Stephen Kings The Outsider Persuasive Argument

Stephen King’s The Outsider: A Persuasive Argument
Introduction
The Outsider is a well-written book with exiting and unexpected turns and twists. The book has several well-developed themes. In my opinion, however, the central theme of the story is the rational man’s inability to believe that which does not conform to reality – the inability to believe in the supernatural. It is important to note that one of the most celebrated traits of the modern man is rationality. In basic terms, rationality could be conceptualized as the ability to rely on logic or reason in decision making. This effectively means that from a rational perspective, anything that does not conform to reason and logic cannot be accepted. We all start off in life having outrageous beliefs and fantasies. For instance, as kids we believe in the tooth-fairy and regard Father Christmas as a real benevolent person. These are beliefs we outgrow with time. This book questions the rational perspective of life that we embrace as adults. In the end, the key lesson is that we must be objective enough to embrace that which falls outside our rational perspectives.
Discussion
The Outsider is a riveting story of murder, investigation, and deception. One of the most popular and well-regarded citizens of Flint City, Oklahoma has been arrested and charged with the violation and murder of an 11-year-old boy. The lead detective, Ralph Anderson, believes there is sufficient evidence to charge the alleged killer – a teacher by the name Terry Maitland. While the evidence police gather in this case directly connects Maitland to the crime, the teacher has what appears to be an irrefutable alibi. As a matter of fact, when he is arrested, Maitland is bewildered. At the time of his arrest, “he made himself a promise: come fall, maybe even sooner, the man in the front seat, the one he’d considered a friend, was going to be looking for a new job” (King 8). Modern science has been of great relevance in as far as aiding detectives in their work is concerned. This is more so the case when it comes to forensic identification. To a large extent, it is possible to actively utilize trace evidence to identify specific objects. It therefore follows that in crime scenes, detectives can often scout for trace evidence left behind by suspects in a bid to identify the actual perpetrators.
In an attempt to ensure fairness in court procedures and ensure that innocent persons are not convicted for crimes that they did not commit, the criminal justice system has a concept known as ‘alibi.’ In simple terms, an alibi is a kind of defense that accused persons could make use of in court to prove that they were not at the scene of crime at the time or moment that a crime for which they are accused of took place. Thus, if the defense can offer conclusive evidence that Person A was, for instance, in New York at a time that a crime in Chicago took place, then Person A should be acquitted as he cannot be in two places at the same time. However, what happens when there is irrefutable DNA evidence linking Person A to the scene of crime and then their legal defense uncovers a perfect alibi? This would send detectives into a spin. This is what exactly happens in The Outsider.
There are a two main explanations that could be given in a scenario such as the one recounted above: involvement of the supernatural and sheer incompetence (or planting of evidence) on the part of detectives. The supernatural angle is introduced in the case of The Outsider. The only problem in this case is that this is an explanation that refuses to reconcile with Anderson’s beliefs and experience in detective work. To begin with, there are eyewitnesses who collaborate the narrative that Maitland is indeed the murderer. Even worse, DNA evidence and fingerprints place him firmly at the crime scene. This is what Anderson is relying upon and to a rational person, including you and me, this appears to be an open and shut case and Maitland should go to jail. Indeed, as has been indicated in the book, Maitland “had done it, all the evidence said so, and the DNA would put the final nail in his coffin” (King 89). His alibi is the only complication in this case. As a matter of fact, as the situation gets more complex, Anderson considers destroying exculpatory evidence. He would rather ‘fix’ Maitland than entertain any other perspective not rooted in science. The explanation of supernatural involvement being advanced by Holly Gibney involvement has no basis in modern science. However, it soon becomes apparent that Anderson will have to shed his preconceived notions about the supernatural for the case to be solved.
As Holly is able to indicate, Maitland’s case is not unique. Indeed, there are other murders that have in the past taken place for which the accused persons had an alibi. It is clear from this point on that there is more than meets the eye. While Anderson had, according to Kind, all along believed that Maitland’s alibi “was an artfully constructed piece of misdirection”, it was becoming increasingly clear that the real killer was out there and had special capabilities that normal human beings do not ordinarily possess (89). The book effectively invites us to a world where science does not reign supreme. In the end, Anderson is finally able to confront the fact that the real culprit is a monster having the capability to transform in a supernatural format which enables it to match not only the appearance, but also the DNA of other human beings. It is, however, not a simple journey to conversion for Anderson. It takes the evidence of the monster having visited his house for him to entertain the thought that the explanation he considers impossible and crazy could actually be the truth that he has been in pursuit of. The creature is finally tracked down and killed by Holly. In the final analysis, it would be worthwhile to note that the case is cracked not by scientific ingenuity, but by the objectivity of an individual who is open to all possibilities – including those that do not necessarily align with modern science.
Conclusion
One of the most popular proponents of the rational perspective to life is Charlie Munger – the Vice Chair of Berkshire Hathaway. According to Munger, most of our human misfortunes could be traced to irrational behavior, sheer human folly, and belief in perspectives that have no evidentiary backing. It is, however, important to note that there are many nooks and nannies in the world and nothing can really be ruled out. Just because something has no scientific basis is not sufficient reason to dismiss it. There are a whole lot of things we cannot explain about our world and the universe. For instance, the question regarding the actual size of the universe has eluded scientists for centuries. With all the scientific tools available, scientists cannot wrap their minds around the universe. We know so little. We must resist the desire to ‘box-up’ our minds. While there is nothing wrong with being rational, refusing to accept explanations that are not firmly rooted in sense and reason could do more harm than good. This is all too clear in The Outsider by Stephen King.
Works Cited
Kind, Stephen. The Outsider. Simon and Schuster, 2019.