Introduction
This essay examines the textual conversation between Albert Camus’s The Stranger (1942) and Kamel Daoud’s The Meursault Investigation (2013). It argues that Daoud’s reworking challenges the colonial assumptions embedded in Camus’s narrative while both texts ultimately converge on critiques of hegemonic institutions. The discussion explores how this dialogue creates a “third space” that invites readers to reflect on meaning-making, incorporating specific textual echoes to illustrate the dynamics at play. The analysis maintains a focus on the novels’ primary concerns with identity, absurdity and institutional power.
Interrogating Colonial Narration and Subaltern Silence
Initiating an ekphrastic textual conversation, Daoud angrily exposes Meursault’s philosophical martyrdom as one dependent on the aesthetic reduction of the subaltern to serve a solipsistic narrative voice, ultimately seeking to emancipate the silenced Algerian identity from the exclusionary colonial hegemon. Reflective of his status as a pied-noir, Camus, in shaping Meursault as the titular “stranger”, antagonistically attributes his othering to “a group of arabs…staring at us in that way of theirs”, framing the “arabs” as social catalysts of Meursault’s psychological ennui. Indeed, Camus’ usage of the possessive “theirs”, in constructing “Arab” behaviour as inherently incomprehensible, crucially denies interiority to the subaltern, precipitating in Daoud’s postcolonial anger that “The word arab is mentioned twenty-five times, but no name!” In a dissonant response, Daoud’s hypophoric assertion “Who was Musa? He was my brother” constructs a palimpsest reconstitution of identity to the subaltern, displacing the exonymic reduction of “arab”, and personifying Musa as ultimately reclaiming the moral and sentimental legibility withheld by the Camusian narrative.
In depicting Musa as “Just a form, shimmering…in the fiery air”, Camus’ chremamorphic usage of blank, abstract diction represents Meursault’s crime against the Arab as an act of “immense exasperation exercised…on an inanimate object” (Hudon, cited in the provided material), acting as a catalyst for Camus’ exploration of absurdity. Yet Daoud, confronting Camus’ prose as “nothing but embellishments”, metatextually implicates the reader to reflect on their ideological complicity in the aestheticisation of colonial violence, asking “How can you even take Musa’s own death away from him?” Hence, Daoud fervently rebukes Camus’s exploitation of the subaltern for The Stranger’s philosophical experiment as Harun asserts “the absurd is what my brother and I carry on my back…”, ultimately exposing The Stranger’s place within the occidental canon as one at the expense of the oriental subaltern. Against the exclusionary architecture of the western canon, Daoud condemns Camus’ dismissal of suffering by conveying the complex, long-lasting effects of rectifying colonial mistreatment as Harun observes the post-independence enthusiasm consumes itself.
Convergence on Institutional Critique and Hegemonic Silence
Yet, as Daoud’s postcolonial anger subsides, both texts converge in a resonant indictment of hegemonic institutions, exposing them as mechanisms of ideological coercion that seek to silence the nonconformist “other”, rendering ontological certainty futile for the subaltern. Redolent of his post-WWII disillusionment, Camus subverts the grand narrative of justice as transparent and morally coherent, rhetorically questioning whether Meursault is on trial for “burying his mother or for killing a man?”, wherein the court’s preoccupation with his designation as “monsieur antichrist” eclipses the murder of Musa, unmasking the justice system as a social panopticon enforcing normative occidental behaviour rather than exacting legalistic morality. Mirroring Camus’ judicial critique, Daoud reframes institutional indictment within post-independent Islamic Algeria, exposing the judiciary that paradoxically declares it is “not asking for the truth”, to exemplify a post-colonial milieu that replicates rather than dismantles the moral implications of its colonial predecessor.
Further, Meursault’s exonymic description of “several other prisoners…mainly arabs” as inmates reflects the French hegemon’s suppression of Arab dissonance. However, mirrored within Harun’s postcolonial world where the French have conversely been silenced as the racial other, Harun’s “arrest… and thrown into a room… mostly Frenchmen”, reveals the continued persecution of the moral other across transcending contexts. Consequently, Harun’s disillusionment in seeing the optimistic “Illusions collapse” (Daoud, 2013) likens the attempts of subaltern self-actualisation to the Sisyphean torment of “endlessly pushing a corpse up a hill”, the masterful intertextual allusion to Camus’ “The Myth of Sisyphus” ultimately mirroring the futility of seeking ontological solace within an ideologically corrupt society. The propensity for occidental narratives to induce an inescapable cultural displacement that restricts the construction of national identity permeates contextual spheres despite liberation from domineering hegemonies, tacitly mirroring Camus’ atheistic denouement to express the futility of religious grand narratives in ameliorating existential ennui, instead positioning readers to embrace the absurd.
The Emergence of a Third Narrative Space
Indeed, Meursault’s personification of the “indifference of the world” as “gentle” paradoxically reveals how absurdist confrontation with life’s inherent meaninglessness can paradoxically provide ontological comfort, granting Sisyphean hope. Daoud extends this through Harun’s conscious crime predicated on the postcolonial imperative to “counterbalance the absurdity of our situation”, foregrounding the spiritual toll of the colonial society’s moral vacancy on the colonised subject. The texts incorporate additional echoes: the desire for public spectacle in “I too would wish them to be legion, my spectators, and savage in their hate” (Daoud, 2013) parallels the trial scenes, while the “Large crowd of spectators” who “greet me with cries of hate” and the image of “The mosque is empty…its emptiness itself” underscore the emptiness of institutional rituals in both colonial and postcolonial settings. Despite metaphorically aligning their absurd states as “Two unknown persons on an endless beach”, Daoud preserves their status as motivic “strangers” in spite of attaining the Sisyphean capacity to become “happy again”. Hence, in contrast to Camus, Daoud metafictively invites audiences to embark on a “third narrative” as he ultimately leaves it “up to you to decide”, as a testament to our capacity for solipsistic subjectivity.
Conclusion
The textual conversation between The Stranger and The Meursault Investigation allows Daoud to challenge Camus’s colonial occlusions while both works critique institutional hegemony. Their convergence on absurdist themes, enriched by the incorporated quotes and motifs examined above, ultimately positions the reader as an active participant in constructing meaning. This metatextual “third space” underscores how perspective and context shape interpretation, offering a nuanced contribution to postcolonial literary discourse.
References
- Camus, A. (1942) The Stranger. Translated by S. Gilbert. London: Hamish Hamilton.
- Daoud, K. (2013) The Meursault Investigation. Translated by J. Cullen. London: Oneworld Publications.
