The Stranger World Lit Paper

“[D]ealing with a monster, a man without morals,” An analysis of morality in The Stranger, and Chronicle of a Death Foretold

In The Stranger and Chronicle of a Death Foretold, emphasis on the symbolic nature of the protagonists serves to accentuate the fundamental theme of morality as both Camus, and Garcia Marquez explore “[M]an’s precarious place in a mass society whose workings he does not control nor even understand…” (Feuerlicht 2).

The court in which the trial takes place functions as a social institution’s tool to impose rational order on an otherwise irrational world. It is clear throughout the course of the proceedings, that Meursault is no longer tried for his real crime of killing another man, but rather for his moral character regarding subjective matters. As the trial progresses, the prosecutor exploits “Maman’s” death to condemn Meursault. The insensitivity portrayed to the jury concerning his actions during the day of and following the burial of “Maman”, while true; are unrelated to the crime, however, it is these actions that eventually condemn him: “Gentlemen of the jury, the day after his mother’s death…[he] was out swimming, starting up a dubious liaison, and going to the movies…I have nothing further to say” (Camus 94). During the trial, all of the witnesses called forth by the prosecutor are from Maman’s home and/or present at Maman’s funeral. The irony that emerges is from the fact that none of them pertain to the actual crime that Meursault committed. However, no one in the courtroom takes notice of this fact or objects to it and therefore, makes it quite evident from the proceeding of the court that Meursault is no longer on trial for his actual crime of murder.

Perez, a friend of Meursault’s mother, is called as a witness. After he noting that he was too stricken with grief to see how Meursault reacted to the death, “The prosecutor asked him if he had at least seen [Meursault] cry” (Camus 91). However, the prosecutor’s question is utterly absurd as Perez has previously stated that, “My sadness made it impossible to see anything (my emphasis)…I wasn’t able to see monsieur” (Camus 91). While Meursault’s lawyer and the prosecutor attempt to explain Meursault’s sporadic and irrational nature based on logic and reasoning, these explanations put forth contain no basis in fact. They serve as attempts to refute the idea that things sometimes happen for no reason, and that events can take place intermittently without any meaning or logical explanation. Clearly, the entire trial is but a symbol of one of mankind’s many futile attempts to impose a sense of order and rationality on an otherwise, irrational world.

Despite Meursault’s lawyer’s tireless efforts, they gain little ground in helping him. The defense’s calling of witnesses are ineffective and in some cases, like Marie, actually aid in the prosecution: “Marie began to sob, saying it wasn’t like that, there was more to it, and that she was being made to say the opposite of what she was thinking” (Camus 94). The efforts of the witnesses for the defense are futile in the sense that they, similar to Meursault, can give little reasoning to his conduct. They can only attribute his actions to bad luck and chance, both of which provide no concrete facts to aid him as, “The prosecutor retorted that chance already had a lot of misdeeds on its conscience in this case” (Camus 95).To make matters worse, the defense witnesses are revealed as bad in moral fiber. Raymond, Meursault’s “pal”, was questioned on, “[h]ow he made his living, and when Raymond replied “warehouse guard,”…the prosecutor informed the jury that [Raymond] practiced the profession of a procurer,” therefore effectively preventing the defense from offering any redeeming testimonies on Meursault’s behalf.

As Meursault is unfairly tried, the jury is ignorant of the unfairness present in its proceedings. Fixated on the prosecutor’s allegation that Meursault is on trial for his emotional inaptness, they forget the crime of the murder of an Arab of which he was initially put on trial. “Normally, this would be far from viable in a court of law, but here it makes sense to the crowd” (Feuerlicht 5). Meursault, depicted as “[a] monster, a man without morals” (Camus 96), is condemned as disruptive and threatening to the social order due to his peculiar and seemingly emotionless psychology, that he must therefore be eradicated for his lack of morals.

As in The Stranger, Garcia Marquez utilizes the protagonist