The first lines of Albert Camus' The Stranger go something like this:

Mother died today. Or, maybe, yesterday

It's told in the present tense, as in, when Meursault is recounting the event it had happened that very same day. This tense continues for the next two paragraphs, emphasis mine:

The Home for Aged Persons is at Marengo, some fifty miles from Algiers. With the two o’clock bus I should get there well before nightfall. Then I can spend the night there, keeping the usual vigil beside the body, and be back here by tomorrow evening. I have fixed up with my employer for two days’ leave; obviously, under the circumstances, he couldn’t refuse. Still, I had an idea he looked annoyed, and I said, without thinking: “Sorry, sir, but it’s not my fault, you know.”


Afterwards it struck me I needn’t have said that. I had no reason to excuse myself; it was up to him to express his sympathy and so forth. Probably he will do so the day after tomorrow, when he sees me in black. For the present, it’s almost as if Mother weren’t really dead. The funeral will bring it home to me, put an official seal on it, so to speak. ...

Basically, these paragraphs have Meursault speaking as is the telegram arrived the day is speaking, the funeral the next day, and Meursault already having taken time to act on it and call off work. He can take the 2:00 bus tomorrow to arrive on time.

However, the next paragraph and the rest of the book go like this:

I took the two-o’clock bus. It was a blazing hot afternoon. I’d lunched, as usual, at Céleste’s restaurant. Everyone was most kind, and Céleste said to me, “There’s no one like a mother.” When I left they came with me to the door. It was something of a rush, getting away, as at the last moment I had to call in at Emmanuel’s place to borrow his black tie and mourning band. He lost his uncle a few months ago

Reading from this, he's speaking as if he had already taken the bus, lunched, and so forth in the past tense. This continues for the rest of the book and it's finally revealed at the end of the story that Meurasault was speaking in the past tense after the court case and just before the execution.

When I first read this, I thought it was a bad translation or something in the first few paragraphs. But every copy I can get hold of keeps the tenses as they are. The line "Mother died today. Or, maybe, yesterday" and its variations have even come to represent the book.

Why is the tense different for the first few paragraphs of The Stranger?


I'm not sure if whole books have been written on the topic, but at least whole book chapters have been. I haven't read this book, but I'll share my first impression.

One thing to note is that the English translation you quote is reasonably faithful. It slightly misses the effect of the original, however, in that it doesn't use a future tense. A more accurate translation of the beginning of the second paragraph would be (my translation):

The old people's home is in Marengo, eighty kilometers from Algiers. I will take the bus at two o'clock and I will arrive in the afternoon. This way I will be able to hold the wake, and I will come back tomorrow night.

Another thing that isn't apparent in the English translation is which past tense is used in most of the book. The normal tense in a novel is the passé simple. This is a literary tense, rarely used in everyday life in the 20th century, suitable for expressing that something happened at some past time. The Stranger is (apart from the first two paragraphs) written in the passé composé, which in literary usage is only used to indicate that something has been accomplished, but in everyday language is used for any past action. The use of passé composé gives a feeling of immediacy — the events that are narrated are still very relevant, whereas passé simple would tend to indicate a tale from the past. The use of passé composé also gives a feeling of informality, which is expressed in other ways: Meursault is a working class person, who uses simple language (also visible, for example, in the tendency to use of short sentences).

In many ways, the book is written like a personal diary. In this respect, the succession of tenses makes sense. The first few sentences are written in the present tense. They describe what Meursault thinks when he writes the first entry in this diary, soon after receiving the news that his mother has died. The part starting with “I took the two-o'clock bus” is the next entry in the diary, written after the bus trip.

Where this simple interpretation fails is that as far as I can tell, the opening is the only place where Meursault uses the present tense. It is unlikely that he would never need to express actions in progress. This singles out Meursault's mother's death as an exceptional event. Furthermore, that event is not only where the book starts, it's where the idea of the book starts. This singular use of the present makes it look like the news of Meursault's mother's death caused Meursault to start holding this diary. He was considerably shaken, and this kicked off the chain of events in the rest of the book.

The whole book is built on several ambiguities, including the extent to which Meursault is emotionally shaken by his mother's death and other events. The text, superficially, makes him look extremely detached, cold, emotionless. He writes simple descriptive sentences, showing no emotion, just like he shows no emotion in many other ways (not crying at his mother's funeral, shrugging when asked about marriage, ...). Yet there is subtext that shows him more affected under his cold attitude. I think the use of the present tense in the opening shows that he is emotionally shaken at his mother's death but does not realize it consciously.

| improve this answer | |

The first two (three, depending on the translation) paragraphs take place at a specific time after Meursault receives the telegram but before he boards the bus. The paragraphs after that describes his journey as he boards the bus, went to the home, etc. The change in tense (and the fact that the change in tense is accompanied by a new paragraph) is a very clear indication of the fact that the story fast forwarded.

Imagine you have a story with two events: you phone a friend the first day, and the second day you get lunch with that friend. One way to tell this story is "I called my friend, and the next day, we got lunch." Another way to tell this story is:

I'm calling my friend Jen. We're going to talk about our plans to get lunch.

We got lunch, and ___________.

The second approach can be confusing, but it is more concise. It has the benefit that you don't need to state the amount of time that took place between the phone call and the lunch.

| improve this answer | |
  • Interesting... so it is incorrect to say that the entire story was told from his point of view after the trial? I had assumed the entire manuscript was told by him after the events played out, but this skipping around means it was never "told" by him at one point in time at all. – GGMG-he-him Feb 12 '17 at 2:51
  • @GGMG The Stranger is one of the few books where knowing when/from what perspective the story is being told isn't relevant to the story. Meursault is a thought experiment; his perspective is constant throughout the book. – user111 Feb 12 '17 at 4:00
  • @medica you misunderstood my comment. Character development, and questions about Meursault's reliability as a narrator, are (intentionally) not important aspects of The Stranger. Hence why Camus is lazy about what tense he uses; he isn't thinking about when Meursault is narrating this story. – user111 Feb 12 '17 at 21:30
  • "Looking at the original French, a very small amount of this confusion is due to the translation." - could you elaborate on this, e.g. by quoting some of the original French or mentioning the grammatical differences between English and French in terms of tenses and their temporality? – Rand al'Thor May 1 '17 at 15:13

The first sentence, in French, contains an ambiguity about time which can't be translated into English. The original line is: "Aujourd'hui, maman est morte. Où peut-être hier, je ne sais pas."

In written French the past historic tense is normally used, but as this novel has a first person narrator, he uses the "passé composé" tense normally used in everyday speech. To form this tense, you usually use the verb "to have" followed by the past participle (similar to one of the past constructions in English, e.g. "I have written a letter").

However - a peculiarity of French is that certain verbs (15 common ones, mostly to do with motion) use the verb "to be" instead of the verb "to have". So in French you don't say, for example, "I have gone"; you say "I am gone".

One of these non-standard verbs is the verb "to die".

Therefore, you can legitimately translate the first line of the novel as "Today, Mum died" or "Today, Mum is dead". Most translations take the first option (though they unaccountably change the word order!), because otherwise the second sentence doesn't follow on too well.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    This is an excellent point, and shows why it's best to look at literature in its original language if possible. – Rand al'Thor May 28 '17 at 13:12
  • 3
    Maman est morte” could either mean “mom is dead” or “mom died” depending on the context. In the sentence “aujourd'hui, maman est morte”, there is no ambiguity: it means that mom died today (i.e. it implies that she was alive this morning). – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' May 28 '17 at 21:28
  • @Gilles meaning to ping you about this question. That was pretty much what I thought. – user111 May 28 '17 at 23:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.