Although The Fall and The stranger share very lose meaning and underlying themes, they differ greatly in the point of view of absurdism and what it means to be a human coexisting in an absurd societal existence. In addition, they both draw very different conclusions in which ways the absurd has affected the two protagonists. In The Stranger, the reader is introduced to Meursault, a young man struggling with severe Candidness. His pristine honesty is his fundamental way of dealing with all life’s situations. When this is paired to a surfeit amount of absurd predicaments, it ultimately seals his fate. On the other hand there is Jean-Baptiste Clamence, a man beaten and bruised by life’s absurdities, who tells his story of his fall from grace to anyone who will listen. The difference is Meursault, separated from the rest of a society, he has deemed absurd, dies happily loyal to his personal beliefs. He does not wavier in the face of society’s absurd indifferences even in the face of death. He will die with dignity and as an exemplary victim of the absurdities of this life. In contrast, Clamence will go to his grave bitterly unsatisfied, haunted by a life of chicanery and irony destine to relive his downfall through the retelling of his cautious tale. Meursault has accepted his meaningless absurd existence and as consequence will die a happy death as opposed to Clamence who will struggle with meaning and regret for the remainder of his life and as a result will die unhappy.    
	In The Stranger, the reader receives there point of view through the eyes and experiences of Meursault who is a victim of the absurd rituals societies have become accustom to. He says what he is thinking and does what is most practical to him. Consideration for others and emotional sensitivity are not taken into consideration when interacting with fellow human beings. Meursault is the walking embodiment of the principle of causation. He is thrown in to situations where he reacts naturally to them and finds himself in isolation from the rest of society because he does not react accordingly. This is a clear example of the absurd. Gwendolyn Dolske explains, “human being’s urge to possess and understand the world—akin to what Climacus called comical—however this is not possible, and the human being is painfully aware of this impossibility.” Meursault himself is not absurd. Neither is his environment, but when they are paired together that is when the absurd is born. This is because most people find it easier to imitate others when deciphering life, but when encountering a person such as Meursault, one who has his own personal interpretations on the way things should work, conflict quickly ensues and leads to his undoing.
	The reader is first exposed to Meursault’s unfiltered insensitivity when he finds himself on the receiving end of some troubling news, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram at home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.” Although he has just found out his mother has died, it does not seem to bother him, but why should it? It is not a death that affects him dramatically. He admits that he and his mother hardly kept in touch and even when living together they rarely spoke, but to a large part of society losing one’s mother would be considered a devastating loss no matter the circumstances, but Meursault gives a natural reaction to this news. He does not try to appeal to general conscience. It is the first hint of his separation from predominant ethics and moralistic views. In the Myth of Sisyphus, we or given some context to this reaction in this statement, “the absurd mind cannot so much expect ethical rules at the end of its reasoning’s as, rather, illustrations and the breath of human lives.” In Meursault’s absurd mind he lacks the unspoken ethical rule to always show respect for the dead. Regardless it is not something that affects him deeply and he speaks of the matter trivially lacking any hint of emotion.
