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 Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
I think we are missing the point here; Meursalt's claims that he killed the Arab because of the "sun". However, there essentially was no reasoning behind killing the Arab, and Meursalt realizes that. This is the fundamental philosophy behind absurdism. Meursalt at one point realizes that he could "shoot" or he could "not shoot" and it would mean the same thing. Meursalt could plead self-defense, but he would not mean it, and as we know, Mersault is an almost unfeeling and detached character who simply observes life and comments on it exactly as he feels. There is no morality or sense behind his actions.
Meursalt finally accepts death because he believes that there is no fundamental difference between dying of natural causes at an old age or dying by execution. Therefore, there would be no point in pleading self-defense at all to preserve a life that would eventually end.
I think this novel primarily focuses on the invariable occurence of Death or deterioration at some point in time, making all our actions and our distinctions between morality and immorality, essentially, pointless.
2007-10-14 17:27:26 · answer #1 · answered by takemeaway890 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't forget that the man he killed was an Arab - in French-ruled Algeria at the time, killing an Arab was not a major crime. So really he shouldn't have been facing the trial at all.
It's precisely because of his (from the court's point of view) strange attitude to life, and particularly towards the death of his mother, that the crime was taken seriously at all.
In this context, pleading self-defence wouldn't have helped - the court was out to get him for his weird attitude.
2007-10-13 00:31:39 · answer #2 · answered by Daniel R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Silly, of course he's reading it! Have you never read it? Do you not know of the beach scene where he kills an Arab for no good reason? Irony abounds! And I am pretty sure he's not reading it in the original French. If he's reading the book, he's reading "The Stranger", the English translation.
2016-04-08 05:55:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read this book a few months ago and I had the same question. This book is very weird and the truth is that back in France (the setting of the book) laws are different. You cannot kill a person, end of discussion. It is a federal crime and he had no proof that the Arab was actually going to attack him. Therefore, the court found him guilty and he was decapitaded. Even if he would have said it was self defense... he has no proof and the court would not believe him.
Hope this helped :]
2007-10-12 12:17:18 · answer #4 · answered by hebronxtennis 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
This is a realistic version of justice.
Because you felt justified in doing something it doesn't mean the court will be believe your version .
Also I don't know in the French law at that time whether that would have been a reasonable defence
2007-10-12 17:56:10 · answer #5 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usually classed as an existential novel, The Stranger is indeed based on Camus's theory of the absurd. Camus presents the world as essentially meaningless and therefore, the only way to arrive at any meaning or purpose is to make it oneself. Thus it is the individual and not the act that gives meaning to any given context.
2007-10-12 12:33:46 · answer #6 · answered by sounditout 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The truth/reality is in the action, the shooting
Threats without action are not truths. I may hold a knife in front of you all day but I am never the truth or reality of my actions unless I stab you
2007-10-12 12:13:31 · answer #7 · answered by Scentless Apprentice 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
King George V on his deathbed speaks for Meursalt:
"Gentlemen, I am sorry for keeping you working like this ...
I am unable to concentrate."
2007-10-12 19:32:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋