Last week I started rereading one of my favorite books, The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas. For those unfamiliar with the plot, it is about a guy who gets accused of a crime (he's innocent) and sent to jail for about 15 years. When he escapes, he gets a bunch of money and takes revenge on the people who accused him. Anyways, I was reading the part where the protagonist, Edmond Dantes, is searching in a cave for treasure when I was struck by an existentialist parallel to Camus' The Stranger.
"Dantes descended, murmuring the supreme word of human philosophy: 'Perhaps.'"
I was immediately stuck by the similarity to Camus' point that we are all battling death even though we know we have no hope of victory. Of course, there are obvious differences. Meursault is hoping for life, while Dantes is just hoping for a fortune. Meursault actually realizes what is going on, while Dantes never actually has any understanding of "human philosophy." Then again, Dantes is a much more sympathetic protagonist, even though he is responsible for several deaths over the course of the book, not just one unnamed Arab. Of course, Dantes also does some good things, but i think the main reason we favor him over Meursault is because we relate to him more. Meursault is alien to us in his approach to the world and other people. He strikes us as lacking a normal amount of emotion and "common sense." Dantes, however, is very grounded in basic human reasoning. Seeking revenge seems the natural thing to do in his situation, as do his tendencies to help those he is close to. While he goes about his business with badassness, Dantes is in general a very relatable character, the opposite of Meursault. I think that, similar to the Jury's opinion in Camus' novel, even a morally questionable human is preferable to someone who is not identifiable as having a human mind. The main reason behind this is that familiarity is the first thing we look for in a character. The same comparison is found in the general consensus that Rochester's narration has more credibility that Antoinette's in Wide Sargasso Sea.
2 comments:
I would suggest that at least part of the reason Dantes is "more relatable"--or functions more as a "hero" or protagonist in the traditional sense of someone the reader roots for and feels invested in--is that revenge for him becomes the *meaning* of his existence, the plot to his life. He has a clear sense of purpose, and that purpose appears just, and he acts on it. Revenge may be morally questionable in terms of justice, but in terms of *poetic justice*, it sure makes a plot move.
But it's this kind of "plot" that Meursault fails (or refuses) to see in his own life. Meursault would be more comforting and understandable to us (and to the court) if we *could* posit his act of murder as an act of revenge on Raymond's behalf (however bankrupt such an interpretation would be, morally). It would at least MAKE SENSE. But Camus gives us the challenge of a character who resolutely does NOT make sense.
I agree, and looking back, I can think of several times in COMC where Dantes says that he is being used by God to serve justice. Interestingly, at the end, Dantes admits that he was wrong to assume that. I think that it shows another contrast between him and Meursault, since his revelation is that he is more human than he had imagined, while Meursault believes that he is now superior to other humans.
As to Camus presenting a character who makes no sense, that is what makes this book so interesting yet so hard to discuss. I think he chose the perfect title.
Post a Comment