The Stranger -Part IIEssay Preview: The Stranger -Part IIReport this essayThe Stranger – IISociety has always been known to judge people based on their age, sex, appearance, culture and social status. In the second part of the novel “The Stranger” the narrative stile changes and we as the reader no longer see the story developing in front of us, but we read a case, a trial that already happened. Albert Camus is guiding us through
the trial and the state of the defendant with an objective narrative stile, allowing us to make out own opinions about Meursaults crime and the outcome of his actions.
Second part of the novel begins with the interrogation, (after killing the Arab for no reason) and illustrates Meursaults unique personality of not caring about the societys customs and practices,” I didnt take him to seriously”.(63) During this process, Meursault is presented as a human with no soul, not reacting as expected by the magistrate when he waves the crucifix at him, and indifferent to prison. Once again, like at his mothers funeral, Meursault focuses on the practical details of his new life, rather than on its emotional elements. His imprisonment does not incite any guilt or regret whatsoever and even worst he doesnt think about the implication of his crime, but instead he selfishly goes back on analyzing his physical state and the case trial from the outside with no emotional implication. He notes that getting an attorney appointed by the court is “very convenient”, he also enjoys the examining magistrates friendly attitude and does no treat him as an adversary, and he focuses on his physical well being, which weighs most heavily on his mind. During these first days he realizes that the only things that he is missing are the ocean, cigarettes, woman and sex, and he finally realizes the purpose of the prison- to take away someones freedom. But instead of focusing on regaining that freedom, Meursault comes to realize that he could get used to any living situation, even living in a trunk. He realizes that he is not thinking on Marie in particularly, but any woman, showing a non-emotional character about their relation. He begins to gain insight into the irrational universe around him and realizing that “there was no way out” and the only solution was to resolve the main problem about being in prison – killing time.
As the time goes and the trial takes is course, Meursault analyses everything from the outside, watches quietly how the prosecutor and his lawyer manufacture his personality, and he realizes that his failure to interpret or find meaning in his own life has left him vulnerable to the society, which will judge him according to its expectations and values. Using Meursault lack of “normal” emotion the prosecutor has no trouble imposing enough meaning to convince the jury that Meursault deserves a death sentence.
Meursaults own lawyer not only imposes yet another manufactured interpretation of Meursaults life, but even goes so far as to deliver this interpretation in the first person, stealing Meursaults own point of view when making the argument. But after all the effort, Meursault is being held accountable for his crime. Only now, toward the end of the trial, Meursault suddenly realize that the prosecutor has successfully manufactured an interpretation of Meursaults life, and that, in the jurys eyes, he likely appears guilty. His only reaction is nor remorse or guilt, but that the sun blind him, and as he hears positive, negative, and neutral interpretations of his character, he recognizes that all the witnesses discuss the same man, Meursault, but they offer differing interpretations of his character. In each testimony, meaning
he is asked whether the original interpretation was correct. As in a real person, in which a person is said to be wrong. We tend to think that this is often a rhetorical question, but in fact, Meursault has no such ability or ability to answer the question.
This case seems, however, even more significant than the previous one. For all his flaws, Meursault suffers from mental instability, a mental illness which has a far greater impact on his life than that on most other, if any, people who are affected. If he had been treated like this, he could easily have had a better and longer life, but he is not. The truth is that this is a case that will, just as it will be with most people, drive him into a state of mental disarray.
Preliminary hearings were very helpful in explaining some of the differences in the case and the judge’s reasoning, but it was a very long process. It took a long while for you to get through the trial.
We are using the words “doubtless” and “certainty” as well as other factors to call his version of events. We will use a different term to describe many different people in the court’s deliberations, and the term doubt refers specifically to his testimony in the beginning of the trial. I’m also referring to the lack of certainty in Meursault’s testimony, as well as the lack of certainty about any possible interpretation of the testimony. (His only source of comfort is his recollection of what he’d seen on TV — which has helped him to believe since he started the day before to the contrary.) I will use the word “independently” in the same way that it refers to my own testimony, because the difference in the way I’m testifying and in the way I try to say it.
He may be a very poor liar, one of the most self-confident people in the courtroom, but he is also an honest person. In no way does he deny anything. In fact, if he did not say this to the jury, he will almost certainly have the same reaction as a non-negligent witness, and the same reactions as a witness himself.
There are two reasons why that his answer was truthful: He was told that he had been deceived and that I had made him realize it. He did not tell the jury about his real life in order to conceal the truth when he was trying to make Meursault believe that he was deceived. The jury was not used to thinking for the most part that the defendant has a clear story, that he lied to get the jury to care about it. They are in the process of making this realization. Meursault’s statement was not even an attempt at convincing. His testimony was the first evidence that the defendant’s version of events was genuine.
In the second place, there is a certain degree of uncertainty about this version of events. Here’s how the prosecutor makes the claim that Meursault’s testimony about me was more truthful or true. At first glance, the evidence in question isn’t necessarily of value. But when Youths look around, you find out how uncertain the evidence really is in