Bhaskara 1

Vinay Bhaskara Mr. Anagbo AP English 12 28 November 2012 Debunking the False Assumptions Inherent in Meursaults Murder Conviction The sound of four gunshots rings out. A man had walked down a beach, came upon an armed enemy and killed the enemy. Is this a case of cold-blooded murder? While a superficial consideration of Meursaults character traits conveys the impression that he is a man with no conscience who committed premeditated murder, in reality it is his low level of emotional maturity and that is confused with lack of conscience. When viewed through the prism of a combination of stunted emotions, loneliness, and general desensitization to violence, Meursault in fact does have a conscience. Moreover, because of his limited emotional development and the course of event preceding it, Meursaults crime is in fact legally a crime of passion (traditionally denoted as voluntary manslaughter or third degree murder in the United States). The entire misinterpretation of Meursaults character and actions stems primarily from his own lack of emotional maturity, which is perceived by the rest of society as evidence of Meursaults uncaring lack of conscience. In reality, Meursaults emotional mindset is akin to that of a child, or more accurately a confused and lonely teenager. At his core, Meursault is unsure of how to deal with emotionally complex situations, thus his response to such challenges is typically to ignore the source of the conflict, and in certain cases drive it away. Meursaults clipped and detached diction and language when describing his interpersonal interactions as well as his terse style of dialogue serve as a macro- level example of Meursaults inability to effectively deal with emotions. Several of the interactions that Meursault has with supporting

Bhaskara 2

characters, from his convoluted friendship with Raymond to his comforting of Salamano after the disappearance of the older mans dog, are quite complex and emotion-intensive. Yet it is precisely these events that Meursault chooses to describe with the most nonchalant and detached language, while simultaneously ascribing lusciously descriptive diction and similes to mundane inanimate objects like the shiny pulp of newly lain tar and the glossy black hat that looked like a lump of the same sticky tar (Camus 5-15). This tendency of Meursaults shows that he is unwilling and unable to confront his own feelings and that Meursault instead prefers to seek refuge in the banal. But the evidence of Meursaults stunted emotional development is not limited to the general and macro-level. In fact, in each of his major interactions with his peers, Meursaults inability to effectively deal with his emotions shines through. Perhaps the best example is his baffling friendship with Raymond: The word around the neighborhood is that he lives off women. But if you ask him what his job is, he says hes a warehouse guard. Generally speaking, hes not very popular. But he often talks to me, and sometimes stops by my place for a minute, because I listen to him. As a matter of fact, I find what he says quite interesting. Besides, I dont have any reason not to talk to him. His name is Sints; Raymond Sints (Camus 28). Even when Raymond is first introduced, Meursault himself admits to the characteristics which make Raymond repugnant to the rest of society. Yet especially when it is viewed in concert with the general lack of social interaction experienced by Meursault up until that point in the novel, it becomes equally evident that Meursault chooses to befriend Raymond not because of the second mans qualifications as a friend, but simply for lack of better options. In particular, the phrase, Besides, I dont have any reason not to talk to him, is indicative of a man who is just desperate enough for conversation and companionship that he will associate with a veritable social pariah.

Bhaskara 3

The loneliness behind Meursaults initial decision is also evidenced by his description of social life on the town that almost immediately precedes the fateful introduction of Raymond. In his description of the social scene that occurs on a square after a local football match and Sunday matinee film are completed, Meursalt imbues his seemingly dispassionate retelling with a tone of bittersweet longing, which is evidenced by the tense emotional backdrop he induces with his lengthy description of dark rain clouds hanging over the scene, as well as his tiredness and stiffness at the end of the description. The last line of the chapter also illustrates the depth of his emotional detachment. When Meursault reveals that, Maman was buried now and really, nothing had changed, it is further indication of his isolation (Camus 23-24). Some time after Raymond invites Meursault in for dinner, Meursault witnesses first hand Raymonds moral depravity when he sees Raymond beating his lover on the mere suspicion of infidelity. Yet when the two meet afterwards, Meursault doesnt even question Raymonds mistakes and instead offers to speak on Raymonds behalf and acts as an enabler of Raymonds misdeed (a fundamental lack of respect for women). At the end of that evening, the following report from Meursault is telling, So we took our time getting back, him telling me how glad he was that hed been able to give the woman what she deserved. I found him very friendly with me and I thought it was a nice moment (Camus 38). The fact that Meursaults primary takeaway from such a disturbing statement by Raymond was Raymonds general amiability shows that Meursault is desperate enough for companionship that he is willing to overlook almost any character flaw. The confused tenor of Meursaults emotions is also displayed in his confusing romantic relationship with Marie. When he first meets Marie and throughout the novel, Meursalt attempts to play off their relationship as purely sexual. However, the great degree of confusion that

Bhaskara 4

Meursalt displays whenever he interacts with Marie is far more characteristic of a first romantic relationship; he displays the same mix of awkwardness and reluctance often experienced in the apocryphal teenaged romances commonly portrayed in Western popular culture. For example, even just after their first sexual encounter, Meursault shows a remarkable degree of attachment to Marie: I remembered that it was Sunday and that bothered me: I dont like Sundays. So I rolled over and tried to find the salty smell Maries hair had left on the pillow, and slept until 10. Meursault seeks comfort in the physical indicators of Maries presence even after her departure, and uses it to overcome his gee: Given that the two had just met intimately for the first time, this immediate level of comfort is an early telltale sign of emotional attachment being formed (Camus 21). As their liason progresses, the intensity of Meursaults feelings for Marie increases in concert, though he attempts to hide this sentiment. In their next described encounter, he fumblingly denies being in love with Marie, yet he invites her for a post-coital meal. And after witnessing Maries disappointment on his denial of love, he seizes upon her next random action to make up for that disappointment in part, A minute later she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didnt mean anything but that I didnt think so. She looked sad. But as we were fixing lunch and for no apparent reason, she laughed in such a way that I kissed her (Camus 35). Such attunement to Maries feelings is an indicator of romantic attachment. His response to Maries marriage proposal further along is also indicative of his confusion and inability to come to terms with his own romantic feelings. Absent such feelings, Meursault would simply reject Maries proposal out of hand. But because he does have a degree of romantic concern for Marie, he instead vacillates between denying his romantic feelings and committing to marriage at the blink of an eye. When he thoughtlessly commits to marrying Marie without considering the implications of his acceptance, it is evidence that he lacks emotional maturity. On the eve of his

Bhaskara 5

fateful trip to the beach with Raymond, Marie once again makes Meursault feel better in an uncomfortable situation: Once out in the street, because I was so tired and also because we hadnt opened the blinds, the day, already bright with sun, hit me like a slap in the face. Marie was jumping with joy and kept on saying what a beautiful day it was. I felt a little better and I noticed that I was hungry (Camus 47). Even by the end of the novel, facing his own death, Meursalt refuses to admit to his feelings for Marie. But in reality, when he admits that he tries to see Maries face in the stone wall while imprisoned, Meursault is subconsciously expressing his romantic feeling: This roused me a little. I informed him that I'd been staring at those walls for months; there was nobody, nothing in the world, I knew better than I knew them. And once upon a time, perhaps, I used to try to see a face. But it was a sun-gold face, lit up with desire Marie's face. I had no luck; I'd never seen it, and now I'd given up trying. Indeed, I'd never seen anything taking form, as he called it, against those gray walls (Camus 119). Meursaults inability to come to grips with his feelings for Marie are a prime example of his lack of emotional maturity, as his pursuit of friendship with Raymond simply for the sake of having a friend (rather than because of any merit on Raymonds part). Any judgment of Meursaults conscience must also be tempered by this knowledge of his emotional immaturity. To begin with, it is important to understand exactly the definition of conscience. According to the dictionary, the precise definition of conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. There are two critical components of that definition, one implicit, the other explicit. The implicit condition is that for one to have a conscience, he or she need only know the difference between right and wrong. It is not necessary that he or she never do anything wrong, but simply be able to

Bhaskara 6

distinguish between right and wrong. Throughout the novel, many of the examples cited as examples of Meursaults lack of conscience in fact stem from his emotional timidity and loneliness. One of the key evidence points used in the trial to prove Meursalts lack of conscience, and thus by extension premeditation of murder, is Meursaults supposed abandonment of his mother to the home. And yet, he made bold to say, the horror that even the crime of parricide inspired in him paled beside the loathing inspired by my callousness. This man, who is morally guilty of his mother's death, is no less unfit to have a place in the community than that other man who did to death the father that begat him. And, indeed, the one crime led on to the other; the first of these two criminals, the man in the dock, set a precedent, if I may put it so, and authorized the second crime. Yes, gentlemen, I am convinced (Camus 101-102). Yet if one were to actually investigate the rationale behind Meursaults supposed moral complicity in his mothers death, the result would be far more nuanced. It turns out, that Meursaults abandonment of his mother to the home and neglect once she entered was in fact just his method of dealing with his mothers emotional outbursts. Meursault was afraid of dealing with his mothers melancholy, so he tried to push her further and further away to minimize the effort on his part: It was true. When we lived together, Maman used to spend her time following me with her eyes, not saying a thing. For the first few days she was at the home she cried a lot. But that was because she wasnt used to it. A few months later and she would have cried if shed been taken out (Camus 5). Furthermore, the dispassionate manner in which Meursault tends to describe the memories of his mother, and the characterization of his mother as following Meursault with her eyes implies that Meursault though his mother to be detached as well, almost neglectful. In a manner of speaking, the line at the end of the first chapter, one

Bhaskara 7

more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed (Camus 24), perfectly sums up Meursaults view of his mother; she did not affect his life, perhaps because Meursault would not allow her to do so. In the case of his mother, Meursaults conception of right and wrong is warped by the emotional wall he built between them, which means that he does not feel that sending Maman to the home and not outwardly mourning her death is morally wrong, even if that is the consensus of the rest of society. Yet this is not evidence of a lack of conscience, but rather of a conscience tinged by emotional rigidity. In fact, in Meursaults view, he probably did not do the wrong thing and simply abandon his mother when she could no longer live with him but rather did the right thing by ensuring that she was taken care of, at least materially. The other major event(s) used to support his lack of conscience are the series of amoral actions on the part of Raymond which Meursault seemingly accepts without any reticience and even participates in: Then he came to the subject of Raymond. It seemed to me that his way of treating the facts showed a certain shrewdness. All he said sounded quite plausible. I'd written the letter in collusion with Raymond so as to entice his mistress to his room and subject her to ill-treatment by a man of more than dubious reputation. Then, on the beach, I'd provoked a brawl with Raymond's enemies, in the course of which Raymond was wounded. I'd asked him for his revolver and gone back by myself with the intention of using it. Then I'd shot the Arab. After the first shot I waited. Then, to be certain of making a good job of it, I fired four more shots deliberately, point-blank, and in cold blood, at my victim (Camus 99).

Bhaskara 8

Yet the prosecutors simplistic and flawed analysis excludes a critical data point; Meursaults loneliness and lack of emotional understanding. Meursaults participation in all of Raymonds schemes are primarily driven by Meursaults desire to keep a new friend. For example, during Raymonds entire diatribe about the perceived infidelity of his mistress, Meursault responds not with shock and horror, but rather chooses to ignore Raymonds reviling behavior: There's a girl behind itas usual. We slept together pretty regular. I was keeping her, as a matter of fact, and she cost me a tidy sum. That fellow I knocked down is her brother. Noticing that I said nothing, he added that he knew what the neighbors said about him, but it was a filthy lie. He had his principles like everybody else, and a job in a warehouse. I said I hadn't any, but I'd found it interesting. Did I think she really had done him dirt? I had to admit it looked like that. Then he asked me if I didn't think she should be punished and what I'd do if I were in his shoes. I told him one could never be quite sure how to act in such cases, but I quite understood his wanting her to suffer for it (Camus 29-30). By this point, Meursault is so desperate for conversation and companionship that he is willing to subjugate his own conscience in order to please Raymond and maintain their burgeoning friendship. One must temper all judgment of Meursaults future misdeeds on behalf of Raymond, whether it be writing the letter to Raymonds lover, acting as a bystander when Raymond beats her mercilessly, or subsequently testifying on Raymonds behalf as a character witness, by understanding that his conception of right and wrong is warped by the nature of his friendship with Raymond. Once again, this is not evidence that Meursault lacks a conscience, but rather evidence that his conscience does not fit the mores of the rest of society. Moreover, there are direct examples of Merusaults conscience scattered throughout the book. But in particular, his

Bhaskara 9

interaction with Salamano, in which Meursault is able to subtly respond to Salamanos emotional cues in comforting the older man over the disappearance of his dog, is powerful evidence of the existence of a conscience. Remember, a conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. But to judge whether or not a person has a sense of right or wrong, one must also consider his or her societal surroundings. Much of what is termed right or wrong is in fact a societal construct; one hundred thousand years ago, no one would have batted an eye at a man or a woman roaming naked, yet in modern times this behavior is considered erroneous except in special circumstances. In the context of Meursaults society, his delicate handling of a distraught Salamano is a far more nuanced example of doing the correct thing and using his conscience than the simple fact that it is wrong to murder someone. If Meursault is able to apply the rules of conscience in such an arcane and complex situation, it implies that he does in fact have a conscience (Camus 43-44). Conscience does depend heavily on context as well; the context of the society in which a persons actions take place. Take for example, violence. In modern times, it would be frowned upon for a man to violently assault a romantic rival, yet in the time of the Mongols; Genghis Khan would have been perfectly justified in doing so. It is thus important to judge Meursaults conscience, or lack thereof, within the context of his societal environment. By extension, we can consider the experiences of the author, Albert Camus, in French Algeria because the novel is set in the same locale at the same time period, and Meursault is in a lot of ways an extension of Camus himself. Thus we must consider the world in which Camus was writing this novel. Albert Camus spent the first twenty or so years of his life living in the then French colony of Algeria. Even though he was pied-noir (a white man of French descent living in Algera), Camus would have been constantly surrounded by the activities of the brutal white minority leadership in the

Bhaskara 10

colony. Algeria, like most European colonies in Africa at the time, was governed like a police state, with a small cadre of influential whites holding power under the guise of civilization. Despite this moniker, most of the Algerians had few civil rights, and most were helpless against the ruthless machine that was the French colonial government. Relative to the experiences of the rest of Africa perhaps, Algeria managed to escape the worst possible fate. But in absolute, nominal terms, most of the atrocities that characterized colonial rule around the world occurred often in Algeria. Public beatings and even murders by the police and whites were common, and the police were seen as much a force of evil as keepers of the peace. Meursault even hints at this dichotomy when Marie asks him to go and get a cop as Raymond is beating his own mistress across the hall, She asked me to go find a policeman, but I told her I didnt like cops. Traditionally, those who express fear of the police are criminals, yet Meursault is shown to have been a model citizen, at least legally, through the first third of the book. The answer, of course is that he witnesses on a daily basis the brutality of the Algerian police. For example, during Raymonds argument with the policeman, Raymond attempts to affect a nonchalant and uncaring demeanor, Take that cigarette out of your mouth when youre talking to me, the cop said. Raymond hesitated, looked at me, and took a drag on his cigarette. Right then the cop slapped him- a thick heavy smack right across the face. The cigarette went flying across the landing (Camus 36). Even when dealing with such a repugnant crime and such disrespect from the perpetrator, no policeman should ever physically harm a suspect lacking a threat to his or her own life. This seemingly mundane occurrence perfectly typifies the state of heightened violence that existed in French Algeria, much of it officially sanctioned by the government. In that kind of environment, where brutality and violence are verbally maligned, yet publicly acceptable, it is very easy for a resident to become desensitized to violence. Conscience is ultimately the ability

Bhaskara 11

to determine right and wrong within the context of an individuals societal surroundings. In an environment where violence is used without consequence by so many, it is little wonder that a mans conscience can evolve to allow violence, even murder. Once again, the contextual acceptance of violence simply alters the character of Meursaults conscience; it does not mean that he lacks one entirely. Rather Meursault allows for violence after provocation. Near the end of Part One, before Meursault kills the Arab, he and Raymond come upon the pair of Arabs after Raymond has been stabbed and subsequently treated. At that point, it is Meursault who precludes Raymond from committing murder, telling him, Right. But if he doesnt draw his knife, you cant shoot (Camus 56). This simple statement on Meursaults part should put to rest any chatter about his lack of conscience Meursault explicitly states that murder without justification is wrong. While he may not possess the most refined and developed conscience, the clear mental faculty of distinguishing between right and wrong is present in Meursault. In fact, when one judges Meursaults conscience through the lenses of his lacking emotional maturity and desensitization to violence, its existence Thus the basic argument used to convict Meursault of premeditated murder and condemn him to his death is falsified and unjustified. Moreover, a simple retelling of the events leading up to the Arabs murder is enough to debunk this myth, though that conclusion is reached with the benefit of an omniscience offered to the readers that could not have been replicated by the jurors. From a legal point of view, for the murder to have been premeditated, the crime has to have been committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim. Yet according to Meursault he did not set out with the intention of killing the Arab. In fact, right until the very moment that he sees the Arab, Meursault is focused on dealing with the stress of Raymond and Massons fight with the pair of Arabs: From a distance I could see the small, dark mass of rock surrounded by a

Bhaskara 12

blinding halo of light and sea spray. I was thinking of the cool spring behind the rock. I wanted to hear the murmur of its water again, to escape the sun and the strain and the womens tears, and to find shade and rest again at last (Camus 57). Given his forthright nature throughout the novel there is little reason to doubt the veracity of Meursaults recollection, and thus his story can be taken at face value. With that in mind, it becomes clear that Meursaults murder could not have been premeditated since the entire genesis of the murder from conception (the idea) to completion (killing the Arab), occurs in the spur of the moment. Meursault had no way of knowing whether or not the Arab would still be at the Spring, he was simply trying to escape from his own complex emotions. In fact, that last point is critical in distinguishing that Meursaults crime was a crime of passion, rather than a murder of convenience (also known as second degree murder). In Meursaults fragile and underdeveloped emotional state, his friendship with Raymond was a critical one. And just a few hours before the fateful murder, the Arab had stabbed and threatened Raymond in a fight started by one of the Arabs. In a subsequent scene, Raymond returns after being patched up at the hospital, yet it is Meursault who plays the pacifist, and keeps Raymond from fighting the Arab, partially out of concern for Raymond. Under the framework of Meursaults childish and stunted emotions, the murder of the Arab is in fact a crime of passion, in which Meursault is driven by a fit of concern for his friends safety and a desire to strike back against someone that has done Raymond harm. In the moments before he shoots and kills the Arab, Meursault displays the typical signs of his emotional confusion. Throughout the novel, a common motif is the idea of a malignant sun beating down upon or hitting Meursaults face like a slap. What is interesting to note, is that the primary occurrence of this motif is during or after a period in which Meursaults emotional rigidity is challenged. The refrain appears during Mamans funeral, after his meet-ups with Marie, and after

Bhaskara 13

he interacts with Salamano and the dog. Thus in the period immediately following the second interaction with the Arab, Meursault is in a state of heightened emotional discomfort, which manifests itself through his physical description of the sun and his other surroundings: The sea gasped for air with each shallow, stifled little wave that broke on the sand. I was walking slowly toward the rocks and I could feel my forehead swelling under the sun. All that heat was pressing down on me and making it hard for me to go on. And every time I felt a blast of its hot breath strike my face, I gritted my teeth, clenched my fists in my trouser pockets and strained every nerve in order to overcome the sun and the thick drunkenness it was spilling over me. With every blade of light that flashed off the sand, from a bleached shell or a piece of broken glass, my jaws tightened. I walked for a long time (Camus 57). The imagery presented in this section is used to build up the cascading emotional tension welling up in Meursault. Each sentence personifies the inanimate enivironment around Meursault as physically attacking him, such as the blast of hot breath striking his face or the blade of light that strikes him. This bellicose imagery suggests that as Meursault walks, he is slowly and slowly becoming more aggravated, which plays out in the subsequent passage when he admits for the first time in the course of the novel that he is trying to escape a scene of emotional tension. By the time Meursault comes upon the Arab, he is already in a heightened emotional state. Yet even then, his first thought is not towards murder, but rather a prescient anxiety, It had occurred to me that all I had to do was turn around and that would be the end of it. Yet at that point he sees the Arab laughing, and then almost immediately, the sun reminds him of the day [hed] buried Maman. The allusion to his mother at that critical juncture is a testament to his emotional confusion and dysfunction in the heat of the moment. Once again, it is important to

Bhaskara 14

consider the legal definition of a crime of passion. A crime of passion or voluntary manslaughter is, an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed (voluntary manslaughter). While the circumstances surrounding Meursaults crimes do not fit the popularized notion of crimes of passion typified by OJ Simpson and Othello, when viewed through the lens of his limited emotional maturity, it is equally clear that the set of events preceding his murder of the Arab most certainly caused Meursault to become emotionally disturbed. In fact, the final signal that sends Meursault over the proverbial edge of the cliff occurs when the Arab draws his knife. Keeping in mind that this very knife was used to skewer one of Meursaults closest friends and induce a set of poignant and powerful injuries in Raymond, the knife likely symbolizes to Meursault the threat the Arab poses to his hegemony with Raymond. In fact the diction used by Meursault to describe the knifes affect on his psyche alludes to this fact with the subtle combination of caked tears to symbolize his sadness as well as the scorching blade slashing at [his] stinging eyes to symbolize the threat posed by the knife. This passage represents the apex of Meursaults emotional conflict and tension throughout the novel, and thus satisfies the condition of emotional disturbance required for Meursaults crime to be voluntary manslaughter. Throughout the course of history, there are several analogous cases to Meursaults false conviction. Whether its the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquisition, or Stalins Great Purges, society has a tendency to strike out at those who are different and/or those who do not conform to societal mores. Though Meursault is clearly mentally proficient, his case perhaps best parallels the fate of the mentally retarded historically in the West who were shut away from the

Bhaskara 15

rest of society because they could not meet artificial societal standards for intelligence. Similarly, Meursault is falsely condemned to death for his inability to meet the emotional expectations of the society around him, rather than for his actual crime. To once again view Meursault as an extension of Camus, perhaps the ending of The Stranger is Camus way of expressing his frustration at his own alienation and isolation from his intellectual peers because of his radical philosophy of absurdism. Meursault is thus not a man without a conscience who commits premeditated murder, but rather a man whose lack of emotional development, loneliness, and desensitization of violence create in him a conscience that differs from the societal norm which allows him to then commit a crime of passion in the spur of the moment.

Bhaskara 16

Sources "Albert Camus - Biography". Nobelprize.org. 28 Nov 2012 Camus, Albert. The Stranger. New York, NY: Vintage International, 1989. Print. conscience." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 8 May 2011. "first degree murder." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 8 May 2011. "second degree murder." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 8 May 2011. "voluntary manslaughter." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 8 May 2011.