Analyzing the Fairness of Mersault's Trail in The Stranger

This essay critically examines the fairness of Mersault's trial in Albert Camus's The Stranger, delving into various critical perspectives on his guilt or innocence. The essay begins by referencing Dorothy H. Lee's analysis of Mersault's detachment from time and its implications on his experiences, which is a key element in understanding his character. It then explores J. McCann's examination of Mersault's innocence, presenting different arguments on the matter. The essay also discusses Jonathan Masur's perspective, which focuses on Mersault's lack of emotion at his mother's funeral as a central point of the trial. By synthesizing these varied viewpoints, the essay provides a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding Mersault's trial and the different ways in which critics have interpreted his actions and the justice system's response.

Running Head: FAIRNESS OF MERSAULT’S TRAIL IN THE STRANGER BY ALBERT
CAMUS
Fairness of Mersault’s trial in The Stranger by Albert Camus
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1FAIRNESS OF MERSAULT’S TRAIL IN THE STRANGER BY ALBERT CAMUS
According to Dorothy H. Lee in her journal article “Denial of the Time and the
Failure of Moral Choice: Camus’s “The Stranger”, Faulkner’s “Old Man”, Wright’s “The
Man who lived Underground” ”, making the protagonists of the twentieth-century fiction
undergo a ‘pervasive existential anguish’ is a tool used by the authors to make them deny the
continuum of time. By stating that, Lee implies that the characters are thrown into moments
of isolation in terms of experience and there lies no connection between the various segments
of time and/or events. These characters are seen to be in a continuous quest for situations
where the seeking for progression of the dynamics of time is distorted due to some repetitive
acts. In the similar light, Lee also states that the character of Mersault in The Stranger is very
much similar to that of The Myth of Sisyphus where the absurd hero carries out his evaluation
of experiences in a quantitative manner and hence only keeps the present moments in
succession as a part of his consideration and understanding. However, there is a huge
difference when Sisyphus and Mersault are compared since the latter is “aware of little
beyond sense impressions” (Lee). Mersault does not revolt against the various absurdities of
time consciously. The construct of time for him is nothing but “a series of discontinuous
moments where self-contained experiences are affected by no past, affect no future.” (Lee).
However, in a paradoxical sense of the term, he also goes on to reject his responsibility and
hence experiences guilt. If the text of The Stranger is divided between the pre-murder and
post-murder chapters, then it is visible that his prior sense of sharpness later became moments
of drifting into the various events instead of seizing them. Many instances such as Mersault
not recollecting his mother’s age, his astonishment in knowing about the days of the week; he
has no construct of the passage of time that he has spent in the prison- “all the same.” (Lee).
He even fails to realise that his imprisonment is a consequence of the murder he had
committed. He refuses to believe that he is a part of a system which is governed by the cause
and effect factors. He has no sense of responsibility when it comes to the acts that he has

2FAIRNESS OF MERSAULT’S TRAIL IN THE STRANGER BY ALBERT CAMUS
committed. Hence, it is obvious that his trail and the imprisonment did not have much
fairness in it.
J. McCann in his article The Verdict of Mersault Vol. 29, no. 2 from Nottingham
French Studies inspects the nature of Mersault’s innocence as according to him, this is one of
the most significant questions that need to be addressed. While examining the nature of
innocence, he raises some significant questions such as “can we know what is meant by
innocent? Does it mean free from blame, ignorant of evil, unable to harm or simply not found
guilty?” (McCann) There are ample of arguments on this particular aspect of the novel. Some
critics like Philip Thody states that Mersault does not qualify to be put through the trail –“The
sea and the sun, the objects of his only enthusiasm, impel Mersault to commit the crime for
which he will be executed.” (McCann). Whereas John Cruickshank agrees by pointing out-
“Camus removes even more responsibility from Mersault by describing the trigger of his gun
as ‘giving way’ rather than being pressed.” (McCann). There is also strong criticism in
opposing this view where Cruickshank states that the protagonist had undone a moment of
delusion that led him to believe that he was being attacked. However, there is also a question
that arises out of the confusion- whether deeming Mersault as innocent, the Arabs’
importance gets diminished. This dilemma is addressed by Conor Cruise O’Brien- “There is a
contradiction here which needs to be explored. Mersault is not a chrysalis changing naturally
and inevitably into a fully adult form. Rather, he is seen to call upon an outside force,
misfortune, to act as a catalyst. As ‘conduirait’ indicates, he may not be in control but on the
other hand, it was certainly his intention to let the invoked force do its work. It is not,
therefore, possible to assume innocence if he can know and call to ‘Malheur’. (McCann)”
In Premeditation and Responsibility in The Stranger, Jonathan Masur states that- “the
centrepiece of the trial is not Meursault’s shooting of the Arab, its unprovoked nature or even
Meaursalt’s inability to justify his actions or even account for them. Rather, the trial focuses

3FAIRNESS OF MERSAULT’S TRAIL IN THE STRANGER BY ALBERT CAMUS
on Meursault’s failure to show emotions at his mother’s funeral.” (Masur). According to
Masur, Meursault was convicted because he failed to shed tears along with the streak of
similar behaviour at various points in his life. This record and testimony allow the prosecutor
to sentence him to death. However, Camus’s readers are only aware of the fact that it was
Meursault’s existential ideal that was taking form and shape. The portrayal of the trail was
also full of a sense of otherness because of his origin being French-Algerian. Camus carefully
builds up the narrative so that the readers can understand Meursault’s lack of emotion at the
funeral and the killing was a part of his “general indifference, not his depravity. (Masur)”.
Masur also highlights that fact that critic Posner rightly judged the lack of Mersault’s
emotions during the funeral as “the touchstone for Camus’s message” (Masur) and it forms a
critical response towards the interpretation of the novel.
Thus, the basic question being based on the fairness of the trail, I have explored the
opinion of various critics, but there is no one answer when it comes to such dilemmas in
literature.

4FAIRNESS OF MERSAULT’S TRAIL IN THE STRANGER BY ALBERT CAMUS
Work Cited
Lee, Dorothy H. “DENIAL OF TIME AND THE FAILURE OF MORAL CHOICE:
CAMUS'S ‘THE STRANGER’, FAULKNER'S ‘OLD MAN’, WRIGHT'S ‘THE MAN
WHO LIVED UNDERGROUND.” CLA Journal, vol. 23, no. 3, 1980, pp. 364–371. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/44328582. Accessed 16 Apr. 2020.
Masur, Jonathan. "Premeditation and Responsibility in The Stranger." Fatal Fictions: Crime
and Investigation in Law and Literature (2017): 212.
McCann, J. "The Verdict Of Meursault". Nottingham French Studies, vol 29, no. 2, pp. 52-
57., Accessed 16 Apr 2020.