable manner. Camus's words seemed more like a list of facts than an actual novel. 
The Stranger as a title know seems reasonable. To me he was a stranger  as I couldn't either relate or understand him. To society he is a stranger  by being so different and dissociated. To the people around him he is a stranger with a lack of interest in their affairs, feelings, or opinions. Finally, as crude as it sounds, he is a stranger to himself. 
This last statement however changed  in the last few chapters of the novel when Meursault's execution was near. I realized that the real Meurault was right before my eyes. Who is the real Meursault then?
Meursault: a detached human being from society as well as his emotions; lacks sensitivity or importance.  

He is nothing more and nothing less than that. Meursault lives for reasoning and logic, and everything he does and thinks revolves around it. To an extent, one might think that this is due to a lack of personality. In reality this describes and builds  his personality: different and straightforward. "... I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. So much like me..." (Part !!, Chapter 5)  This gentle indifference of the world is the absence of value each human life contains. They are nothing, and consequently what they do, think, or say means nothing as well. Experience is all Meursault lived for and under no subjectiveness or social influence. 

Meaningless Change – Wrong

“It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed.” (Chapter 2) Camus’ existentialist perspective is displayed throughout Meursault continuously in the novel. He is revealed as an incredibly neutral and emotionless being through his actions, thoughts, and voice. Hence, the tone of the novel is set as objective not only because of Meursault’s character, but also because of the interruptive pacing it contains.  These characteristics reflect the existentialist believe of life’s lack of meaning. Camus, like any existentialist, sees this as a reasonable theory, “You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.” In other words, you should just go with whatever life brings up and be ok with it. All events would therefore be on the same level. The end of Sunday, your mother’s funeral, work; they are all the same and shouldn’t alter your routine in any way.

Dark isn’t it? I believe so. To me, the end of Sunday is meaningful as the rest of the events would be (some more than others obviously). Meursault however continues to hold his position in Chapter 5, “…People never change their lives, that in any case one life was as good as another…” People don’t change their lives directly; it is more like some occurrence makes them force the change. In the end life goes on, but changes big or small occur either by chance or will. For Salamano, change was not good when loosing his dog. Meursault on the other hand released his position on change when claiming that “His [Salamano] life had changed now and he wasn’t too sure what he was going to do.” (Chapter 5) This brings another point in existentialism. Salamano was anguished when loosing his dog under his own actions and responsibility. This, along with the loneliness he new would overcome him, lead him to feel helpless and vulnerable. It is at this point when reaching anguish and helplessness that humans begin their quest for a superior being who can offer them protection. In Salamano’s case, he looks for his dog and hopes to change again upon his finding. “I hope the dogs don’t bark tonight. I always think it’s mine.” (Chapter 5) This will in an existentialist perspective bring him nothing but trouble due to his hope and search for meaning (dog). 

Blue Daisy

" A damp streak of hair lay like a dash of blue paint across her cheek and her hand was wet with glistening drops as I took it to help her from the car" (p. 85)

The Blue Period was hard for Pablo Picasso; he was poor and had recently lost a friend making him sad and depressed. The artist used different shades of blue in his paintings reflecting his gloomy emotions. In chapter five of The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald uses blue paint as well.  Daisy Buchanan, a happy girl on the outside is not on the inside. She seems to be perfectly well even if her heart is incomplete and her feelings enclosed. In this quote Fitzgerald intends for the streak of hair to be interpreted as a tear. The streak is described as being damp like a tear is and then blue. The color symbolizes depression and sadness, complementing the tear by itself that stands for Daisy’s misery. Although her life fulfills her own/society’s standards it does not fulfill her happiness. She is not with her true love, in a way she is alone because all her relationships are superficial, and she is choking on her own hypocrisy as well as others. Nick however is the only one who notices it and by taking her hand, wet because of the rain and helping her, he reassures her and restates her sadness and vulnerability.