Is there genuinely any justness in the novel The Stranger. written by Albert Camus? This is a inquiry that of course protrudes throughout the novel. as it is non copiously clear what Meursault. the supporter. was. in fact. set on test for. At the beginning of the 2nd portion of the narrative. it is understood that he is put on test for the slaying of an Arab ; nevertheless. it subsequently comes to our attending that the slaying was non the primary ground of his test. and possibly non even an indispensable 1 for that affair. The fact remains that Meursault was doubtless put on test. non for the slaying committed. but for being the manner he was: unemotional through the eyes of society. which was represented by the jury.
To the reader it seems merely natural that one should be put on test. non for their personality. but for the harmful Acts of the Apostless that one may perpetrate to another individual. Therefore. the thought is strongly implanted in the novel. every bit good as the head of the reader. that Meursault was put on test for slaying. Nevertheless. throughout the class of the novel. it becomes evident that he was. as a affair of fact. non set on test for the slaying of the Arab. but alternatively. for moving in such a stoic mode. Bing the honest. straightforward adult male he was. he answered all inquiries in that same behavior. Once Meursault had been appointed a attorney. his attorney inquired over the events of Maman’s funeral. Meursault responded instead in cold blood when his attorney had asked him if he had felt any unhappiness that twenty-four hours. stating that he “probably did love Maman. but that didn’t average anything.
At one clip or another all normal people have wished their loved 1s dead. ” ( p. 65 ) This citation merely demonstrates that he was unemotional. Now. one must inquire the undermentioned inquiry: how does this relate to the slaying of the Arab? The reply is simple: it does non associate to the slaying of the Arab. Bing the representative of society. the jury opposes Meursault and accuses him of non conforming to society’s natural ways. and being what we nowadays mention to as the “odd one out” . They exclude him from society for his uneven clear-cut and sincere demeanour. and for his manifestation of an inexpressive character.
Another illustration is the minute in which the magistrate. a local member of the bench holding limited legal power. particularly in condemnable instances. questioned Meursault. In this peculiar scene. the magistrate changes the subject instead suddenly from his love for Maman. to which he responded he loved “the same as anyone” ( p. 67 ) . to the slaying scene. What followed was a huge treatment on Meursault’s belief in God. which he felt instead apathetic about ; nevertheless. the magistrate. beckoning a rood to his face refers to him as the “antichrist” ( p. 71 ) . And subsequently. during the test. the justice and the prosecuting lawyer seem more intrigued by the fact that Meursault did non sorrow at his mother’s funeral and got involved with Marie the twenty-four hours after it. than the existent act that had been committed: the blackwash of a adult male. The bulk of the informants that had been called merely supported the statement of his indurate nature. as they really good cognize that Meursault was scarily blunt. and could non. or would non. make a perversion of the truth to suite his test. every bit good as his demand for freedom.
Throughout the test he is invariably asked about Maman. and whether she of all time complained about him. or if she had “reproached him for holding put her in the home” ( p. 89 ) . to which both. the reply was an affirmatory. After a piece. it becomes evident that they are no longer asking over the slaying. but alternatively. over his mother’s unfortunate decease. It arrives at the point that the prosecuting officer declares “‘The same adult male who the twenty-four hours change his female parent died was indulging in the most black orgy killed a adult male for the most fiddling of grounds and did so in order to settle an matter of utterable frailty. ‘” ( p. 96 )
To which Meursault attorney answers. “‘Come now. is my client on test for burying his female parent or for killing a adult male? ” ( p. 96 ) This is the important point of the novel. as it is here that it becomes apparent the true ground for which he is put on test. This is the cardinal inquiry throughout the full test. and the reply is obvious as the prosecuting officer steadfastly responds. “‘Indeed ( … ) I accuse this adult male of burying his female parent with offense in his bosom! ” ( p. 96 ) This is a instead profound statement that affects non merely the characters in the novel. but the reader every bit good. instead intensely.
Therefore. it becomes tangible that society. in other words. the jury attempted to manufacture and enforce rational accounts for Meursault’s irrational actions. The fact that he was so straightforward and onest was riotous and endangering to their society as they were non accustomed to it. and hence. they saw no significance. which would accordingly make pandemonium in their orderly lives. Meursault appears to make as he pleases. when he pleases. and hence. follows no form throughout his life. hence. society becomes threatened by him. which finally leads to his executing.