Monday, August 08, 2016

Dimmesdale and Mersault by Robinson

Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter features Arthur Dimmesdale, a young and widely respected minister. Albert Camus's The Stranger features Mersault, a young man with a content life. These two characters can seem nearly foils of each other in some aspects, while in others they are one and the same. Existing nearly 300 years apart in fiction and 90 years apart in reality, both of these characters fulfill the same role of a man who has come into conflict with (and is tormented by) society. Through religion, philosophy, love, and personality, Dimmesdale and Mersault are truly two characters worth comparing.

Firstly, there are some obvious analogies that exist in the external between the two characters. They are young, male, and have respectable jobs, with Dimmesdale a minister and Mersault an office worker. They are both separated from the mainland of their country, with Dimmesdale living in an American colony and Mersault living in French Algeria. They also both live somewhat estranged and personal lives while away from their jobs. And yet, there are also some external differences worth pointing out; Dimmesdale is revered publicly while Mersault is ignored. Dimmesdale has moved overseas while Mersault lives where he always has. Dimmesdale's crime against society is secret while Mersault's is public. However, with both The Scarlet Letter and The Stranger being novels with a considerable philosophical element (more so The Stranger), similarities and differences in the external are sure to be nothing compared to those in the internal thoughts of both characters.

Arthur Dimmesdale and Mersault are both very introspective characters and are both prone to simply think in peace. But what are the two characters thinking about? For Dimmesdale, it is likely coming to terms with the sin that he committed years ago. Being a very religious character, it is difficult for him to live with himself knowing that, as a supposed shining symbol of piety, he is living his life a lie. Despite his constant appearance of being in grief, this only leads others to think that he is bearing the sins of society, which in turn makes them revere him even more. From such a cycle, Dimmesdale is in constant internal conflict. In this aspect, Mersault is almost the opposite. Mersault is an atheist, or at least an apatheist. When the chaplain meets him in jail, he thinks "...I had only a little time left and I didn't want to waste it on God" (Camus 120). Religion is unimportant to him because he seeks no greater meanings in life. Given this, Mersault worries about no sins he may have committed and is more likely to blame the world around him than himself for his troubles. Although, as mentioned before, Mersault's crimes are not secret like Dimmesdale's, Mersault has no remorse for his actions and does not understand how they have cost him greatly. Despite these conflicts being almost complete opposites in means and directions, they both root from the doing of a crime against society that is impossible to forgive. And these crimes are the only things preventing these characters from living lives that would otherwise be perfectly content. Contributing to this contentness is the element of love.

Love is important to both Dimmesdale and Mersault, and thus worth comparing in both, although the details of love are very different in both. Dimmesdale wants true love, and wants it with Hester Prynne, a young woman with the same feelings. However, this true love leads to adultery, as Hester was married, and even produces an illegitimate child, Pearl. This is the primary source for all conflict in The Scarlet Letter. To Mersault, on the other hand, love is just another way to the enjoy life, and nothing more. He finds another connoisseur of this form of love in the character Marie, to whom he builds an intimate physical relationship with. While their actions of love are not the source of conflict as in The Scarlet Letter, their love is separated from Mersault's imprisonment, which in turn furthers his suffering in confinement. Dimmesdale has a lapse in his suffering when he meets Hester alone in the forest, while Mersault is temporarily relieved when Marie visits him in jail. But while Dimmesdale's meeting is an exchange of many personal words, Mersault's meeting consists mainly of facial expressions, as they meet in a loud jail visitation room. This reflects the differences in love of both characters. To the bitter ends of both Dimmesdale and Mersault, the love of another was the only respite in the sea of society's torment.

Arthur Dimmesdale and Mersault, through the lenses of their selves, their philosophies, and their interactions with love, are two characters that can be both parallels and skews. They come into their novels, The Scarlet Letter and The Stranger respectfully, as young men that have been sundered from society through crimes that are too late to repair. And although Camus may have come over a century after Hawthorne, both of their characters fulfill one and the same role, albeit in many different ways.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree with many of the similarities and differences you pointed out between Dimmesdale and Meursault, however it was not until I read your post that I realized just how opposite the two characters often are. Dimmesdale spends the entire book tormented by the sin that he committed. His regret is one of the defining points of his character, and eventually drives him to confess his sin to the community. With Meursault, however, it is his lack of remorse and guilt that define his character and causes problems for him throughout the book. When you add the fact that Dimmesdale’s sin was committed in secret and Meursault’s was public it makes the characters almost polar opposites.

Another thing I liked about your post is the differences in how the character responds to religion. Religion is brought up often in both books, and the different ways the characters respond to it further shows how different they are. This is not something I had considered before I read your post, and the quote you used from The Stranger really showed me how different the character’s philosophies are.

The only thing I disagreed with in your post is the importance of love in both the stories. I would agree that love is very important to Dimmesdale and his desire of it is an important aspect of his character. However, I disagree that Meursault’s love of Marie was a respite for him and I would argue that he did not really love her at all. He enjoyed the physical relationship they had, but never said that he loved her and only agreed to marry her because he didn’t think it really mattered. Even in prison, I think that he said he never specifically thought of Marie. This is still an important part of Meursault’s character and love is still an important thing to compare between the two characters, I just disagree with your interpretation of loves importance to Meursault. Overall, your post does a very good job pointing out the similarities and differences between Dimmesdale and Meursault.

Anonymous said...

Ian, great job on this post. I envy your cunning linguistic attributes and strive to equal them. Furthermore, you're conceptual analysis of these characters, to the extent of my knowledge, was well thought out and quite insightful.

I had not read (italics not working on my phone) The Stranger, so I had to do a little bit of research of my own. I will by no means dispute you on any analysis you have provided of Mersault: I trust you over the array of online resources available. The only qualm I have is with your claim that love is the primary source of confict, at least in the case of Hester. I would proclaim the atmosphere and tradition of circa 17th century English, specifically Puritan culture, to be the root of the book's events. The context adultery is placed in truly dictates the perception and consequences in this literature, as it would vary from culture to culture in reality. "Nuthin' personnel kid ;)"- Edgelord

I agree with you on all other fronts though, the characters encapsulate a true duality and yet, they also are so blissfully similar in some regards. Your surmise is on point, efficiently crafted. You're truly the Supreme Gentleman. Also, I like the nebulous allusion to ever present archetypes that span the works of famous authors over many years.

You've piqued a certain voraciousness within me. When my interest in the spectral analysis of broader themes in English literature and their contemporary application is indulged, it surely cannot be satiated. I will read the chronicle of Mersault and perhaps we can have jovial, meaningful discourse on the topic. See you soon in A.P.E., fine sir.