Good morning.
We are going to begin with Albert Camus’s
The Fall.
Albert Camus is a French writer of Algerian
origin.
He was born in Algiers and he later shifted
to France.
We will talk about that later.
And, his short novella, The Fall, which was
written in 1956; the keywords from The Fall
are The Fall, that is, the title of her novella;
a philosophy of absurdism; philosophy of human
existence; myth of Sisyphus; and, Camus-Sartre
partnership; and, influence of Sartre on Camus;
and, the technical aspect of The Fall, which
has been much appreciated, much emulated,
that is, the confessional tone, which Camus
employs in the novella.
I will begin with the court by Albert Camus.
And, you can also look at his dates; 1913
to 1960.
That is Camus life.
In Happy Death, one of his writings, Camus
says, but, in the end, one needs more courage
to live than to kill himself.
In his famous, The Myth of Sisyphus, he says,
there is, but one truly philosophical problem
and that is suicide.
In The Rebel, it was written in 1951.
He says, who disperses over an event is a
coward, but he who holds hope for the human
condition is a fool.
So, those quotations, those words by Camus
should be sufficient to tell you about Camus’s
philosophy of life.
The bottom line is that human condition is
hopeless.
Camus was born as I was just telling you in
Algeria.
He was a French origin.
He shifted to France and came in contact with
the prominent figures of the leftist group.
And, that is how he came in contact with John
Paul Sartre and his companion Simone de Beauvoir.
At the center of Camus’s thought is the
thesis that human existence is essentially
absurd.
So, that is what we were talking about human
existence condition is essentially absurd.
Human beings search for a meaning in their
existence.
But, with the demise of traditional believes
in religion and ideology, this search remains
meaningless; that means that human condition
is hopeless, is meaningless, is absurd.
The philosophical concerns of Camus remain
isolation of individuals.
Human beings are isolated.
The entire universe is alien; it is hostile.
And, human beings find themselves by some
coke of fates, some accident; they are thrown
in this alien and hostile universe.
Along with these issues, Camus was also concerned
with the issues of evil and the finality of
death.
So, all these things you will find; all these
discussions you will find in his works, especially
The Fall.
Some of his major works are The Stranger;
or, in French, it is called L’Etranger.
The French term for The Fall is La Chute;
that is the French term for the fall.
The Plague, where he discusses what happens
when a society suffers a disease like plague;
the Rebel and The Fall of course, which was
written in 1956.
Camus won the nobel prize for literature in
1957.
Camus’s essay, The Myth of Sisyphus was
written in1942.
And, it elaborates on Camus’s notion of
the absurd and of its acceptance with the
total absence of hope, which has nothing to
do with despair, a continual refusal, which
must not be confused with renouncement and
a conscious dissatisfaction.
Sisyphus is a mythical figure, a figure from
Greek mythology.
And, he is the person, who challenges gods.
As a punishment, he is condemned to repeat
the same meaningless task of pushing a rock
up a mountain only to see it rolled down again
and then push it back up the mountain again.
So, the essay concludes the struggle itself
is enough to feel a man’s heart.
One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
Although Sisyphus leads a life of monotony,
there is no change in his life; almost like
the human existence; you do the same things;
you have to follow the same routine.
But, according to Camus happiness can be found
even in this routine although existence remains
meaningless.
And, human beings life is full of day-to-day
struggle, much like the life of Sisyphus.
In L’Etranger or The Stranger, which was
published in 1942, it begins very significantly;
I will read it out to you.
Mother died today or may be yesterday; I cannot
be sure; the telegram from the home says your
mother passed away; funeral tomorrow; deep
sympathy; which leaves the matter doubtful;
it could have been yesterday.
And, this novel is noted for its laconic tone
as the news of the death arrives on an ordinary
day.
So, the lead character Mersault lives for
the central pleasures of the moment and yet
ends up accepting responsibility for an accidental
killing.
And, he has tried and judged guilty of murder
not because he actually murdered somebody,
but he failed to cry at his mother’s funeral
and because he refuses to embrace Christianity.
So, those are the grounds on which he is condemned,
to be death.
He is not for the actual murder that he commits,
but because his failure to confirm to the
accepted norms of society; his refusal to
embrace Christianity and also his inability
to cry at his mother’s funeral.
So, this is the reason why he is condemned
to death.
Again, this is a very typical example of Camus’s
notion of the absurdity of the universe, of
the society that we live in.
Now, what is absurd?
Absurdism is defined, for example, human existence
as we are just talking about.
It is meaninglessness; it is dull monotony;
the hopelessness; the constant despair human
beings live in; the inability to connect – connect
to other people, to other members of the society.
So, one of the key novels by Camus, which
expounds his philosophy of absurdism is L’Etranger,
which we were just talking about the outsider;
essay – The Myth of Sisyphus and then also
his play Caligula.
So, these are the key writings, which encapsulate
Camus’s notion of absurdism.
For Camus absurd is not a negative term; it
is not a synonym for ridicule, but it symbolizes
the true meaning of existence.
Absurdism for Camus is accepting the view
that life is meaningless.
And, this once you accept that, you embrace
the realistic view of life, because the universal
is logical and it is also irrational.
Once you accept that, life becomes much simple.
In other words, it is a more radical view
of Nietzsche’s declaration that god is dead.
Now, talking about Camus and Sartre; John
Paul Sartre as we know, he is one of the leading
philosophers of the twentieth century.
And, Sartre and Camus came together during
the second world war.
Philosophically, they shared a lot in common,
but their political ideologies differ, which
led to a rift and they parted ways, because
they could not see eye to eye on certain political
grounds, because Camus rejected the soviet
model of socialism and Sartre still believe
in that.
So, that was the main reason for the fallout
between them.
Now, coming to La Chute – The Fall, which
was written in 1956; The Fall was Camus’s
last completed novel.
On the surface, it is a simple narrative as
the hero or the protagonist Jean-Baptiste
Clamence.
He recounts the events from the last few years
of his life.
So, it famously begins…
I will read you a couple of lines at the beginning
and then we will discuss.
So, this is how The Fall begins – may I
offer my services without running the risk
of intruding?
– question; I fear you may not be able to
make yourself understood by the word the gorilla,
who presides over the fate of this establishment.
In fact, he speaks nothing, but Dutch – unless
you authorize me to plead your case, he will
not guess that you want gin; there I did hope
he understood me that Nod must mean that he
yields to my arguments; he is on the move
indeed; he is making haste with the sort of
careful deliberateness.
You are lucky; he did not grunt.
When he refuses to serve someone, he merely
grunts; no one insists; being master of ones
moods is the privilege of the larger animals.
Now, I shall withdraw.
Happy to have been of help to you.
Thank you.
I had accepted if you were sure of not being
a nuisance.
You are too kind; then, I shall bring my glass
over beside yours.
Now, who is the interlocutor?
Interlocutor you know is the person who is
being spoken to, who is the listener.
Here we find Jean-Baptiste Clamence sitting
in a bar.
So, we have to also understand the setting,
the narrative technique, the themes.
So, it is against the backdrop of these three
elements that we are going to understand The
Fall.
So, it begins with Jean-Baptiste Clamence,
who is sitting in a bar and addressing an
unnamed listener, an unidentified will interlocutor.
Who could it be?
We are not very sure.
So, let me read it again – may I have offered
my services without running the risk of intruding?
I fear you may not be able to make yourself
understood by the gorilla, who presides over
the fate of this establishment.
In fact, he speaks nothing but Dutch.
So, who is this gorilla?
The bartender.
Who are the people in this setting?
You have the narrator Jean-Baptiste Clamence;
you have the bartender; you have an unnamed,
unidentifiable listener.
So, these are the three characters present
in the bar.
Why is he called gorilla?
Because maybe he is not civilized enough;
he merely grunts; he is not articulate enough.
And, perhaps this is Camus’s commentary
on a society when people are not articulate
enough, they are nothing more than mere animals.
And then, also pay attention to the subsequent
sentence – being a master of one’s moods
is the privilege of the larger animals.
This bartender does not really count in the
larger scheme of life.
But, those people are more dangerous, who
are in greater control.
So, they become greater animals.
And, you should remember that this novel is
a response to the horrors of Nazism and Holocaust
in Europe.
So, written in 1956, Albert Camus, who pondered
over the meaning of life, the nature of evil,
finality of death – all these elements are
found in the first few lines itself that human
beings those who are in greater control, those
who have the large bigger right to be the
master of their moods are bigger animals,
are more dangerous people to the society.
And, that is the clear reference to the Nazis.
Next paragraph – you are right his dumbness
is deafening, is the silence of the primable
forest, heavy with menaces.
At times, I am amazed by his abstinency in
snubbing civilized languages – it is in
plural.
His business consists in entertaining sailors
of all nationalities in this Amsterdam bar.
This is important to understand.
The setting is Amsterdam; this conversation
is taking place is a bar in Amsterdam; and,
the name of the bar is Mexico city.
So, this becomes your setting now.
Mexico city is the name of the bar situated
in Amsterdam.
With such duties, would not you think there
might be some fear, that is, ignorance would
be uncomfortable?
Fancy, the Cro-Magnon man lodged in the tower
of babble.
Now, in this bar, you have people of all nationalities;
it is like a melting pot – Amsterdam – perhaps
this is a larger reference to Amsterdam as
a place, where people from all over come and
get together.
So, this is a bar, which is presided over
by a bartender, who speaks nothing but Dutch.
And, it is almost like a prehistoric man,
who is logged up in the tower of babble.
Babble – you now that is the place where
there are so many languages being spoken;
at the same time that no one can follow anyone.
So, that when we were talking about in a human
being’s inability to connect.
This disconnect could be because of several
factors.
It could be the boundaries of religion; it
could be the boundaries of nations; it could
be all these manmade boundaries and the boundaries
caused by languages.
So, this disconnect, which is a result is
of so many divisions among human beings – that
is what Camus is interested in.
One of the rare sentences I have ever heard
from his mouth proclaimed that you could take
it or leave it.
What did one have to take or leave?
Doubtless are friend its himself; I confess
I am drawn by such creatures, who are all
of a peace.
Anyone who has meditated a good deal on man
by profession or occasion is led to feel nostalgia
for the prime mates.
They at least do not have any ulterior motives
unlike the so-called civilized human being.
Prime mates do not have an ulterior motive.
But, the Nazis are worst than the original
Cro-Magnon or the prime mates; that is what
is being discussed.
Our host to tell the truth has some although
he harbors them deep within him.
As a result of not understanding what is said
in his presence, he has taken on a distrustful
character.
Hence, that look of touchy dignity as if he
is suspected at least that all is not perfect
among men.
That disposition makes it less easy to discuss
anything with him, which does not concern
his business.
Notice for instance on the back wall above
his head that empty rectangle marking the
place, where a picture has been taking down,
indeed there was a picture there, a particularly
interesting one, a real master piece.
Well, I was present when the master of the
house received it and when he parted with
it.
In both cases, he did after weeks of rumination
with the same distrust.
In that respect, society has somewhat spoiled;
you must admit the frank simplicity of his
nature.
Mind you; I am not judging him; I consider
his distrust justified and should be inclined
to share it if as you see my communicative
nature were not opposed to this.
I am talkative alas and make friends easily.
Although I know how to keep my distance, I
seize any and every opportunity.
When I used to live in France, were I to meet
an intelligent man, I immediately sought his
company.
Now, one key feature of a confessional tone
or even a dramatic monologue – dramatic
monologue is a kind of writing, where there
is a single speaker and he has an interlocutor,
a listener.
The listener has very little to contribute
by way of speech.
He just listens.
The speaker does the major part of talking.
And, while talking, he reveals his own personal
true character.
Robert Browning, the British poet – he was
the master of dramatic monologue.
And, in Camus’s The Fall, we find an improvement
on that technique; not exactly an improvement,
but then he has taken the entire idea of dramatic
monologue a step further.
When in a dramatic monologue, a person talks;
and, he talks and he reveals himself.
A self-revelatory in nature.
Interestingly, the speaker in a dramatic monologue
tries to project his best put forward or the
best part of his character or nature.
What the reader infers is exactly the opposite.
We find the mendacity, the duplicity, the
basic contradictions in the speaker’s personality.
So, it is not a very flattering portrait that
emerges although the speaker tries to do his
best; he tries to project a very positive,
a very flattering image of himself.
But, what emerges at the end is not a very
glowing picture; it is rather the opposite.
So, this is what he is trying to portray himself
as; as an intellectual, as a person who is
filled with curiosity – a very normal healthy
kind of a curiosity and extremely communicative
person.
Are you staying long in Amsterdam?
A beautiful city, is not it?
Fascinating; there is an adjective I have
not heard for sometime; not since living Paris
in fact years ago.
But, the heart has its own memory and I have
forgotten nothing of our beautiful capital
nor of its keys.
Keys are the harbors.
Paris is a real trompe l’oeil; a magnificent
dummy setting inhabited by four million salutes;
nearly five million at the last senses.
Why?
They must have multiplied; and, that would
not surprise me.
That is what his opinion of Paris is.
It is a beautiful city; the listener finds
it fascinating.
But, according to Clamence, it is an over
populated congested city, where human beings
are nothing more than mere shadows, which
is interesting; Camus himself came from France.
So, he does not have very positive image of
Paris.
The Dutch – they are much less modern; they
have; just look at them; what do they do?
Well, these gentlemen over here live of the
labors of those ladies over there.
All of them, moreover both male and female
are very middle class creatures, who have
come here as usual out of mythomania or stupidity
though too much or too little imagination.
In other words, from time to time, these gentlemen
indulge in a little knife or revolver play,
but do not get the idea that they are keen
on it; they are role calls for it; that is
all.
And, they are dying of fright as they shoot
it out.
Nevertheless, I find them more moral than
the others those who kill in the bosom of
the family by a process of attrition.
Have not you noticed that our society is organized
for this kind of liquidation?
You have heard of course, of those tiny fish
in the rivers of Brazil that attack the unwary
swimmers, but thousands and with swift little
nibbles.
Clean him up in a few minutes leaving only
and immaculate skeleton.
Well, that is what their organization is.
Do you want a good clean life like everybody
else?
You say of course.
How can we say no?
Okay, you will be cleaned up.
Here is a job, a family and organized leisure;
and, the little teeth attack the flesh right
down to the bone.
But, I am unjust; I should not say their organization;
it is ours after all; it is a question of
which will clean up the other.
Now, this is a very direct reference to the
cruelty, to the inhumanity, to the innate
– barbarism in human beings.
Human beings exist just to save themselves,
not their own kind.
But, they are selfish; they are cruel; and,
they can eat…
It is almost like an animal – survival of
the fittest.
So, the larger fish eats up the smaller fish.
They clean it up so well that all you find
is an immaculate skeleton.
And, that is what human beings are.
And, it is not their organization.
Notice the way the words have been italicized
– it is not just their organization; it
is not it is not just the Nazism or the Nazis
or the perpetrators of violence in any form
or in any part of the world.
It is not their; it is ours.
So, what we are talking about is the notion
of collective guilt and collective responsibility.
All of us are responsible for what happens
in the rest of the world.
All of us should share the collective guilt.
We should partake in the guilt.
Then, there are atrocities whenever there
is a violation of human rights.
That is what Camus’s philosophy is all about.
So, it is not just theirs; it is also ours.
We cannot just say that it is not our problem;
it is not an evil propagated by us; it is
theirs; it is not; that is what Camus says.
We have to own up; we have to accept the responsibility
for every atrocity that happens in any part
of the world.
But, allow me to introduce myself – Jean-Baptiste
Clamence at your service.
Please to know you.
You are in business no doubt in a way; excellent
reply; judicious too.
In all the things, we are merely in a way;
not exactly, but in a way yes; you can get
away with saying in a way; it does not give
you the specifics.
Now, allow me to play the detective.
You are my age in a way with the sophisticated
eye of the man in his fortes, who has seen
everything in a way.
You are well-dressed in a way, that is, as
people are in our country; and, your hands
are smooth.
Hence, bourgeois in a way; but, a cultured
bourgeois.
Most of Camus's writings are a attack on the
bourgeois society, the middle class society,
the complacency, the self satisfaction of
the middle class.
So, we are bourgeois in a way, but a cultured
bourgeois.
We think we are cultured, but are we?
Smiling at the use of the subjunctive in fact
proves your culture twice over, because you
have recognized it to begin with and then
because you feel superior to it.
Lastly, I amuse you and it is said without
vanity.
This implies in you a certain open mindedness.
Consequently, you are in a way.
But, no matter, professions interest me less
than sects.
Allow me to ask you two questions; and, do
not answer if you consider them indiscrete.
Do you have any positions?
Some?
Good.
Have you shared them with the poor?
No.
Then, you are what I call a seducies If you
are not familiar with the scriptures, I admit
that this would not help you.
But, it does help you?
So, you know the scriptures.
Decidedly, you interest me.
Seducies are Jewish groups, which are supposedly
quarrelsome and extremely wealthy.
So, they denied the mortality of the soul.
So, this is a comment on the Jews.
But, it is not exactly…
What Camus is doing here is being very satirical.
Jews were persecuted because they were believed
to be tainted; they were supposedly greedy,
amassing wealth, not sharing it with the poor,
etcetera.
Therefore, in a way it gave the Nazis, the
moral superiority, the moral right to persecute
them.
So, this is a satire on the generally accepted
beliefs of those times.
You are leaving already?
Forgive me for having perhaps detained you.
No, I beg you; I would not let you pay.
I am at home at Mexico city and have been
particularly pleased to receive you here.
I shall certainly be here tomorrow as I am
every evening and I shall be glad to accept
your invitation.
You are way back?
Well, but if you do not have any objection,
the easiest thing would be for me to accompany
you as far as the harbor.
Thence, by going around the Jewish quarter,
you will come to those handsome avenues with
the trams loaded with flowers and noisy as
thunder trooping down them.
Your hotel is one of them, the damn reck,
your first place.
I live in the Jewish quarter what was called
so until our Hitlerian brethren.
Now, Hitlerian brethren the Nazis.
So, this is another satirical reference.
So, Hitlerian brethren spaced it out a bit.
So, the place where he is residing right now
– it was a Jewish quarter.
But then, the Nazis – they spaced it out
or just raised it to the ground.
What a cleaner.
75,000 Jews deported or assassinated; that
is real vacuum cleaning.
I admire the diligence that methodical patience.
When one has no character, one has to apply
a method.
Here it did wonders.
No one can deny it.
And, I am living on the side of one of the
greatest crimes in history.
Perhaps that is what helps me to understand
the gorilla and his mistrustfulness.
Thus, I can struggle against my natural inclination
carrying me towards what I like.
When I see a new face, something insides me
sounds the alarm – slow, danger.
Even when the attraction is strongest, I am
on my guard.
Do you know that in my little village during
a reappraisal operation, a German officer
courteously asked an old women to please choose
which of her two sons would be shot as a hostage.
Choose – can you imagine that?
That one?
No, this one; and, see him go.
Let us not dwell on it, but believe him.
Any sort of surprise is possible.
Now, this incident is based on a true story.
It is a recorded event, where a German soldier
before killing one of the two children of
a woman actually insisted in knowing that
which of the two children should be killed.
Now, asking a parent to choose between the
lives of her children; that is the height
of cruelty; that is the height of barbarism.
If you remember Sophie’s Choice, the novel
by William Styron, it deals with the same
theme.
Sophie’s Choice – she is forced to choose,
which child would she prefer to see live.
She has a boy and a girl.
When she is in the concentration camp, when
the children and the mother of the children
they are all together in the camps.
And then, one day, she is forced to choose
between the lives of the children; it has
to be either the boy or the girl.
This is the story; this is the choice that
Sophie was forced to make which one of the
two children should live.
And, what does it do?
It leads the parent scarred for life that
they willingly let go of one child.
And, that was the extent to which the Nazis
wanted to wound their prisoners.
It was not just the physical attack, but it
was also the attack on their souls; that is
talked about here.
I knew one pure heart, who rejected distressed.
He was a pacifist and a libertarian and loved
all humanity and the enemies with an equal
love and exceptional soul that is certain.
Well, during the last wars of religion in
Europe, he had retired to the country; he
had written on the threshold, wherever you
come from, come in and be welcome.
What do you think answered that noble invitation?
The militia, who entered and made themselves
that home and disemboweled him.
And, this is what happens.
This is a very cynical view of the society.
A person who refused to be corrupted by the
atrocities around him and in order to proclaim
his faith for the humanity he puts up a sign
on his door, all are welcome; anyone can come
and make themselves at home here; and, that
the army enters his house and brutally kills
him.
So, that is what happens when one is too trusting;
when one is too good, it does not work in
today's world.
[FT] But, she did not understand a word of
it anyway.
All these people are out so late despite the
rain, which has not let up for days.
Fortunately, there is Jin, the soul glimmer
in this darkness.
Do you feel the golden copper colored light
it kindles in you?
I am walking through the city of an evening
in the warmth of Jin; I walk for nights on
it; I dream or talk to myself interminably.
Yes, like this evening; and, I fear making
your head swim somewhat.
Thank you.
You are most courteous.
But, it is my overflow.
As soon as I open my mouth, sentences pour
out.
Besides this country inspires me, I like this
crowd of people swarming on the pavements,
who wedged into a little space of houses and
canals; hemmed in by fogs, cold lands and
the sea steaming like wet washing.
I like it for it is double; it is here and
elsewhere.
So, you see like its people, the country also
has a double.
The hypocrisy, the duplicity – it is everywhere;
it is there in the city itself.
The city has two faces like people.
So, it is a commentary; it is a brutal commentary
on the then European society; it is moral
hypocrisy; it is duplicity; it is mendacity;
and, the lies it told to itself and its people.
Yes, indeed.
From hearing the heavy tread on the dam pavement,
from seeing them more ponderously in and out
of their shops, full of gilded earrings and
jewel, the color of dead leaves, you probably
think they are here this evening.
You are like everybody else; you take these
good people for a tribe of syndics and merchants
counting up their gold crowns together with
their chances of eternal life, whose only
lyricism consists in occasionally without
doffing their broad brimmed hats taking anatomy
lessons, who wrong.
They walk along with us.
Holland is a dream, a dream of golden smoke.
It is like a picture of hell being Gold smoke
– smokier by day; more gilded by night.
So, greed, flash trade, smoke, the heat; it
is almost like living in hell.
We will continue with this.
Thank you.
