I understand that one of the main points is that Meursault was largely judged and convicted because of his strange behaviour and detachment from humanity, instead of his crime. That's also what I was taught in lit class.
However, don't you think this point would have been executed far better if Meursault WAS an innocent man, but his strange absurdist behaviour and philosophy led people to falsely convict him? I always thought that would make much more sense. The way it is now, the people who convict him didn't really do anything wrong and I don't think the message comes across well
by yoingydoingy
4 Comments
There’s also the underlying existential philosophy that the world is not divinely just. Guilty people don’t get punished out of justice, likewise there’s no injustice, because he’s not innocent. It’s just the way the world works and we find meaning within it.
That would be easier, and the reader would still think “oh he wasn’t weird, just a bit quirky! This could have been solved with some behavioral therapy smh”
I don’t think the message is that the people judging and sentencing him did anything morally wrong per se.
To me it’s more about how the stranger lacked any agency or thirst for life, so he let himself be sentenced to death just to avoid taking even just one final stand
No, to answer your question.