In last year's African-American Lit. class we read Native Son Richard Wright. Besides its strong focus on the effects of a deeply racist and disadvantaging environment on a young black man, the novel also addresses naturalist vs. existentialist questions. After a series of events, the protagonist, Bigger, accidentally kills a young white woman. However instead of being overcome by guilt, he is almost elated, seeing it as an escape from his former life of irrelevance.
"He had murdered and created a new life for himself. It was something that was all his own, and it was the first time in his life he had had anything that others could not take from him."
Both Bigger and Meursault evade their fate for as long as possible (Bigger physically evades his capture and Meursault is fearful and frantic in his cell), but neither character in interested in defending their innocence. Both characters simultaneously acknowledge their fate and express a newly found vigor for life, affirming their controversial ideas/actions. However, when comparing the two, it seems that Bigger is the more complex, but also the more understandable and human protagonist. While Wright and Camus each wrote novels concerning existentialist topics, Camus uses Meursault much more explicitly to convey his agenda to the reader. He is an especially reserved character, bearing little resemblance to most of humanity with his lack of ambition and self-reflection. After his first and last emotional outburst, he has an epiphany, finally understanding that his purpose is to create meaning in a meaningless world and life. It is certainly a well crafted representation of Camus's philosophy, but it has little regard for the individuality that such a character could have had; Meursault is unique only in his lack of motives for any of his actions. This is evident in Camus's treatment of the Arab as well, who is described especially briefly and never mentioned again in the deciding chapters. This is in strong contrast with Wright, who sought to use a naturalist argument to display the destruction of life that is wrought from a racist world, but respects the human value of his protagonist, allowing him to take ownership of his fate.
I was also in African American Lit, and agree with the point you're making. I think in both cases, the protagonist is trapped in an unending loop of routine. In Bigger's case, he is a black man growing up in mid-20th century America, and needless to say doesn't have many opportunities. On the other hand, Meursault seems to have had a rough childhood, probably prompting his dulled view of the world. His job isn't important to him, and it doesn't seem like he has much to live for. However, once these two characters murder someone (though unintentionally), they see their futures transforming as a result of their actions. Though their lives in prison and subsequent death, they are elated by the fact that they have altered the plan of the universe. While the authors aren't encouraging us to perform similar actions, I think they are giving us a unique perspective into the minds of these characters, something the court judges don't understand.
ReplyDeleteEven though I have not read Native Son, I can comment on Meursalt not trying to defend himself. Merusalt is the type of person who takes things literally and honestly. He knows that he killed the Arab for no reason, and so that is what he is going to tell anyone who asks. This is probably a somewhat uncommon view of one's own guilt- except that Meursalt doesn't feel guilt. He doesn't feel much of anything; To him there is only what happened and nothing else to be said about it.
ReplyDeleteYou get at a crucial distinction between the "accidental" crimes in these two novels: In Camus, the crime itself is absurd, because the one who commits it has no real motive or reason other than the sun's intensity (the absurdity is part of the universe itself); in Wright, the crime is produced by the absurdity of racial/sexual obsessions in American culture--and this absurdity is picked up and fully embraced by the court system, which basically enforces the absurd "white force" that Bigger is reacting in panic against. So we see Bigger as a small player in an absurd American racial system, while Meursault's crime paradoxically marginalizes further the one marginalized by the colonial system. The critical attention is pointed in different directions, in other words.
ReplyDelete