The Climax Of The Story Of Raymond And Meursault

Meursault's character is the determining factor in his conviction and sentencing. His social rebellion is deemed immoral and abominable. The reader and the novel's characters both try to rationalize Meursault's actions in order to give his life meaning. But according to Meursault, life is meaningless and consequently needs no justification.

When Meursault first speaks with his lawyer, he asked Meursault to say that he had held back his “natural feelings. “[Meursault] said, ‘No, because it’s not true.’ [The lawyer] gave [him] a strange look, as if he found [him] slightly disgusting” (65). Here, we see someone looking for causation, and Meursault being blunt about how there truly is not a cause for the murder. As the trial commences, the only thing Meursault notices it how “the trial opened with the sun glaring outside”, and that “despite the blinds, the sun filtered through in places and the air was already stifling” (82, 83). Both of these descriptions use diction that is very similar to the diction used to describe the heat and light on the day of the murder. This can lead to the conclusion that the only possible cause for the murder that could be justifiable for society is the heat, how oppressive it is, and how it ultimately led to his final murder of the Arab.

The same moral ambiguity is also present in Meursault's murder of the Arab and the ensuing trial. As far as absolute morality goes, the murder is without question an act that falls on the "evil" side of ethics. That point is not a topic for debate, but in the reasons behind it the reader can find even more of Meursault's moral ambiguity. At the time, he does not seem to know why he is doing what he is doing, but it is certainly not out of spite or malice, nor out of any specific hatred of the Arab himself. He could be harboring a grudge on behalf of his friend, which would be understandable, since Raymond is one of the only people we see Meursault truly connect with in the novel, if it can even be called that. He could be taking preemptive action in self-defense, especially after he sees the knife glinting in the Arab's hand. In truth, it is never truly revealed what his motive for his rash action was, making it hard again to

I also don’t understand why Meursault had to write the letter to Raymond’s mistress. I hate Raymond. I hate him so much, his reasons for his violence are ridiculous. Is the book making a point that one’s complacency can be detrimental to others? I’m just wondering because Meursault is constantly talking about that poor dog, but never does anything. And when Raymond asks what his opinion was on his act of violence and Meursault stays indifferent. It’s ridiculous.

The answer is simple: it does not relate to the murder of the Arab. Being the representative of society, the jury opposes Meursault and accuses him of not conforming to society's natural ways, and being what we nowadays refer to as the "odd one out". They exclude him from society for his odd clear-cut and sincere demeanor, and for his manifestation of an inexpressive character. Another example is the moment in which the magistrate, a local member of the judiciary having limited jurisdiction, especially in criminal cases, questioned Meursault.

In the novel The Meursault Investigation, Kamel Daoud weaves a sister story for Albert Camus’s The Stranger, and has a dialogue of sorts with Camus. At times Daoud’s novel is very critical of Camus, standing in opposition to the attitudes and themes in The Stranger. The existence of The Meursault Investigation and the character of Musa is a criticism of the incomplete picture that Camus paints in his story, and the namelessness of “The Arab” that Meursault killed. Daoud gives a name to Meursault’s victim beyond that of “The Arab.” At other times, Daoud’s book parallels a lot of the ideas put forth by Camus. This can be seen as Harun slowly comes to resemble the man who killed his brother after committing a murder

Meursault is an independent and absurd guy who refuses to lie about himself to save his life. At the beginning of the book he avoids conversation and showed existentialism. For example, when the caretaker asked him, why he doesn’t want to see his mother’s body, he just simply said “I don’t know”. Another reason is when he would say, “marriage, no marriage, who cares.” Towards the ending of the book he starts to open up. In order for him to realize how wrong he was, he had to suffer the consequences. Meursault states, “For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone; I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate(2.5.165). “Meaning, he finally has awareness and is open-minded about his life.

This essay will answer the question of ¨Is Meursault guilty for the crime?¨. I do believe that he is guilty for murdering the arab. There is no question that the arab died from the first of 5 rounds fired at him. However even though he is guilty, I also believe that the accuser took advantage of Meursaultś quiet and gloomy demeanor to sway the case in the wrong direction.

Meursault is truthful, therefore not only is his guilt dealt with at the murder trial, but his personal views and opinions come out as well. In fact, during the trial his lack of emotion about his mother’s death seemed to be of more importance than the murder he committed. From this it seems that truth is a crime and

Meursault was introduced as a young man whom recently found out his mother, Maman, died. He was not the most emotional person, but he dealt with his feelings the best he knew how. Meursault lived his life on the verge of truth and honesty. He was honest within every aspect of life, from women to freedom. He was never certain about anything in life ,but one thing he was sure of, death was inevitable. After murdering an Arab, he was on trial in front of many people being interrogated with many questions about why he did what he did, but also to evaluate his psyche about the situation. Unlike others, Meursault did not hide from the truth and that is what others could not cope with. Living his life the way others were afraid to, Meursault was the outcast in his society.

In the novel, The Stranger, author Albert Camus confronts some important issues of the time, and uses the singular viewpoint of the narrator Meursault to develop his philosophy and effectively weave together themes of absurdity, colonialism, and free will. Through the progressive disruption of Meursault’s life and his characterization, Camus presents the absurdity of the human condition along with the understanding that a person can actually be happy in the face of the absurd. Camus also intentionally sets the story in the colonized country of Algeria, and hints at the racial tensions that exist between French-Algerians and Arabs.

The story begins with “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know” (3). The lines introduce Meursault’s key personality trait, his indifference. He simply states the facts and has little emotional expression when talking about his mother’s passing. At his mother's funeral, he felt others expected him to talk and show emotion and it made him uncomfortable.

This easy-going, pleasant hedonism is interrupted permanently by Meursault's murder of the Arab on the beach. Not only is he incarcerated, but also he must examine the reality behind the illusion of his trial and, ultimately, of his life. Introspection has not been his metier. It takes him a while to realize that the judge, the jury, the journalists, even his own lawyer, do not wish him well. Meursault finally realizes that he is going to be convicted, not because he killed an Arab but because he did not mourn his mother's death.

The courtroom portrays Meursalt as an appalling man for enjoying himself the day after his mother’s funeral. The broad statement said by the prosecutor shows that society does not allow one to have any entertaining moments after a time of repentance because it is thought to be disrespectful. A quick rebuttal by Meursalt’s lawyer helps realign the trial so that it is actually focusing on why they are having the trial in the first place by saying, ““Come now, is my client on trial for burying his mother or for killing a man?” The spectators laughed.” (96). The trial never focuses on why Meursalt killed the Arab man and no one ever bothers to make any real efforts to discover his motives. This reveals that the courtroom is more interested in the type of person Meursalt is and how he can be a danger to society than the death of the Arab. The courtroom judges Meursalt as a heartless man with the only intention of killing a man because he felt like it, yet neither ever proves the killing of the Arab, not even in their closing speeches.

Furthermore, he covers the Arab’s intentions when talking about the same blade that persists in bringing Meursault pain. He describes the stabbing as a “scorching blade [that] slashes at [his] eyelashes and stabs at [his] stinging eyes” (59). The moment that the blade brings itself to Meursault’s face and slashes at his eyelashes, of course, is the point at which Meursault acknowledges that everything is beginning to reel. Finally, under the influence of the sea’s fiery breath and the sun’s scorching attitude, Meursault admits that “the trigger gave” when reminiscing on the death of the Arab (59). Not until after he blames the trigger for the mishap does he use first person to describe the negative actions, as he shoots the Arab four more times. At this point, perhaps, he realizes his own fault within the situation as he continues to set himself in place for the remainder of part one.