The Stranger #5

Meursault’s murder trial becomes Camus’s primary vehicle of the absurdist philosophy.  Throughout the trial, both lawyers attempt to construct meaning out of Meursault’s past in order to justify their respective arguments, attempting to paint Meursault as the type of man who respectively would or would not commit a murder.  Part of the prosecutor’s evidence that Meursault is a murderer, for example, is Meursault’s “ignorance when asked Maman’s age” (99).  This information is completely trivial and does not necessarily provide any indication of Meursault’s insensitivity, yet the prosecutor claims that Meursault’s ignorance of this one simple number means that Meursault is undoubtedly a murderer.  Camus makes the prosecutor look ridiculous for making this leap of reasoning, and by extension, Camus points out the absurdity of extrapolating from the constructed significance of trivial actions.

Another example of evidence the prosecutor uses to show that the murder was premeditated is Meursault’s “swim the next day—with a woman” (99).  The reader realizes that this supposed evidence is totally meaningless because Meursault says so himself.  When Marie invites Meursault to swim with her, he agrees not because he predicts that responding “yes” to Marie is simply easier than responding “no.”  However, the prosecutor attempts to interpret this decision as an indication that Meursault takes delight in death.  To the reader, this reasoning appears even more ridiculous because the reader experiences first-hand the actual reasoning behind Meursault’s choice to go swimming, which does not have nearly as much significance as the prosecutor claims.

Ironically, the jury comes to the same conclusion that the reader does.  The reader sees clearly at the end of Part I that the murder is definitely not an accident; Meursault points the gun at the Arab slowly and carefully before he pulls the trigger.  However, the jury reaches the same verdict based on absurd extrapolations of meaningless events in Meursault’s past.  The difference is that the jury reaches their decision in a roundabout, unnecessary way, while the reader comes to his conclusion simply and quickly.  Camus’ points about the ridiculousness of interpreting meaningless actions rather than objectively examining what is concretely known in order to make faster and more sensible decisions.