The audience member sitting in the theater watching a performance of The Misunderstanding can easily be forgiven for any confusion which might arise over whether this playwright named Albert Camus is the same Camus that wrote “The Myth of Sisyphus.” Arguably the most work by this icon of existentialist literature, “The Myth of Sisyphus” is a short essay that is among the most optimistic expressions of philosophy of all time and certainly of that which was written in the 20th century.
The Misunderstanding creates a sense of misunderstanding among some familiar with that defining text of existential thought because it almost grotesquely pessimistic by comparison. The divergence between incredible optimism that could find in the punishment of Sisyphus to eternally fail in rolling that rock up a hill a joyous embodiment of existence has transformed into an almost nihilistic acceptance of impossibility. Martha and the mother both give voice to the fundamental premise at work in this drama when one observes and the other repeats “this world doesn’t make sense.” The strange thing is that this expression is also true of the world in which the myth of Sisyphus becomes the metaphor of existential spirit.
What is disturbing here is that Camus penned “The Myth of Sisyphus” in 1942 and it was just a year later that The Misunderstanding followed. What happened in the interim that made the perspective of Camus turn so bleak? Interestingly, although the greater majority of criticism of the play identified it as being a dark turn away from the blinding optimism of his treatment of Sisyphus, this is not a viewpoint shared by the author. Although deeply disappointed by the public reaction to the play which would lead ultimately to his consideration of it as a failure, Camus blamed only himself for not successfully putting across the message he intended. It is a failure of transmission: Camus did not see his play as one presenting a nihilistic perspective despite others doing exactly that.
It is difficult to take Camus at his word even though he was an unusually honest artist regarding his work. It is almost beyond conception to imagine that the man who wrote The Misunderstanding could fail to perceive its pervasive darkness. Camus has claimed that the fault in interpretation lies in his inability to make it clear that the narrative turns thematically the failure of certain characters to do small things that, had they been done, would have altered the course of their fate. Fate is always a big deal in the works of Camus. The world is absurd and one cannot change that, but once one accepts this truth, one can become dominion over their response to the absurdity. Camus would one believe that is the lack of dominion by Jan or Martha or Mother to take control over small details of their lives that leads them inexorably toward the bleak end that cannot be denied even by Camus.
This seems unusually disingenuous for Camus. A writer so powerful that he can transform the idea of eternally pushing a rock up an incline almost to the point of getting it all the way up to level only to watch as it once again vainly rolls back to its starting into a success story that celebrates existence should certainly be able to convince an audience that the dark vision of existence which is self-contained in the story of Jan, Martha and Mother is subject to something as simple as agency. But not only is agency lacking in the play, even the possibility of agency is difficult to locate. Perhaps Camus was going through something so personally bleak that he could not come to terms with it.
Whatever the case, when watching The Misunderstanding it is very difficult to reconcile its view of the value of existence with that of the author of “The Myth of Sisyphus.” What’s more, it is difficult to reconcile the explanation by Camus of why this play does not verge precariously close to the edge of outright nihilism. Mother and Martha, it turns out, a quite wrong. It is not the world they inhabit which does not make sense, it is the point of executing any sense of agency over it or making any attempt to approach its absurdity with rationality.
