Crime and Consequences in The Stranger and The Brothers Karamazov

Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Albert Camus are among the most renowned writers to emerge
during the nineteenth and twentieth century centuries, respectively. Both novelists have published prolific works that are firmly cemented in the canon of Western literature. In their novels,
Dostoyevsky and Camus often explore the human condition, examine the notion of alienation,
and address the role of religion in society. The Stranger and The Brothers Karamazov are two
works that deal with these themes in an existentialist context. As existentialist authors, Camus
and Dostoyevsky utilize human psychology in an attempt to understand the human condition, as
well as immoral and indulgent behaviors. Through questioning these behaviors, they attempt to
pinpoint the essence of human morality and existence. Through the examination of crimes alongside their motives and subsequent consequences, The Stranger by Albert Camus and The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky suggest that nonconformist behavior, immorality, and
amorality are perceived as threats to society, and thus, may lead to disastrous consequences. In
The Stranger and The Brothers Karamazov, the antiheroes of the novels, Mersault and Dmitry,
respectively, are found guilty of murderMersault is sentenced to death, and Dmitry is sentenced to exile and penal servitude.
In The Stranger, Camus explores the implications of being alienated within a society.
The main character in the novel, Mersault, is a young, amoral man living in Algiers who is largely indifferent and apathetic to the world around him. As a result of his characteristic lack of enthusiasm for life, he is set adrift from society. Mersault is an unexceptional man who Camus portrays as an archetypal city dwelleralthough he is surrounded by thousands of people, he feels

disconnected and alienated. This urban alienation and impersonal way of life makes him more a
spectator, rather than a participant, in his own life. As Camus often felt himself, Mersault goes
through the empty motions of life - acting and behaving as a mere participant in the play that is
his life - never taking a title role. In the first chapter, Mersault shows no emotion during his
mothers vigil and burial. In fact, he is quite stoic and seemingly casual throughout these events,
commenting more on the sights and sounds around him rather than his own feelings about his
Mamans sudden death. Mersault explains, Soon one of the women started crying. She was crying softly, steadily, in little sobs. I thought shed never stopI wished I didnt have to listen to
her anymore. But I didnt dare say anythingThen she finally shut up. I didnt feel drowsy
anymore, but I was tired and my back was hurting me (Camus 10-11) . This detachment from
the world feels almost inhuman - as though we are reading the position and viewpoint of a bored
passerby.
Mersault fails to exhibits any feelings of loss among his mothers friends, who are visibly
emotionally affected by her death. In fact, he is annoyed by their outward expressions of emotion
and displays of grief. Instead, he focuses on his physical reactions, including his drowsiness and
his aching back. Mersault comments on the scene as an observer, as he watches at a distance
without attempting to make any personal, human connections. It is this lack of emotion and detachmentwhich is later interpreted as insensitivity and soullessnessthat plays a critical factor
in his murder conviction. Society expects certain roles and behaviors of the members within Camus uses something as moving, utterly deep and human as the death of a mother to show the
detachment. Mersaults mother aside - even in matters concerning his own fate he is removed
and careless. When on trial, He is not an active participant in his defense and is disconnected

throughout the event. He admits, I got bored very quickly with the prosecutors speech. Only
bits and piecesa gesture or a long isolated tiradecaught my attention to aroused my
interest (99). Mersault is distracted and bored, only listening to portions of the trial periodically. This lack of engagement exemplifies his detachment from society and from himself, as he
seems unaffected by the prosecutors speech, which has a direct impact on the outcome of the
trial. The internal world of his thoughts fail to exhibit any deep interest in the present or the future. Ultimately, Mersaults behavior makes him not only a stranger to others (who attempt to
rationalize his behavior), but also a stranger to himself. He commits his crime without any apparent provocation and never fully knows as to why.
Similarly, The Brother Karamazov, presents the profound isolation of the individual.
Dmitry (Mitya) Karamazov, the eldest of the three Karamazov brothers, much like Mersault,
feels adrift in society. In nineteenth-century Russia, modernity, industrialization, the spread of
Western ideals, and a change in social hierarchy due to the emancipation of the serfs created a
tumultuous landscape. These factors, combined with the waning influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, created a sense of uncertainty among the upper echelons of the population. This societal degeneration parallels the disintegration of the Karamazov family, which is introduced at
the start of the novel. Indeed, the Karamazov family is a beautiful metaphor for the state of the
Russian monarchy and imperial state. In Siblings in The Brothers Karamazov, an article discussing the role of siblings and family in the Brothers Karamozov, Anna A. Berman explores the
relationships of the Karamazov family. Berman writes, the Karamazov family relationships,
which are strained by internal and external factors, are invested with a symbolism designed to
imply a breakdown in the transmission of values and mutual responsibility between the genera-

tions (263). As Berman notes - a generational divide is growing in the Karamazov family. Indeed, Dmitry and his siblings feel alienated due to the turbulent cultural times in which they live,
and thus, are constantly searching for meaning in the universal muddle. As a result, they attempt
to forge their own separate paths in order to gain a modicum of happiness, as well as understand
a world wherein they may find a fit. However, unlike Mersault in The Stranger, the eldest Karamazov attempts to make human connections in order to counteract his feelings of isolation. In
addition, he does not share Mersaults apathetic outlook on life. Instead, he is prone to impassioned outbursts and over-the-top displays of emotion. Because Dmitry is driven by his emotions, he struggles between leading a life of indulgent sensuality and moral goodness. Dmitry
represents the plight of humanity in the novel, as he carries out both sinful and redemptive actions. He is a base voluptuarya drunkard, gambler, and womanizerlike his father, Fyodor
Pavlovich Karamazov, who neglected his sons and sent them to be fostered by others (Dostoyevsky 107). This upbringing has psychological implications for Dmitry, who, due to the unstable, transient nature of his childhood, strives to create meaning in his life as an adult. Like
Mersault, he concerns himself with the material and physical. Dmitry seeks tactile, tangible pleasures, such as sexual relationships and money, the later which offers the possibility of a stable
life. Desperately in want of something outside of himself, he also possesses a desire to move towards domestic tranquility. However, his emotional intensity and self-indulgent behavior leaves
him unable to reconcile his high and low modes of being.Miya explains to the youngest Karamazov, his pious brother Alyosha, that he sees himself as cursed and base. He states, Now I want to
speak to you on the insects, the one that God has endowed with voluptuous lustBrother I am
one of those insectsvoluptuousness is a storm, and more than a storm! (144). Dmitry uses the

insect, a lowly creature, as a symbol of Karamazovian sensuality and depravity. As a result, he

feels estranged from God. Deeply ashamed of his physical excesses and his erratic lack of selfcontrol, he experiences aesthetic alienation. This solitary soul is later driven by jealousy and
pride when he hurries to his fathers house, enraged and armed with a brass pestle, expecting to
find his lover Grushenka Verkovtseva and his father, Fyodor Pavlovich together. After finding
Fydor alone, however, his snooping is discovered by Grigory Vasilyevich , his fathers manservant. In a panic, Dmitry attacks Grigory with the pestle, and flees after leaving him bloody and
unconscious. It is evident that his passionate, reckless nature enables him to descend into moral
chaos and that his behavior is destructive not only to himself, but also to those around him.
While Dmitry is driven by his emotions, it is physical surroundingsincluding blinding
sunlight and blistering heatthat serve as a catalyst for murder in The Stranger. The sun is the
key factor that pushes Mersualt forward on the beach towards the spring and thus, towards the
Arab. It is employed as an aggressor Mersaults feelings of anxiety and restlessness, which are
amplified by the suns intensity. However, he considers, for a moment, leaving the beach altogether before continuing on, and states, It occurred to me that all I had to do was turn around
and that would be the end of it. But the whole beach, throbbing in the sun, was pressing on my
back (Camus 58). By describing the inhospitable, antagonist environment the sun creates, Camus creates a sense of stress and tension. The sun is used as an agent for irrationalism and as a
direct instigator to the impending murder, as it appears to have unwavering control on Mersault
and his emotions. By pressing on his back, it urges him to continue forward into a potentially
violent and dangerous situation. Mersault explains, The sun was the same as it had been the day
Id buried Maman, and like then, my forehead especially was hurting me, all the veins in it

throbbing under the skin. It was this burning, which I couldnt stand anymore, that made me
forward. I knew that it was stupid, that I wouldnt get the sun off me by stepping forward. But I
took step, one step, forward (59). Mersaults displays of discomfort under the sun parallel the
day of his mothers funeral. The sun, he states, was making it hard for me to see or think
straight with blood pounding in my temples (17). Although his initial responses to the sun are
mild, its effects conveys the power the sun holds over him. His reactions during Mamans burial
foreshadows the intense effectsanxiety and restlessnessthat eventually manifest into violence. In fact, the sun itself is describes as violent against Mersault, who states, The scorching
blade slashed at my eyelashes and stabbed at my stinging eyes. Thats when everything began to
reel (59). The oppressive nature of the sun, with its scorching blade and stabbing, enrages
Mersault. Consequently, it unleashes suppressed aggression in him and transforms his suppressed
hostility into fatal action. The burning, blinding sun creates a hostile environment on the beach,
and its negative effects compel Mersault to act impulsively. Although he seems to only concern
himself with matters of the physical world, he possesses an uneasy disposition, which, combined
with the blazing heat of the sun, leads him to shoot the Arab dead.
The murder that Mersault carries out is devoid of a true, discernible motive. During the
trial, the prosecutor makes an attempt to understand the murder. Mersault explains, The prosecutor had his back half-turned to me, and without looking at me, he stated that, with the courts
permission, he would like to know whether I had gone back to the spring by myself intending to
kill the Arab. No, I said. Well, then, why was I armed and why did I return to precisely that
spot? I said it just happened that way (Camus 88). Here, Mersault asserts that the murder was
not premeditated and that is was merely happenstance. He is unaware as to the real reason why

he killed the Arab, as he did so without any apparent provocation, other than being compelled the
blazing sun. By stating it just happened that way, he shifts the responsibility from himself onto
an outside force. This behavior exhibits his perceived lack of control over his actions, as he truly
believes that the murder happened due to coincidence. Mersault tells the judge, I never intended
to kill the Arab (102). With this statement, he once again claims that his actions were not
planned, and instead, happened spontaneously. In addition, he never provides a reason for taking
the gun to the beach or pulling the trigger. Later, he states, The judge replied by sayingthat
until then he hadnt quite grasped the nature of my defense and thathe would be happy to have
me state precisely the motives for my act. Fumbling a little with my words and realizing how
ridiculous I sounded, I blurted out that it was because of the sun. People laughed. My lawyer
threw up his hands (103). Mersault is visibly flustered, and it is clear that he lacks an understanding of his own motivations. For Mersault, the sun truly was a motivator of the murder, as it
tormented him on the beach with its relentless heat. However, he knows how ridiculous this admission sounds aloud. In his mind, the heat and suffering he experienced under the sun are the
true reasons behind killing the Arab. However, although Mersault understands that his reasoning
may sound nonsensical, he makes no attempts to alter his defense. The judge and the crowd, do
indeed find his explanation ridiculous, as does his lawyer, who becomes visibly frustrated by his
clients response. Throughout the entire trial, Mersault only offers the sun as an explanation for
what drove him to kill the Arab on that fateful day on the beach. He never offers a true, logical
explanation for his crime and thus, is deemed as a threat to society and is condemned to death.
Contrastingly, Dmitry is innocent of murder, but despite his repeated protests of innocence, his immoral behavior and previous offenses are called into question during the trial.

Mityas scandalous relationships with Katerina Ivanova, his fianc and the daughter of a wealthy
general, and Grushenka, his seductive lover and a woman of dubious reputation, are addressed
by Ippolit Kirillovich, the prosecutor. The narrator explains:
Ippolit Kirillovich extensively unrolled the entire picture of the defendants fateful
passion for Grushenka. He began right from the moment from when the defendant had set
off to see the young person in order to beat her unmercifically, to use the defendants
own words, Ippolit Kirillovich explained, but insteadhe remained at her feetthere is
the beginning of this love. At the same time the old man, the defendants father, also casts
an eye upon the same young personHere, we have her own confession: I, she says,
laughed at the one as the other. (Dostoyevsky 895)
The prosecutor makes it evident that Dmitry has a violent streak, as he intended to beat Grushenka. Kirillovich presents Mitya as an unscrupulous, dishonest man, as he began an amorous relationship with Grushenka although he was already betrothed to Katerina. In addition, it is revealed
that he viciously beat Fyodor, who was his rival for Grushenkas affections. The explosive, erratic temper, which he inherited from his father, raises the question as to whether to not he possesses the ability to reign in his impulses. To the prosecutor, Miyas aberrant, appetitive self makes
him seem culpable of parricide. In Save It For God: Confession And The Irrelevance Of The Judicial System With Special Attention To Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, Stephen H. Webb
asserts, He and the other lawyers simply cannot understand how Dmitry is thinking about his
guilt and responsibility. Dmitry knows he is a scoundrel. What Dmitry cannot tolerate is the insinuation that he is a thief. For Dmitry, the difference between the two is obvious. A scoundrel
acts out of passion and thus is a victim of his own nature, while a thief is immoral in a deliberate

and calculative manner (141). The reasons Dmitry offers for his actions seem implausible and
improbable to the interrogators and well as the jury, which is mainly composed of uneducated
peasants. Kirillovich perceives the eldest Karamazov to be amoral and selfish, and thus, he truly
believes that Dmitry is guilty of patricide. Although he is a self-professed scoundrel, he maintains that the 3,000 roubles in his possession were not stolen.
Later, Katerina betrays Dmitry, and in a hysterical rage she produces a letter that Dmitry wrote
while intoxicated, which reveals his desire to kill his father, Fyodor. Unfortunately for Mitya,
this false evidence, combined with the prosecutors presentation of Dmitri's desperation and
passionate nature, proves to seal his conviction. It leads the jury to vote based on conscience, as
opposed to the law. Mitya is found guilty of patricide due to this miscarriage of justice by the
jurors. On account of the judicial error, Dmitri is sentenced to twenty years of hard labor the
bleak, desolate landscape of Siberia. Ultimately, he is convicted based on unsubstantial evidence
and his voluptuous character, which are deemed as threat to Russian society.
Mersaults amoraland seemingly immoralbehavior, is too addressed during his trial
in order provide evidence of his character. The prosecutor presents his questionable behavior to
the court. Mersault explains, I had agreed with Raymond to write the letter in order to lure his
mistress and submit her to mistreatment by a man of doubtful morality. I had provoked Raymonds adversaries at the beach. Raymond had been wounded. I had asked him to give me his
gun. I had gone back alone intending to use it. I had shot the Arab as I planned. I waited. And to
make sure I had done the job right, I fired four more shots, calmly, point-blankthoughtfully, as
it were (Camus 99). The prosecutor attempts to portray Mersault as a deeply immoral individual
who, like Raymond, is a man of doubtful morality. In actuality, Mersault is amoral. With his

absurdist outlook on life, he believes that the universe has no discernible meaning and that
events have no rational order. As a result, he leads a life of psychological and emotional solitude
and has removed himself from any religious or socially constructed notions of morality. In Confronting The Absurd: An Educational Reading Of Camus The Stranger, Aiden Curzon-Hobson
asserts, It is this rejection of absolutes and the demand for limits and moderation that perhaps
threaten his societys sense of order the most. It could be argued that it is the indifference to its
principles rather than the opposition which his accusers cannot condone (466). Indeed, his sense
of ambiguity is despised and is seen as a threat to society, as it removes any possibility of rehabilitation or reform. The prosecutor interprets this indifference as wickedness, and thus, he argues that the murder of the Arab was premeditated and carried out to avenge Raymond. In addition to characterizing Mersault as a man without a conscience, the prosecutor also addresses his
alleged mistreatment of Maman and his lack of emotion during her vigil and funeral. Although
these actions entirely unrelated to the crime for which he is on trial, the prosecutor vilifies his
insensitivity and perceived indifference to his mother. Mersault explains, He reminded the court
of my insensitivity; of my ignorance when asked Mamans age; of my swim the next daywith
a woman; of the Fernandel movie; and finally of my taking Marie home with me (99). The
prosecutor highlights the fact that Mersaults sexual relationship with Marie began the day after
the funeral, which he deems as reprehensible. In addition, he is disgusted by the fact that Mersaut
went to the movies to see a slap-stick comedy for laughs following Mamans death (94). Mersault states, And also according to him, a man who is morally guilty of killing his mother severs
himself from society in the same way as the man who raises a murderous hand against the father
who begat him (102). The prosecutor compares Meraults crime of morally killing Maman

to parricide. Mersaults lack of grief and willingness to send his mother to a nursing is considered to br the worse crime of the two. Ultimately, the jury finds him to be a disloyal son whose
immorality is a threat to society, and thus, he is sentenced to death by guillotine.
Ultimately, Mersault is condemned for not conforming for societys expectations of behavior. The prosecutor demands, Has he so much as expressed any remorse? Not once during
the preliminary hearings did this man show emotion over his heinous offense (100). Mersaults
lack of remorse and outward emotion shocks the prosecutor, who is baffled by his indifference.
However, the murder is an extension of Mersaults own strange life, and thus, the murder too
loses meaning. Because he lacks introspection and self-awareness, he fails to analyze or rationalize his behavior. In addition, he subscribes to the philosophy of the absurd, which stats that life
has no rational purpose and human existence is devoid of discernible meaning. This philosophy,
however, is deemed as a threat to society. During the closest arguments of the trial, the prosecutor states, Especially when the emptiness of a mans heart becomes, as we it has in this man, as
abyss threatening to swallow up society (101). Indeed, the murder of the Arab was not transgressed out of hatred or rage, but as a result of Mersaults withdrawn, taciturn nature. Although
the court presents alternative motives for the murder, these theories are based on false assumptions. In actuality, it was the antagonizing heat on that fateful day pushed Mersault to kill the
Arabnothing else. The courts inability to understand Mersault and his actions lead them to
decide that he is a harmful influence on the world around him. Mersault is punished for his individualism and absurdist view of the world, which subverts social norms and expectations.
The Stranger by Albert Camus and The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
present unique characters whose immoral behavior is perceived to threaten society. Both nov-

els center on a murder and a subsequent trial, which poses a larger question as to how innocent
and guilt are qualified and quantified. Both The Stranger and The Brothers Karamazov are philosophical novels that present questions in regard to morality, faith, and human suffering in an indifferent world.

Works Cited
Berman, Anna A. Siblings in The Brothers Karamazov. Russian Review 68.2 (2009): 263-282.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
Camus, Albert. Trans. Matthew Ward. The Stranger. New York: Vintage, 1989. Print.
Curzon-Hobson, Aidan. Confronting the Absurd: An Educational Reading of Camus The

Stranger. Educational Philosophy and Theory 45.4 (2013): 461-474. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Trans. David McDuff The Brothers Karamazov. London: Penguin, 2003.
Print.
Webb, Stephen H. Save it for God: Confession and the Irrelevance of the Judicial System with
Special Attention to Dostoevskys The Brothers Karamazov. Dialog: A Journal Of
Theology 52.2 (2013): 138-143. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Dec. 2014.