Dr Ruth Cruickshank discusses Albert Camus' L’Étranger
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- Dr Ruth Cruickshank, Reader in French and Comparative Literature and Culture in the Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures at Royal Holloway, explains why Camus' L'Etranger is one the most significant works of modern literary Fiction.
Interesting explanation of L'Etranger. Thanks. Why the background music? Very distracting. This lecture did not need background music
I agree with Jennifer about the background music. It was rather distracting! I thought your points were somewhat agréable but for other points there was a lack of evidence in the text. I would be interested to see where you find your evidence in the text for some of your points Ruth. Sending happiness to you Dr!
Erm… What the sigma. I got a few questions for you Ruth. Have you read the book? How is the book a thought experiment? Why is the music so bloody loud? Sort it out please.
thank you.
Listen here, Ruth.
It is deeply problematic to refer to the white colonising population of Algeria at the time as being outsiders as it entirely overlooks the necessity and reason for the Algerian war which commenced twelve years later. To suggest that Meursault, who lives not in a gated or cut-off community, but rather in what seems to be the heart of Algeria’s capital city, Algiers, might feel in any way inferior to or intimidated by the native Arab population on account of his ethnicity is not only historically inaccurate, but laughable. Not only this, but you go on to directly contradict yourself by referring to the Algerian Arab population as “remarkably absent” from the story. I ask you how you believe a class of people, scarcely seen in Algeria’s largest city, could make Meursault (or any pied noir) feel like an outsider given the power the white governing classes have over them.
This brings me swiftly onto my next point. You mentioned that during Meursault’s trial, “the value of his life is considered to be far greater than the value of the life of the man he killed” which I certainly didn’t feel came across when I read it, especially seeing as Meursault is sentenced to death “au nom du peuple français” which, if anything, proves that in fact Meursault’s life is placed below that of the Arab’s as he is sentenced to death by his fellow Europeans for a crime for which you yourself said “he could easily get off”.
The third part at which I take quarrel is your reference to the Arab as “silent” and “nameless”. Whilst it is true that the Arab at no point in the book speaks to Meursault, we must realise that being a first-person narrative, the information that we have access to is by default limited and dependent on the narrator’s experiences, as opposed to earlier writers who favour an omniscient third-person narrator. That is before we even consider the extent to which we are dealing with an especially reticent or secretive author, who goes the whole book without even revealing his own first name.
Pretty good video other than that though.
This is a nuanced and well researched response Rex. Bravo!
Wowzers! An absolute madness here, Rex - I wonder what the look on Ruth’s face will be when she sees how she’s been academically OWNED!
@@ivoad1084Sending hate from AGDF!
I firstly want to say thank you for this video. However, there are several points that I would like to flag.
1.) I don’t understand how Dr Ruth can claim that the value of Meursault’s life is much more valuable then the life of the Arab that he has killed. It lies in the fact that Meursault was actually sentenced in the name of the French people. This contrasts to your point that he could get off easily and actually suggests that in fact, the value of Meursault is equal or even below that of the Arab because he is sentenced to death for a crime he “could have easily got off.” It doesn’t make any sense to me at all.
2.) I honestly can’t comprehend how someone, especially with your expertise in this field, can call the book a thought experiment? Unless I am missing an obvious point, it is simply folly to claim that the book is in anyway a thought experiment. I would argue that there are definitely thought provoking issues in the book, such as the character development of Meursault, the seemingly very little we know about Marie and even how a man who didn’t cry at the funeral of his mother can be condemned, as Camus pointed out in 1955, but it is simply wrong to argue that this book is a thought experiment or can be interpreted as one.
3.) I also find it hard to believe that Meursault is an outsider and feels intimidated or worse than the Arabs based on his ethnicity is not only wrong from a historical perspective but is almost a silly point to make. This then contrasts your point later about the Arabs being absent from the book. So you’re telling me that in Algers, a massive city, we are supposed to believe that Meursault or even any other pied noir feel like an outsider? I don’t understand this at all.
4.) Also, could you turn up the background music a bit more please? Honestly though, how loud do you want it? Sort it out.
Good video though (other then the obvious reasons that I have listed above)
Certainly an interesting perspective…