Meursalt shoots dead a man who had been previously threatening to him and his friends, and who had before his eyes drawn and brandished a knife. Then the whole trial seems to revolve around Meursalt's attitude towards his mother and her recent death- and he gets sentenced to death!
Given that Meursalt wants to live, why would he not mention the man he shot had just drawn a knife on him? Any court would acquit him on those grounds. It just doesn't make sense. Camus says Meursalt stands for truth, if so, why doesn't this man mention the one obvious truth that would save him, ie, that he fired in self-defence?
2007-10-12
12:01:32
·
8 answers
·
asked by
Buzzard
7
in
Books & Authors