A Comparison of Rearden's Trial and Mersault's Trial

Hank Rearden’s trial stood out to me as a silver lining amongst a multitude of dark clouds. Rand made a point of showing the reader that it only takes one intelligent man with the right mentality to make a multitude of fools realize their mistakes and even if only for a moment recognize that they are approaching things the wrong way. There are many similarities between this trial and the trial in The Stranger. 

In Albert Camus’ novel The Stranger Mersault approaches his trial with the same attitude of indifference and firmness as Rearden. Mersault wanted to make a point to the members of the court that he was not going to be affected by their procedures and their punishments. He walked into the courtroom knowing that he may not live much longer and yet he still did not defend himself. Mersault did not beg for forgiveness, he did not apologize for his actions, and he did not give reasons or excuses for why he should be kept alive. Like Rearden, Mersault refused to participate in the courtroom drama and he simply watched as a bystander waiting for it to end. 

There are however some key differences in these two scenarios. While both of these characters had no defense for their actions, Rearden unlike Mersault, attacked the actions and ideals of the people who were prosecuting him. Rearden played an active part in his trial as opposed to Mersault who simply stood on the sidelines. In Rearden’s trial, he refused to defend himself. He did this not because he wanted to make the punishment seem insignificant but because he genuinely felt that he did nothing wrong. In addition, Rearden took advantage of the opportunity to condemn society and the government for the corrupt policies and regulations they have been placing on the people. It is important to note that Rearden used his trial as a way to expose the opacity in the government’s procedures and to make known its bad intentions. Lastly, Rearden condemned the government for stopping innovation and creating a country where people have no encouragement to create and supply ideas for the improvement of society. 

Though both Raerden and Mersault both showed their extraordinary courage and strategical ability in their conduct, it is impossible to determine whose strategy was more successful since the crimes were so different in severity and validity. However I believe that success in this case is very relative because in the end, both of these characters got their point across in a strategical way that allowed no negative commentary from their opposers.