Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Meursault is imprisoned for murder and is put on trial. Most, if not all of the evidence in the case is aimed at Meursault's character. The prosecutor focuses especially on his lack of emotion upon his mother's death. This doesn't seem fair, but at the same time Meursault can't explain why he shot the Arab. He says it just happened that way, and later that it was because of the sun. His friend Celeste testifies that it was just "bad luck," which makes Meursault almost gleeful (a rare expression of emotion!) From his initial conversation with the magistrate we know that Meursault has been honest about what happened, but he doesn't take it entirely seriously. He believes he has a "simple case." Why is this not a serious matter for him?

The magistrate is particularly interested in the four shots that were fired after the first one. I think the assumption here is that the last shots are unnecessary and gratuitous; usually this would be interpreted as a sign of anger, which would show his motive. In Meursault's case it doesn't seem to matter.

I vaguely understood that to his mind there was just one thing that wasn't clear in my confession, the fact that I had hesitated before I fired my second shot. The rest was fine, but that part he couldn't understand.

I was about to tell him not to dwell on it, because it really didn't matter.

In the absence of a rational explanation for the murder, is it fair for the magistrate and the prosecutor to question Meursault's character? Is it fair for us to judge him, based on what we know about him? Wouldn't we consider someone who can commit murder without remorse a danger to society?

Meursault faces his death in a way that is fitting for an absurd hero. Many of the themes from the Myth of Sisyphus turn up in the last chapter. Does the example of Meursault help you understand what Camus means by the absurd and the Absurd Man?

Thomas wrote: "From his initial conversation with the magistrate we know that Meursault has been honest about what happened, but he doesn't take it entirely seriously. He believes he has a "simple case." Why is this not a serious matter for him? "

I do not think the issue is that Meursault does not take the case seriously. He takes the facts seriously, but not the interpretive demands placed on them. When he says he has a “simple case,” he means that a man was killed, he admits it, and the sequence of events is clear to him.

This is because for Meursault, seriousness attaches to what happened, not to how it must be explained. Once the facts are stated, the case is exhausted. Everything beyond that belongs to a way of thinking he does not inhabit; he treats the courtroom as a place where facts are weighed, when in reality it is a place where souls are persuaded. The killing establishes danger. Silence establishes alienation. Emotional flatness establishes moral threat.

A defendant who does not appear to suffer, repent, or fear does not merely fail to defend himself. He undermines the very conditions under which mercy is possible.

David wrote: "This is because for Meursault, seriousness attaches to what happened, not to how it must be explained. Once the facts are stated, the case is exhausted. Everything beyond that belongs to a way of thinking he does not inhabit; "

That is why he is the stranger, I suppose. He's outside society. I'm not sure though that the seriousness of his crime really takes hold at any point. It's not just that he doesn't have remorse, it's that he doesn't recognize the value of the life that he took. It's interesting that there is almost no mention of "the Arab" during the trial. He doesn't even have a name.