Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson
Literary devices in the book the stranger by albert camus
Essays on camus the stranger
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The ways in which truths are presented to external audiences concerning outside characters display not only a good judgment of character on the presenter, but furthermore, the often insignificant nature of whom the presenter is talking about, even if the insignificance presented is accidental. Both Peter Shaffer’s Equus and Albert Camus’ The Stranger approach different ways in presenting the truths of Alan Strang and Meursault to the audience/jury, but one thing remains clear; intentional or unintentional manipulation of these characters leads to the eternal distrust of the reliability of their presenters, Martin Dysart and the members of the law.
Through Dysart’s self-diagnosis given throughout Equus, Shaffer directly conflicts with where focus of the story should be thrown, and an unintentional glorification of Dysart is displayed in result. The focus of the story strays, and although Dysart remains fascinated with Alan throughout the duration of the play, his fascination turns selfish, and he reflects more upon his own life than he does Alan’s. Dysart’s name is the first on the list of characters, and he opens the play as well, therefore, the focus of the reader/audience is automatically thrown towards Dysart, and he is expected to be the main focus of the play. Similar to Equus, through Camus’ presentation of Meursault to the jury in The Stranger, he suggests the selfish and corrupt nature of the self-serving institution of the law. Meursault is the sole reason for the trial that takes place, but his story starts to matter less and less throughout the duration of the trial. The members of the law become more concerned with glorifying their side of the story, and in result, winning the case.
Dysart’s characterization, in ...
... middle of paper ...
...ault describes the courtroom as a “dizzy . . . stuffy room” (Camus 83). Meursault later blames his killing of the Arab on the heat, therefore the reader can assume that the way the courtroom makes him feel denotes an extremely uncomfortable nature.
Though both Alan and Meursault are deemed as “appalling” members of society, their stories become lost and unimportant when Dysart and the members of the law seek representation of their lives. Both characters arrive in the story at the convenience of Dysart and the members of the law, and because of this convenience, Shaffer and Camus glorify Dysart and the members of the law, rather than solve the problems in Alan or Meursault’s lives. What one finds truthful in the world or their lives becomes unreliable in its presentation to the reader, as displayed in both Equus and The Stranger.
Word Count =
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
Ludwig Tieck’s novella, Eckbert the Fair, presents a certain ambiguity of moral values. The story meets a tragic ending where the main couple of the fairytale, Eckbert and Bertha, die as punishment for their crimes of betrayal, theft, and murder. However, an uneasy feeling of injustice remains about the punishment despite the clarity of their guilt. The tale itself strongly resembles a tragic play defined by Aristotle, but the narrative deviates from the structure of standard tragedy. In effect, the unique set-up of the narrative makes the evil deeds seem ultimately inevitable. The structure of the novella helps justifying the crimes, causing the distinction between the good and the bad to become unclear. In this paper, I will discuss this unique structure of the tale to analyze how this uneasy feeling about the ending emerges.
The injustices Meursault and Jefferson fight vary in detail but ultimately stem from their deviation from the socially accepted norm. In The Stranger, Meursault does not
In The Stranger, Albert Camus describes the life of the protagonist, Meursault, through life changing events. The passage chosen illustrates Meursault’s view during his time in prison for killing the Arab. In prison, one can see the shifts in Meursault’s character and the acceptance of this new lifestyle. Camus manipulates diction to indicate the changes in Meursault caused by time thinking of memories in prison and realization of his pointless life. Because Camus published this book at the beginning of World War II, people at this time period also questions life and death similar to how Meursault does.
Chapter 6 of part I of The Stranger concluded with Meursault’s conscious decision to shoot an Arab because of the physical discomfort the Arab’s knife caused him. The significance of the ending of part I is that it was the first demonstration of Meursault’s awareness of the possible consequences of the act that he committed. This awareness continues into the second part of the novel as he is arrested and trialed. The reason for Meursault’s trial is the murder of the Arab. His insensitivity towards Maman’s death and lack of a social conscientious are factors that contributed to support further investigations, but are not reasons to trial him because they have not ‘harmed’ society on a way that he could be arrested for. For example, if Meursault
This ideal destroys the very purpose of the trial, which seeks to place a rational explanation on Meursault’s senseless killing of the Arab. However, because there is no rational explanation for Meursault’s murder, the defense and prosecution merely end up constructing their own explanations, which they each declare to be the truth, but are all based on false assumptions. Therefore, the prosecution itself is to be viewed as absurd. When the prosecutor asks Perez if “he had at least seen [Meursault] cry,” he tries to persuade the crowd that Meursault is without feeling (91). The prosecutor then further turns the crowd against Meursault when he asks him about his “liaison” with Marie right after his mother’s death. The prosecutor remarks “indifferently that if he was not mistaken, that was the day after Maman died” (93). Though the liaison with Marie and the lack of emotions at Maman’s funeral may seem unrelated to Meursault’s killing, the prosecutor effectively convinces the crowd that they are in fact intertwined. The jury convicts Meursault not because he killed a man, but because he didn't show the proper emotions after his mother died. Despite hearing Meursault’s own thoughts ...
In the same way, the power of society suffocates and confuses Meursault as it bears down on him with its views on morality. The sun is also present at the trial, just as is the force of society which claims to possess the right to judge people. The force of society is absent in the prison, likewise the sun is absent from Meursault's dark cell, and because the overpowering force of society has been removed, Meursault is finally able to "[open himself] to the gentle indifference of the world. " At one point Meursault leans from the window in an attempt to feel the sun's last rays at evening.
All in all, the influence of Raymond is negative towards Meursault and leads to Meursault’s death sentence. The peer pressure put on Meursault to testify against Raymond’s mistress sets Meursault up and was the first of many instances where Meursault was manipulated into doing something. The aggression of Meursault to use violence against the Arab is a forced demand that Meursault is to fight for Raymond in times of hardships, as if Raymond owns Meursault. Finally, the declaration of Meursault as “a pal” influences the jury heavily because Raymond runs a whorehouse and the people one hangs out with have strong affects. Together, these three things lead to Meursault’s downfall, the death sentence, and Raymond is the one to blame.
Firstly, Camus juxtaposes the stories of Meursault and the Czechoslovakian man to create a presage of the denouement of Meursault. The Czechoslovakian man undergoes major life changes, and this ultimately leads to his demise. He goes to make a better life for himself, and he returns to his village with riches in wealth and in family. Unrecognizable to them, the Czechoslovakian man returns to his mother and sister, and he decides to play a simple joke “of taking a room” and “he had shown off his money” (80). This trick ends when “during the night his mother and sister had beaten him to death…in order to rob him” (80). The Czechoslovakian man’s newfound courage results in obstinacy. Contrastingly, until Meursault commits his crime of murder, his life appears nearly painfully simple. ...
...able option. Camus’s main character, Meursault, embodies this third option; by accepting his circumstances and being indifferent to them, Meursault is able to break free of all possible causes of anxiety and find happiness. Furthermore, Meursault’s rejection of religion as belief, his acceptance of the “benign indifference of the universe”, and his acceptance of his circumstances all leading to happiness personifies Camus’s take on Absurdism, the philosophy that Camus is trying to depict in The Stranger (76). By using foil characters to contrast Meursault in actions or personality, Camus creates several polarizing situations, making Meursault the extreme epitome of Absurdism in every contrasting relationship and thus, shining light on his ideology in the process.
The trial portrays the absurdist ideal that absolute truth does not exist. This ideal destroys the very purpose of the trial, which seeks to place a rational explanation on Meursault’s senseless killing of the Arab. However, because there is no rational explanation for Meursault’s murder, the defense and prosecution merely end up constructing their own explanations. They each declare their statements to be the truth, but are all based on false assumptions. The prosecution itself is viewed as absurd. The prosecutor tries to persuade the jury that Meursault has no feelings or morals by asking Perez if “he had at least seen [Meursault] cry” (91). The prosecutor then continues to turn the crowd against Meursault when he asks him about his “liaison” with Marie right after his mother’s death. Though Meursault’s relationship with Marie and his lack of emotions at his mother’s funeral may seem unrelated to his murder, the prosecutor still manages to convince the crowd that they are connected to one another. The jury ends up convicting Meursault not because he killed a man, but because he didn't show the proper emotions after his mother ...
Meursault and Daru are both “strangers” because they are not able to understand the other characters, which are each indirectly associated with an aspect of society. Camus uses the actions and words of seemingly unimportant characters to allude to the shortcomings of society. In both texts the protagonists view the other characters in the story from an outsider view, allowing for a new perspective in which society and its problems can be assessed. By making the protagonists detached from society, the underlying issues within society can be explored from an objective viewpoint.
In The Stranger, Camus portrays women as unnecessary beings created purely to serve materialistically and satisfy males through the lack of a deep, meaningful, relationship between Meursault and females. Throughout the text, the main character, Meursault, creates closer, more meaningful relationships with other minor characters in the story. However, in his interactions with females in this book, Meursault’s thoughts and actions center on himself and his physical desires, observations, and feelings, rather than devoting his attention to the actual female. Living in Algiers in the 1960s, Meursault originates from a post-modernist time of the decline in emotion. Meursault simply defies the social expectations and societal ‘rules’, as post-modernists viewed the world. Rather than living as one gear in the ‘machine’ of society, Meursault defies this unwritten law in the lackluster relationships between he and other females, as well as his seemingly blissful eye to society itself. In The Stranger, males, not females, truly bring out the side of Meursault that has the capacity for compassion and a general, mutual feeling relationship. For example, Marie and Meursault’s relationship only demonstrate Meursault’s lack of an emotional appetite for her. Also, with the death of Maman, Meursault remains virtually unchanged in his thoughts and desires.
The authors' relations to us on the characters' places in society help us to relate to and comprehend their actions. If Meursault hadn't been so detached from society, Noboru so discontented with society, and Medea so vengeful toward society, we wouldn't have half of the justification needed to understand the murders that took place in the works. Given the presented material about conformity, I conclude that the stories' plots indeed grow around the unique attributes of the non-conformers, and as result, spark the reader's imagination to the fullest.
Camus writes in a simple, direct, and uncomplicated style. The choice of language serves well to convey the thoughts of Meursault. The story is told in the first person and traces the development of the narrator's attitude toward himself and the rest of the world. Through this sort of simple grammatical structure, Camus gives the reader the opportunity to become part of the awareness of Meursault. In Part I, what Meursault decides to mention are just concrete facts. He describes objects and people, but makes no attempt to analyze them. Since he makes no effort to analyze things around him, that job is given to the reader. The reader therefore creates his own meaning for Meursault's actions. When he is forced to confront his past and reflect on his experiences, he attempts to understand the reasons for existence. At first, Meursault makes references to his inability to understand what's happening around him, but often what he tells us seems the result of his own indifference or detachment. He is frequently inattentive to his surroundings. His mind wanders in the middle of conversations. Rarely does he make judgments or express opinions about what he or other characters are doing. Meursault walks through life largely unaware of the effect of his actions on others.