r/Camus

Pretty mixed feelings I suppose.
The whole setting is pretty gloomy (This is weird because the whole story happens in a city with beautiful sea). I myself was feeling pretty heavy when reading it. Even though there is not much of plot, there are so many open ended questions the book left me with.

Definitely made me think more about existential crisis we all go through at some point or other in our lives.

TBH I really didn't get why the book was titled "The Stranger" until I sat with myself and was thinking about the book after finishing it.

If nobody ever noticed your work..no likes, no praise, no results for a long time..Would you still keep going? Not in a motivational way..... I mean honestly. At that point, what are you even doing it for? the outcome? Habit ? Ego? Disciipline ?

Or just because stopping feels worse than continuing 🫩??

How do I actually read the Myth of Sisyphus? I have the book, it's the Vintage International one with the black and white covers. I've read several pages so far but it's kind of confusing me; one moment he's making sense, next he isn't.

Could anyone please give me some of your best advice so I can actually understand and finish this book? Thanks,

I’m seeing the movie tonight, anyone seen it? Thoughts? No spoilers please;)

I'm looking at The Fall right now - all I know about it is that it's short, apparently punchy, and one of the last things Camus ever wrote.

I am quite an avid philosophical reader, however I felt quite disappointed to how the book ultimately amounted to less than I expected. It opened with quite coherent ideas but gradually became quite dense and difficult to engage with.

What I took from the book is its central question: if life has no inherent meaning, why do we continue to live? He used Sisyphus to symbolise our human existence, depicting him as perpetually pushing a rock up a hill, amounting to be ultimately unrewarding, mirroring human life and routines.

We constantly seek meaning, maybe because we are inherently curious and always in a state of becoming, however, life itself offers no inherent meaning; we construct beliefs and systems to deny this deeper reality. As Camus suggests, “they negate its profound truth, which is to be enchained."

I loved the ultimate meaning of the book, but hated the way it was delivered. Maybe I'm not used to Camus' work, nor did I have any background knowledge to the book. I recognise that the work is structured as an essay, and that its philosophical groundwork is intended to contextualise the story, but I found it difficult to follow and somewhat incoherent. Perhaps my interpretation is completely wrong or I was not ready to read this, but I'm just wondering if it's just me who felt this way about it?

the stranger is a book that I read years ago and I'm still thinking about it today, so you can imagine how powerful it is to leave such an impression, at the time, I thought I understood the character, because of the feeling of being alienated, the traditions that didn't make sense, the social expectations... but these last few days I've started seeing this book from a different angle, especially after reading most of Camus books, they usually share the same sentiment and the main character is always a reflection of him, even after learning more about Camus, and learning that he was a "pied noir", that made him feel like an outcast anx didn't really belong anywhere, yet, he still held French people higher than Arabs, specifically Algerians when it came to political beliefs... back to the stranger, meursault always felt alienated, but context matters here, he felt alienated because he was a French guy living amongst arabs, they live in communities, most people know each other, there is some warmth going there, philanthropy, altruism, these things won't make sense to someone who is individualistic, because of his culture, he won't understand why poor people still give charity because in his eyes this is making them poorer... so this story of meursault is less about a guy who is misunderstood, alienated, and more about individualism meeting collective humanity... meursault was simply culturally illiterate to the warmth around him. And it's a common experience for tourists who visit small communities and vice versa.

i am into it. I feel there are no meaning underneath everything for a long time (since I was a little boy) but I cannot say or tell what it is until I read Camus. From the Stranger to The Plague and The myth of Sisyphus. I feel like everything deep inside my heart is written by him. But the idea of revolt is brilliant to me. Yet I cannot accept it. Because there is no motivation. I can only survive because someone needs me, family, children ...
Now I fall into something I call drifting. I do things that needed to do. Without the happiness. I know that happiness is no need for a absurdism man. Man! I am not in the revolt state. Just lucid state.
tell me. Do you believe in absurdism? What is your status now? How do you feel? Can you keep this for the rest of your life? Or should we betray ourself by religion or some meaning of life that we already know that is absurd? tell me? because I'm so tired.

https://preview.redd.it/2vg71gqbt1ug1.png?width=420&format=png&auto=webp&s=14948713f953d8937c0181378ce383a7610e107f

Hey all, first time posting in this subreddit.

Following my 18th birthday yesterday, I received The Outsider (or The Stranger) as a present. Started and finished it this evening, and absolutely loved every second of it. Sandra Smith's masterful translation from Camus' own reading on a radio show made for a very engaging experience.

What I loved about the book is Meursault himself—a stranger to himself and an outsider from society. His vehement dismissals of religious hope, grace, and jurisdiction, instead embracing his own fate by the end of the novel, struck me hard. The final cathartic scene with the chaplain had me hooked, and I felt emotionally swayed by the sheer weight of Meursault's admissions and philosophy against a man who had adhered to this religious code for his entire life.

I now recall the scene with the examining magistrate, who swung a cross in front of Meursault, demanding that he adamantly adhere to his beliefs and surrender to Christ. Meursault's refusal reveals his belief in the absurdity of existence. "Do you want my life to be meaningless?" Camus suggests that this radical, maniacal insistence on comfort—the belief in a higher power—is itself an existential fear. The idea that there exists a being capable of answering humanity's countless ailments and metaphysical turmoil brings comfort to society, yet Meursault refuses to accept this since he remains true to himself.

Throughout the novel, he rarely says things to appease people. He only says things when he has something to say. When Marie asks if he loves her or if he would marry her, his answers aren't structured to appease her or answer her fantasies. He says he does not love her, and would marry her, but this marriage would not change much. He remains true to himself, to the very end. The prosecutor, jury, and judge cannot handle a man who doesn't play by their emotional or spiritual rules. Meursault is "the only Christ we deserve" because he refuses to lie about his feelings.

He feels his trial is carried out by everyone but him. He feels the indifference of those around him, and embraces it: the death of his mother, his own death, the idea that Marie may be with another man, or sick, or dead. But he isn't emotionless, not remorseless. He feels emotion viscerally, and Camus manifests this in the setting of the novel. The oppressive heat of the sun, which Meursault insists caused him to shoot the Arab, is dismissed by the courtroom with laughter. During my reading, I viewed this dismissal as the dismissal of coincidence, the same coincidence which structures Meursault's entire arc. The indifference he displays is not remorselessness, but a radical honesty unable to be perceived by those shielded by rigid structures of morality, religion, and truth.

In this absurd revelation, Meursault is truly happy to embrace the "cries of hatred," confirming his identity as a stranger to a society which so brutally condemned him for accepting the truth. Just as the stars and the sea don't care about his execution, he no longer cares about being good in the eyes of men.

A couple of questions:

1. Meursault seemed unlikable, morally, during the beginning of the novel. Is this intended?
2. Why does Camus allude to the Bible in his final line?
3. Is it really that hot in Algeria?
4. The two figures Meursault picks out in the courtroom: the robotic woman and the younger jury member. Do they have any significance?

PS: (this post was not written by AI, I love using em-dashes)

Found a Camus biography at a used bookstore.

It's written by Herbert R. Lottman, anyone got any opinions?