I’m also a fan of La Chute, by placing the reader in the position of Clamence’s companion Camus engages the reader, you are made to work, to formulate the questions that he is answering and to fill in the gaps in the narrative. I am interested in Clamence’s role as a “judge-penitent”, the seemingly contradictory role that he describes himself as holding. I understand this in opposition to the role that he played in his previous life in Paris; a lawyer who was “soustrait au jugement comme a la sanction” (shielded equally away from judgment as from penalty). Having found a comfortable niche between those judging and those being punished in Paris, in Amsterdam he embodies both rather than neither. He seems to be paying a price for his earlier lifestyle whilst also drawing others into the realisation that their lives may not be as innocent as they believe.
Camus’ comment on the reasoning for killing in the name of justice in L’Etat de Siege interested me. Diego states that he knows the old arguments that “To do away with murder we must kill, and to prevent injustice we must do violence.” (Apologies for the English quote – I know I’m a terrible person.) Diego’s questioning of capital punishment and of general killing and violence in the name of justice reflects Camus’ understanding that a re-examination of society’s moral values was necessary. Despite his brief backing for capital punishment after the end of the Second World War, Camus believed that life was ultimately more important than the idea of justice that could be used as the ends to justify violent means.
No comments:
Post a Comment