Part+2+Chapter+3

Complete these questions for Monday's class... 1. Sketch the courtroom. 2. What is Meursault’s first impression of the jury? 3. Who are the eight witnesses who will testify at Meursault’s trial?

**Questions**

Why is the prosecution focusing on the mothers passing and Meursault’s reaction to it, rather on the actual crime he committed?

What do you think causes Meursaults’ change in the way he describes things? E.g. his sentences have become longer and more descriptive and include emotions (how he feels about what is happening). Also describe how this contrasts with his tone at the beginning of the novel.

How has these trials affected mersault’s attitude towards life, could it have possibly changed the way of him being an “absurdist”?

How is the title of the book reflected in the trial?

Meursault, despite being in the center of the, is mentally absent of it. He keeps on describing his surroundings instead of paying attention to his own trial (e.g. “I could see the people in the court fanning them”). He does not recognize anyone’s face and does not feel welcome, but hated by the audience (“I could tell how all the people hated me”). The title is at the same time both paradox and suitable for the trial, as he is focus of it (not outside) but not part of it (mentally outside).

How are there contradictions in the trial between how and what the court wants to judge and what the court judges?

In the very beginning, the judge says that he will judge “objectively” about Meursault murdering the Arab. However, as the hearings proceed, the focus of the court moves more and more to Meursault not following social protocol and the murder is moved in the background completely. The judge loses his objectiveness as he does not pay attentions to inconsistencies, such as Thomas Perez contradicting himself in his statements (“I did not see anything” “I did not see him crying” does NOT mean that Meursault did not cry!)