No Tea, No Shade, Just Facts
Throughout class I think I’ve made my contempt for Raymond very clear. However, now that we’ve finished the book, I would like to do an overview of Raymond and his actions. The first impression we get of Raymond is when Meursault introduces him as a “warehouse guard”, heavily implying that he is a pimp. From the get-go we as readers are wary of his character, which is further reinforced after his first interaction with Meursault when he describes how he beat his mistress when he thought she was cheating on him. From our perspective as readers, we are understandably horrified, and rightly so. Raymond then proceeds to ask for Meursault's help in writing a letter “apologizing” to get her to come back so he can punish her further for her unfaithfulness. At this point, any shred of respect I have given Raymond was gone. What respect I had for Meursault at this point was further lost a few sentences later, when he agreed to write the letter. After Raymond beat his mistress again, he returned to Meursault to ask him to come with him to the police station and tell him that his mistress had been cheating on him (bear in mind we still do not know this for a fact). Meursault, again, agrees and defends Raymond. I don’t think I need to spell out for you why Raymond is awful for beating his mistress not once but twice, for something he doesn’t even know she did for sure (and gets away with it).
Of course, this altercation is what leads to the whole interaction with the mistress’ brother and his friends on the beach, and ultimately Meursault shooting the man. From this argument, Meursault could blame his whole situation on Raymond’s bad choices if he wanted to. Meursault never directly mentions it but I was certainly thinking it. Of course, it follows what we’ve seen of Raymond that in his testimony for Meursault has no mention of his own involvement in the situation. In relation to this, when Raymond defends Meursault's character at the trial, Meursault has already admitted to killing a man without good reason. Yet Raymond had no problem defending Meursault in court, saying that he was a good person and a good friend. Given Raymond’s track record I don’t think he’s a very good judge of character or a good person to be judging the morality of others.
I love this compilation of Reasons Why Raymond Sucks! I think your conclusion really pulls all these ideas together to show that Raymond really shouldn't be testifying on behalf of anyone else. This gets at the ridiculousness of the court system -- why should such an overall awful person be allowed to vouch for the terrible actions of another real bad man? It's an interesting situation because we readers know that Raymond and Meursault are both morally questionable, yet they both testify for each other in a court of law.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the whole trial, and fact that the police take no action after being called to Raymond's apartment is crazy and unsettling. It could definitely be a critique of Raymond through the analogy of Camus in WW2. However, I don't think the idea "Raymond is awful" should not allow him to testify or try to protect Meursault. In this case most of us would say "Raymond did something wrong" but there could be much more complex situations. I think this get's back to the potential problems of the courts judgement. If the everyone just said "Raymond's an awful person" is that really a fair trial, and would it set a precedent of judging people immediately? I'm not trying to justify Raymond's actions, but this book makes me question everything. I think it's easy to say people are bad or good but now i question if there really is a bad or good and if it's ok to judge people instead of actions!
DeleteI agree -- Raymond himself did something very very wrong, and was able to get away with it. I think it was pretty unreasonable for the system to allow someone like Raymond to testify on behalf of another criminal, especially considering his own past.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you. We sort of forgot about all of Raymond's problems later in discussion when the murder and trial happened, but he's really no better than Meursault. He and Meursault are really just terrible people who are buddies to each other, bailing (or attempting to bail) the other out of bad situations. It's honestly kind of disgusting to watch them ignore the absolute horrific actions of the other person, but it often gets forgotten in favor of figuring out the trial and Meursault. But I don't think we should forget about it because I think it adds to absurdity of the trial.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I think Raymond does some really awful things and deserves repercussions for his behavior. I think it's interesting that he, and Salamano, are able to testify for Meursault. It adds to Camus' question of how can we judge other people. Raymond and Meursault help each other out, and that is why they are able to have such positive perspectives on the other person. Does this make Raymond an unusable witness? Under our judicial system, yes, but Camus asks us if that should be the case.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with this. Meursault could have possibly avoided the murder he committed if he had simply stayed away from Raymond rather than going along with whatever he says. I think Meursault's "go with the flow" attitude and his inability to make strong choices from himself is a choice in itself. Like you mentioned during class, if you aren't explicitly against someone's actions, you are contributing to the problem.
ReplyDeleteI think you made some good arguments in this post. As the title suggests, this is a compilation of "... Just Facts" that represent your disdain for Raymond. I agree that he is terrible human for beating his wife (well, really I can't not agree. it's just a fact). What really confused me is Meursault's compliance with Raymond's demands. It's strange for most of the book, Meursault has an "it doesn't matter" attitude. However, when Raymond needs help in carrying out domestic violence, Meursault seems (low-key) enthusiastic, which makes me hate both of them even more. Anyway, nice post.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up the fact that, at the trial, Raymond talks about Meursault's personality but doesn't ever talk about the situation or the part he played in causing the shooting. This made me wonder if things would have gone differently for Meursault if he (or someone else) had spoken up and talked about other people's roles in the shooting. Even if Meursault still ended up receiving a death sentence, would Raymond have also received a similar punishment even though he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger?
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think Raymond's character could be viewed as another example in Camus' critique of society. Meursault does not "play the game," he is absolutely honest, whereas Raymond knows how to, and is not. And yet, Meursault is the one who is tried and convicted, and Raymond has the authority in this process to vouch for him.
ReplyDelete