This novel is a very serious man versus man case that is not necessarily Meursault versus the Arab but Meurault versus the world in a twisted dream in which he is not tried by his crime…. or is he?
His character is put on trial, not the actions that landed him in court. We see that in the eyes of the jury, his personality and demeanor seem to be a crime in itself. They serve looks to him, laugh at him, seem to cringe when he confesses that he smoked at his mothers funeral. The jury in this novel, and the courtroom as a whole may represent society as a whole. Society wants Meursault to act like everyone else, society wants everyone to blend in and be approachable, and nice, and fit this cookie cutter shape of what a man and his feelings should be. But Meursault doesn’t do this,and this makes the jury very uncomfortable. Could his indifference and “defiance” be the crime punishable by death?
Is his unique display of grief and a lack of emotion that makes the jury squirm in their seats something that defines a monster? Maybe it is the advertisement of this man as a monster that convinces the jury of his undeniable guilt of not being just a murderer, but of being cold, and soul-less. Is it that because Meursault does not fit into the cookie cutter of society’s expectation of behavior, he was condemned even before he killed the Arab?
The death of the Arab, though the catalyst for his confinement, is not what Meursault is being punished for, and he seems to know it. He never considers the family of the Arab, or apologizes, or thinks much of it at all even during the trial. Perhaps if he had committed some other crime, his peers would find him to be unsatisfactory, and punish him severely for his crime against the French people. The crime which is not so much his transgression versus the law, but his transgression versus acceptable behavior. Behavior that is not ridiculously unacceptable in the context it was performed in, however when compiled it creates a person who is so inhuman that the jury feels no empathy for the man who is grieving the most, or perhaps, as some people have argued, not feeling anything at all.
I find it even more concerning to think that Meursault was in grief while he was free. When someone is grieving, the react uniquely, and no one is supposed to judge how you react because it is so unique and personal, however by judging Meursault’s grief by determining he is emotionless, the strip from him the one thing that made him seem human to the jurors, and drive the verdict towards guilt without even considering the fact that grief can drive people to depression and blackouts and a plethora of other things that are incredibly unique. Unique is what Meursault IS and by stifling him, the jury, and society is stifling the diversity of the population.
You talk a lot about how grief might have played a role in his actions, and I agree with you. During the trial the prosecutor bases his evidence mainly on the funeral and what happens after, because before his mother's death he seems normal at least in the eyes of the people around him. We hear that he worked well and was a friend which means that much of his town does not agree with the idea that he is a monster. I think bringing the fact that he might be grieving into the equation is important for the entire novel and especially the trial part.
ReplyDeleteTowards the end of the novel I began to almost like Meursault. I was sort of on the hate train (with Jonah) for the majority of the book and disliked him a lot. However you mentioned his uniqueness and that everyone has their own way of grieving. I agree with you that it is a possibility that he reacted in a bad way becuase of his grief. It is just hard to tell becuause we only get the story from Muersaults perspective.
ReplyDeleteThat's very interesting, I actually reacted in the opposite way. For most of part one, Meursault reminded me of Howie and I didn't feel like he was too terribly devoid of emotion. I generally saw him as innocent and withdrawn, not as a monster. However, my opinions changed when Meursault apparently felt no remorse for his killing of the Arab. I felt that he had crossed a moral event horizon, he'd gone too far in his uncaring attitude. However, I do agree that his actions may have been due at least in part to his grief and that he is unique. It's fascinating how varied people's opinions on Meursault have been.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete