This question is brought up in Albert Camus' The Strangers. Within in the novel, the main character Meursault commits a murder. Now this action would seem to classify Meursault as an evil person; however, throughout the rest of the novel Meursault never seems to change after committing his murder. He seems to be the same strange person.
During his trial, in which Meursault is attacked constantly by the prosecuting lawyer, Meursault seems unaffected. Even the people closest to him attempt to defend Meursault as a person that would not purposefully commit a murder. Even when the guilty verdict is delivered, Meursault seems unaffected; in fact he even describes himself as just being tired.
The Stranger seems to argue that the actions of an individual does not define their identity. However, because the character was so strange the novel also begs the question: was The Stranger just an exception to the rule?
Actually, don't you think Meursault's actions define his identity according to his society? After all, he is convicted of killing the Arab because of his identity--how he has lived his life. During the trial very little is said about the actual murder. More attention is given to Meursault's actions following his mother's death. And at the very end of the novel, doesn't Meursault seem to celebrate his identity by saying he was glad of how he had lived his life? Even though we think his life was strange, he seems to experience a moral awakening that allows him to celebrate his existence even as he faces death.
ReplyDelete