Yeah; I loved this book when I was 19, and I think it was important that I read it when I did, but it definitely does not speak to me the way it used to, back when "benignly indifferent" would best describe my own attitude toward life. Now I'm selectively and maliciously indifferent.
it's a lot to get into here and I'm at work now. The best way I can describe it is that on one hand I enjoy it as a story, but I also do not take any of it too literally (Camus described the book as absurd). The murder, even Meursault's character, were vehicles to discuss less literal themes. The idea of him as a sociopath never crossed my mind. To me, the story is less about the murder and more about people's reaction to how Meursault handles himself - doing what one feels right vs what is expected no matter how false, meaningless, etc. etc. it is. I do not think of him as selfish, it not as easy as that (would he be less selfish if he fought tooth and nail to justify what he did when there is no real justification for it?). Yes, he refused to falter from his philosophy, but he suffered the most in the end because of it.
If you get a chance and you are interested in seeing it, the film version is really good
I enjoy The Plague way more. Philosophies aside, just as great stories, Sartre's fiction is some of my favourite. His short stories especially.
I enjoy The Plague way more. Philosophies aside, just as great stories, Sartre's fiction is some of my favourite. His short stories especially.
I recently finished re-reading The Plague...excellent book for sure. I appreciate that it works as a straightforward story and as an allegory.
As for Sartre...well, No Exit is a classic, obviously, but I think that while Sartre is the better philosopher, Camus is better at writing fiction
The Philosophy Olympics!!
It's a matter of taste. I enjoy Sartre's fiction over Camus' by leaps and bounds (The Roads to Freedom trilogy is hard to match). I actually crave/miss his stories and go back to them over and over.
As for Sartre...well, No Exit is a classic, obviously, but I think that while Sartre is the better philosopher, Camus is better at writing fiction
really? what did you think of nausea then?
I thought it was very good.
I'm not saying that Sartre is bad at fiction or other forms of creative writing--far from it, I think he's quite good--I just think Camus is better, while I think Sartre does better in raw philosophy. Like, Sartre is a philosopher who wrote fiction, whereas Camus was a fiction writer given to philosophy, if that makes sense.
"It was as if that great rush of anger had washed me clean, emptied me of hope, and, gazing up at the dark sky spangled with its signs and stars, for the first time, the first, I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe. To feel it so like myself, indeed, so brotherly, made me realize that I'd been happy, and that I was happy still. For all to be accomplished, for me to feel less lonely, all that remained to hope was that on the day of my execution there should be a huge crowd of spectators and that they should greet me with howls of execration."
That's the end of the novel! A shiftless loser murderer's last wish on Earth is for him to be jeered by a vengeful mob!
END OF SPOILER.
Can anyone help me understand this book?
i can help you understand the scene...
it's a french thing...
there is a section of "season in hell" by rimbaud that is the exact same thing:
"But orgies and the company of women were forbiddon me. Not even a companion. I saw myself before an angry mob, facing a firing squad, weeping miserably because they had not understood, and forgiving them!-Like Joan of Arc!-'Priests, teachers, masters, you are making a mistake in delivering me to justice. I have never been a Christian; I belong to the race which sang on the scaffold; I understand nothing of laws; I have no moral sense, I am an animal; you are making a mistake...'"
Comments
You're right about that. I think certain things hit you at certain times, and the differences can be striking.
it's a lot to get into here and I'm at work now. The best way I can describe it is that on one hand I enjoy it as a story, but I also do not take any of it too literally (Camus described the book as absurd). The murder, even Meursault's character, were vehicles to discuss less literal themes. The idea of him as a sociopath never crossed my mind. To me, the story is less about the murder and more about people's reaction to how Meursault handles himself - doing what one feels right vs what is expected no matter how false, meaningless, etc. etc. it is. I do not think of him as selfish, it not as easy as that (would he be less selfish if he fought tooth and nail to justify what he did when there is no real justification for it?). Yes, he refused to falter from his philosophy, but he suffered the most in the end because of it.
If you get a chance and you are interested in seeing it, the film version is really good
I enjoy The Plague way more. Philosophies aside, just as great stories, Sartre's fiction is some of my favourite. His short stories especially.
I was about to say that The Plague is my favorite book by Camu. I wasn't that big on The Stranger or The Fall but The Plague was a good read.
I recently finished re-reading The Plague...excellent book for sure. I appreciate that it works as a straightforward story and as an allegory.
As for Sartre...well, No Exit is a classic, obviously, but I think that while Sartre is the better philosopher, Camus is better at writing fiction
really? what did you think of nausea then?
The Philosophy Olympics!!
It's a matter of taste. I enjoy Sartre's fiction over Camus' by leaps and bounds (The Roads to Freedom trilogy is hard to match). I actually crave/miss his stories and go back to them over and over.
I thought it was very good.
I'm not saying that Sartre is bad at fiction or other forms of creative writing--far from it, I think he's quite good--I just think Camus is better, while I think Sartre does better in raw philosophy. Like, Sartre is a philosopher who wrote fiction, whereas Camus was a fiction writer given to philosophy, if that makes sense.
i can help you understand the scene...
it's a french thing...
there is a section of "season in hell" by rimbaud that is the exact same thing:
"But orgies and the company of women were forbiddon me. Not even a companion. I saw myself before an angry mob, facing a firing squad, weeping miserably because they had not understood, and forgiving them!-Like Joan of Arc!-'Priests, teachers, masters, you are making a mistake in delivering me to justice. I have never been a Christian; I belong to the race which sang on the scaffold; I understand nothing of laws; I have no moral sense, I am an animal; you are making a mistake...'"