Meursault is an honest man of few words and has a different viewpoint on life. Therefore, his peers for the jurors should be honest and share the same viewpoint on life; the existential way of thinking. (In case you didn't read my previous post, an existential mindset is one where everything is pointless. Nothing matters because everyone lives and everyone dies. What happens in between doesn't matter). Unfortunately, no one else in France shared the same mindset (they also didn't bother to look), so the jury wouldn't qualify as being Meursault's peers.
With that on mind, the trial isn't really fair. I mean it's almost as if no one is on Meursault's side except for the witnesses (Marie, Perez, Celeste, Raymond, and Salamano). Not even the defense lawyer would try to show Meursault as innocent. A just lawyer would give their 110% in trying to win the case. No matter how hard or twisted the case is, the lawyer would take the smallest piece of good and make it seem like the best thing in the whole entire world. Meursault's lawyer definitely did not do that. Okay, I'll give him that fact that he tried to avoid death. But, the legal system is supposed to bring justice and even though it did, just not in the right way.
I say this because instead for being tried for killing the Arab, he's being tried for his existential mindset and he was sentenced to death because of it. The prosecution forgot the real crime and put the thought that Meursault was soulless in the jury's minds. That was his whole case and the jury just ate out of the prosecution lawyer's hand. Every chance he got, he mentioned Maman's death and how Meursault didn't cry and that the next day, he went out and enjoyed himself with a female companion (he used the term, "mistress") at the beach, to a comedy, and finally back at his house to spend the night.OBJECTION! Relevance.
Thanks to my law studies class, I know a thing or two about the court system and if this trial was conducted today and in America, the information about Maman's death that the prosecutor tried to use against Meursaults case wouldn't have been used for the verdict because as I stated above, the information is irrelevant. Meursault would still have to plead guilty, but he would have 25 to life in prison, not the death sentence by guillotine. If Meursault's lawyer just used the objection, then the trial probably would have been just. I can't make an assumption though, because that's not what happened.
To simply get my point across, I believe that there's no justice served by the verdict of death, especially from how the trial went.
After the verdict, Meursault went back to his cell to wait for the inevitable day; his death day. He's been given many chances to speak to the chaplain, but he refused every time. So, instead, the chaplain visited him to see why. Once the chaplain learned that Meursault thought that God was pointless because of his existential mindset, he lost it. The chaplain didn't understand and tried to force God onto him. This didn't end well...
The guards had to protect the chaplain from Meursault and before the chaplain left, he looked at Meursault and cried.The reason? I believe that it's because the chaplain's belief in God is so supreme, that he cannot imagine a soul that doesn't believe in God. He must find it not only sad, but hurtful becuase the chaplain may think that Meursault is so broken that nothing can repair him. Because of this, he may fear that God will not allow Meursault into his kingdom since he never had faith and he never will. That's just the way I think of it, I may be wrong since Camus didn't blatantly say it.
Before this, Meursault showed the reader a little more about himself. He spoke about his father. He said that his father saw a public execution (what was going to happen to Meursault) and how his father spent half of that day throwing up.
Then, he says, "But now I understood, it was perfectly normal. How had I not seem that there was nothing more important than an execution, and that when you come right down to it, it was the only thing a man could truly be interested in?" Mr. nothing is important because everything is pointless contradicted himself. This is the second time he has done this. The first time was when he said on page 90, "...I had this stupid urge to cry, because I could feel how much all these people hated me." What others think should be pointless to Meursault, but on the verge of death (His death wasn't decided yet for the first time he contradicted himself, but I have a feeling that he knew either way) he would open up a little more to the reader. He let the reader see Meursault as vulnerable, even if slightly. Then the next question is, why the heck would he think that an execution was important?? Well, he said that it's the only thing a man could be interested in, but why would a death of one person interest another? That means that Meursault would watch an execution if he could (He did say it once he was back in his cell) and that means that it would matter enough for him to watch it. Meaning that he could have just contradicted himself again, showing more vulnerability to the reader.
Still on the topic of execution, but now to Meursault's execution. He stated that he wanted a crowd of angry people at his execution and that he wanted to be greeted with cries of hate. This is what he didn't want in the courtroom but now he contradicts himself (again) and says that he wants it but for his execution. Earlier he said that an execution was the most important thing because it's the only thing a man could be interested in, so if everyone who showed him hatred in the courtroom made an appearance to his execution, Meursault would be the center of interest. It doesn't matter if the people around him hate him or love him, it's all the same. He'll be dead either way. He wants it to be people who hate him because he can have a point against them, for a lack of a better term. He'll be on the same level, literally, when he's beheaded, but mentally, he'll be a level ahead because he's the center of interest, not just the center of attention. Then the hate that he gets will go away because it truly doesn't matter. He's dead by the time any of the hatred can get to his head.
That's how Camus wanted Meursault to be. Meursault is almost the perfect example of a person with an existential mindset. Nothing Meursault did mattered to him. Not until the trial came and his mother's death came to question along with the hatred of every single person in the room (minus about three people). Other than that, if you want to get a grasp on how someone would think and act under the existential mindset, Meursault is the nearly perfect candidate.
I'm sorry if my thoughts seem to be everywhere, it's late and I'm tired. I do hope that you enjoyed my interpretation of part two :) .
No comments:
Post a Comment