This book, at first, seems plain. The simplicity and clarity of the writing is what makes the book unique. A man does this and that, describes what is, objectively, and goes about his life. He is detached, content, accepting, in touch with life as it is and doesn't taint existence with novel interpretations. Rather, he doesn't interpret anything. He is never swayed by what he views as pointless, although he does look for reason in what others are passionate about. He admits that he has considered being less honest to appease others, but decides against doing so.

I read this book because I am interested in existentialism. I found that it not only helped me understand the philosophical movement better, but also helped me justify my ideas. As a person who has been an atheist and a skeptic her entire life, usually told that I am cold and detached, and that being so isn't good, reading this book (and recommending it to others) has helped me feel that my logic makes sense, and is shared by others after all.

I definitely recommend this book to anyone who values rationality, objectivity, simplicity, and loathes senseless novelty.

I am writing my report about a book called The Strangers. The Strangers setting is based a long time ago in France and it is narrated by Monsieur Maersault, reflecting on the end of his life. He is a man who keeps to himself and rarely shows emotion or that he cares about anyone or anything except Marie, and he lives in an apartment-like complex where he keeps to himself and has a feeling he is being followed. His close friends are Raymond, Mason and Marie. Maersault also has a friend, Secile, who owns a neighborhood restaurant. One day during the story Marie and Maersault were invited to Mason's house for a party. Mason owns a large house that has a large beach in the backyard. During the party, Raymond and Maursault walked down the beach, noticing two men had been following them, armed with knives. After they see this they returned back to Mason's. Later that day, Maersault goes back to the beach alone with a gun to see if the two men were still there. Sure enough the men were still there and as they approached each other Maersault made his fatal mistake. Maersault had shot the man dead. After this his life took a downward spiral until the end. He had to go to court, stay in jail, and couldn't be with Marie. After all this, he still had one more chance to prove he wasn't a monster to all the people, and to show his crime. Instead of proving them wrong, he spoke his mind and the truth and that was it. Nobody wanted to deal with him anymore so the court sentenced him to be executed. Inside Maersault was really sad but he still did not show it. Even though he knew his fate he didn't fear it. He managed to not care even though he saw the guillotine that was going to take his head. That was the end. I enjoyed this book because it was very interesting and I wanted to see what would happen to Maersault next.

The Stranger is one of those nobel-prize-winnnig books you see mentioned every now and then, but you don't know if you'll really ever read it yourself. It's such a simple story, but it's so profound and thought-provoking. Basically, a guy kills another guy in self defense and goes to trial over it. That's really all there is to the story. But what makes it so thought-provoking is the personality of the guy. He sends his mother to a nursing home, doesn't cry at her funeral, smokes a cigarette and drinks a cup of coffee immediately after the funeral, and gets a new girl friend the day after the funeral. This makes him suspect. The mob thinks that maybe he has no feelings. They think that maybe he's an awful man that isn't fit to be in public. They think that maybe the murder wasn't in self-defense after all. It's scary to me that people could think a man is a callous monster just based on the feelings a guy did or didn't have for their mother. What's the real line between civilized and savage? Is a person not civilized just because they are less demonstrative about their emotions than most people? Is it a crime to sleep with a girl you just met just because your mother was put in the ground the day before? It's just shocking to see how small of a thing can demonize a person in the eyes of a mob. I think, however, that the most shocking thing to me about this book was to realize that in 1942 France, the death penalty was still beheading by guillotine.

I was told by a really good friend of mine to read this book. Looking in a bookstore on vacation, I came across it. It was cheap so I bought it, not really knowing anything about the story or what I was getting into. But I trust my friend's judgment, so I went ahead and read all of 'The Stranger' this afternoon. WOW is all I can say. The language and storytelling is so simple, so effective, that I got wrapped up in the world that Camus was engaging me in.

It reads like Salinger's 'The Catcher in the Rye', at least in my opinion. He tells the story so clearly. It's one of the most concise books I've ever read. It is quite depressing, but you oddly feel sorry for, and relate to the main character. I feel an odd sense of hope after reading it, and for people that hated it, I can't see what they're talking about. The story will engulf you and not let go until the end. Highly recommended!

(This is a review of the Matthew Ward translation; black an dwhite cover)

This is a newish translation, done by an American rather than the British translation that had previously been the only English version of this French classic. It seems Camus was heavily influenced by American literature of the period -- Hemmingway, Faulkner and others -- and had written The Stranger, the first half especially, to reflect those stylistic sensibilities. The translator argues in his forward that much of that was lost in the British translation. And so here, it is restored.

The result is a matter-of-fact tone more in keeping with our unlikable protagonist, the distant, somewhat bitter Meursault. His almost emotionless life and anti-social tone are stark and ugly, traits that drag him beneath the waves when he is put on trial for murder. As always, The Stranger is compelling reading, but also frustrating, because it is so impossible to care for the main character in the final chapters.

Camus' timeless classic remains as essential today as it was when released, while this new translation gets us a bit closer to the stylistic approach he allegedly wanted. Essential reading.

Oh, what does it matter if I write a review about this book or if I don't write a review about this book? Nothing will change. It won't have any affect on anything. In 100 years, I'll be dead, and what difference would it have made if I gave a writeup, or I didn't?

Is anyone ever actually going to read my opinion? And if they do, does my opinion really matter, on a cosmic, macro level? The world will keep on turning, and the sun will keep on burning, and the universe will keep....universing.

It doesn't even matter if you read this book or you don't; if you like it or you don't. It's just an abstract story about a guy, that never actually happened. Not that it would matter even if it had.

I think to say some one doesn't like some one because they can't REALLY grasp/understand it is one of the most arrogant things some one can do, usually; but in this case its necessary. The Stanger is nothing short of life-changing. Simple fact. People that don't admit it are either too stupid, too jealous, or too afraid to come to terms with it.

I say too afraid because of the implications of a philosophy so obviously true. I say too jealous because most of this book seems like things a lot of people think but never end up saying and, well, getting so much credit for. And I say stupid because this book is great and screw them.

Fast shipping and the book was in excellent condition for what I paid for. Would recommend :)

This novel is absurd. This is not arguable. The point of this novel is that you react to it -- you see Meursault and his absurd way of going about life, and you feel the need to change your own.

Meursault's story begins with his mother's death; "Maman died today.Or yesterday maybe, I don't know." In first person perspective, he introduces his neighbor and best friend.He explains his world to you, all the while showing minimal emotion toward the tragedies that encroach upon his life. You begin to feel a bond to Meursault as much as you feel his distance. Each event pulls you closer to him, but pushes away correspondingly. As you read the book, you will know Meursault but become only a visitor to his soul as he gets drawn into a murder. Albert Camus has written a novel that crosses the nonsensical with catastrophe.I am unhesitant to propose that this story be read by all who have seen this review. It's a quick read you will enjoy thinking of for days to come.
Thank you for reading,
C.K.

This is a great book. I would recommend to anyone. It has a great story line and a wonderful setting.

***SPOILER INCLUDED****

The story based around the deaths of Meursault's mother, a distant acquaintance of his, and his execution is ludicrous, yet the mindsets of the characters are strikingly real and fitting considering the situations that they are faced with.

The plot is just plain ridiculous. Meursault, the protagonist, subsequent to partaking in his mother's funeral, kills a man because the sun gets in his eyes and he blunders, clicking the trigger, and then letting the barrel pop four more times.

After spending months in jail awaiting a trial, the magistrate tells Meursault that he can be forgiven for his crime, with the help of God. Meanwhile, the presiding judge believes that Meursault has no soul. Therein lies the theme of the novel: are Meursault's qualities attributed to an underdeveloped way of thinking and expressing himself, or do his actions speak for themselves, proving that he is all but inhuman, a man, or even a spectacle, with no soul? What makes this argument so compelling is that it is easy to identify with Meursault, but his actions take on a role of their own. He is seemingly indifferent to just about everything, with exception to being imprisoned. But even that he gets used to. His carelessness may be due to subconscious depression. Is he hiding his true feelings? There's plenty of evidence to argue this point..

When Meursault visits his mother's funeral home, he falls asleep in an abnormal position, possibly so that he doesn't have to deal with his thoughts of his loss. When he arrives at the home, he notices minute details of all of the old men and women there, including those of the caretaker, the funeral home manager, and Mr. Perez. He distracts himself from thinking about his mother. He clearly has feelings for her, however, because later in the novel, when he's in trial, he can't help but be infuriated at himself for not crying on the day of the burial. When Meursault shoots the Arab five times, he envisions knocking on the door of unhappiness with each hit. Is he doing himself in because deep down he thinks he deserves it? Is his crude indifference towards the world mistaken for his open mind and lack of understanding of others, and of himself?

On the other hand, may be merciless and hard headed. He doesn't know how old his mother was when she died, or exactly when she died, and he is under the impression that being at her funeral is a bother, because he could be doing other things, and later he admits that he deserves to be killed.

Meursault's relationship with his girlfriend, Marie is essential in this novel. Whether Meursault has a soul or not is debatable, but his admiration for Marie is not. He uses love as a distraction from his worries, and the pairing of the couple is perfect fit. Marie appears to be as open minded as Meursault, and while Meursault voices that he doesn't seem to care about much of anything, which might be perceived as an immature viewpoint, Marie demonstrates the same notion through her innocent laughs. But neither Meursault nor Marie are really innocent. Marie wants to be with Meursault in bed, and, like Meursault, doesn't seem to have much else on her mind. Meanwhile, Meursault writes a letter for his friend threatening his friend's girlfriend, and later he hears them fight without intervening. Yet, in a way, the two still are innocent until they face Meursault's prison sentence and execution.

Meursault is a criminal, whether or not it was his intention, but he has feelings, just like everyone else. And his thought process makes more sense after his prison sentence than anywhere else in the novel. The reality of his emotions, during the time he spends in lock up, jump out of the page. I don't believe this work would have earned Albert Camus the Nobel Prize without the detail in the final pages. Suddenly, Meursault sees the world in a different light. He had taken his life for granted when he was a free man, wasting time watching passer-bys in the street from his porch, keeping anything important from lingering on his mind. And now the only thing he can think about is his anticipitated death, the most important thing in his life. Why hadn't he learned more about the guillotine? he wondered. Why didn't he read books on escaping prison? Impetuously, Meursault began thinking, but it was too late. Even without knowing his fate, Meursault could have imagined potential decision based outcomes, such as going through with marrying Marie. But he had decided not to think, because he didn't have to. He didn't think when he committed murder. He didn't even have the ability to think about why he did it. Was Meursault gutless and cold hearted or did his thoughtlessness become a danger to himself? The moments leading up to his execution represented a new life for him, as he finally began to think about his previous actions and the tolls they took on himself and everyone who he knew, all of whom testified in court. He was finally able to see the light, but it was too late. Even while seated in the courtroom, where there was no way to see the sun, Meursault was able to sense what time of day it was by the sounds outside. The sun had haunted Meursault throughout the book. Everywhere he went, he was too hot. As he killed the Arab, he was attempting to get out of the sun. But the light is exactly what he needed. And that's the irony of the novel.

This is not a novel to read for its story. The plot has little significance in the beauty of "The Stranger." In fact, if someone explained every detail of the book before you read it, they wouldn't be giving much away. It's the style of Camus's writing, even after surviving a translation, that captures the mind of his readers. "The Stranger" is a must read masterpiece of literature.

The story based around the deaths of Meursalt's mother, a distant acquaintance of his, and his execution is ludicrous, yet the mindsets of the characters are strikingly real and fitting considering the situations that they are faced with.

The plot is just plain ridiculous. Meursalt, the protagonist, subsequent to partaking in his mother's funeral, kills a man because the sun gets in his eyes and he blunders, clicking the trigger, and then letting the barrel pop four more times.

After spending months in jail awaiting a trial, the magistrate tells Meursalt that he can be forgiven for his crime, with the help of God. Meanwhile, the presiding judge believes that Meursalt has no soul. Therein lies the theme of the novel: are Meursalt's qualities attributed to an underdeveloped way of thinking and expressing himself, or do his actions speak for themselves, proving that he is all but inhuman, a man, or even a spectacle, with no soul? What makes this argument so compelling is that it is easy to identify with Meursalt, but his actions take on a role of their own. He is seemingly indifferent to just about everything, with exception to being imprisoned. But even that he gets used to. His carelessness may be due to subconscious depression. Is he hiding his true feelings? There's plenty of evidence to argue this point..

When Meursalt visits his mother's funeral home, he falls asleep in an abnormal position, possibly so that he doesn't have to deal with his thoughts of his loss. When he arrives at the home, he notices minute details of all of the old men and women there, including those of the caretaker, the funeral home manager, and Mr. Perez. He distracts himself from thinking about his mother. He clearly has feelings for her, however, because later in the novel, when he's in trial, he can't help but be infuriated at himself for not crying on the day of the burial. When Meursalt shoots the Arab five times, he envisions knocking on the door of unhappiness with each hit. Is he doing himself in because deep down he thinks he deserves it? Is his crude indifference towards the world mistaken for his open mind and lack of understanding of others, and of himself?

On the other hand, Meursalt may be merciless and hard headed. He doesn't know how old his mother was when she died, or exactly when she died, and he is under the impression that being at her funeral is a bother, because he could be doing other things, and later he admits that he deserves to be killed.

Meursalt's relationship with his girlfriend, Marie is essential in this novel. Whether Meursalt has a soul or not is debatable, but his admiration for Marie is not. He uses love as a distraction from his worries, and the pairing of the couple is perfect fit. Marie appears to be as open minded as Meursalt, and while Meursalt voices that he doesn't seem to care about much of anything, which might be perceived as an immature viewpoint, Marie demonstrates the same notion through her innocent laughs. But neither Meursalt nor Marie are really innocent. Marie wants to be with Meursalt in bed, and, like Meursalt, doesn't seem to have much else on her mind. Meanwhile, Meursalt writes a letter for his friend threatening his friend's girlfriend, and later he hears them fight without intervening. Yet, in a way, the two still are innocent until they face Meursault's prison sentence and execution.

Meursalt is a criminal, whether or not it was his intention, but he has feelings, just like everyone else. And his thought process makes more sense after his prison sentence than anywhere else in the novel. The reality of his emotions, during the time he spends in lock up, jump out of the page. I don't believe this work would have earned Albert Camus the Nobel Prize without the detail in the final pages. Suddenly, Meursalt sees the world in a different light. He had taken his life for granted when he was a free man, wasting time watching passer-bys in the street from his porch, keeping anything important from lingering on his mind. And now the only thing he can think about is his anticipitated death, the most important thing in his life. Why hadn't he learned more about the guillotine? he wondered. Why didn't he read books on escaping prison? Impetuously, Meursalt began thinking, but it was too late. Even without knowing his fate, Meursalt could have imagined potential decision based outcomes, such as going through with marrying Marie. But he had decided not to think, because he didn't have to. He didn't think when he committed murder. He didn't even have the ability to think about why he did it. Was Meursalt gutless and cold hearted or did his thoughtlessness become a danger to himself? The moments leading up to his execution represented a new life for him, as he finally began to think about his previous actions and the tolls they took on himself and everyone who he knew, all of whom testified in court. He was finally able to see the light, but it was too late. Even while seated in the courtroom, where there was no way to see the sun, Meursalt was able to sense what time of day it was by the sounds outside. The sun had haunted Meursalt throughout the book. Everywhere he went, he was too hot. As he killed the Arab, he was attempting to get out of the sun. But the light is exactly what he needed. And that's the irony of the novel.

This is not a novel to read for its story. The plot has little significance in the beauty of "The Stranger." In fact, if someone explained every detail of the book before you read it, they wouldn't be giving much away. It's the style of Camus's writing, even after surviving a translation, that captures the mind of his readers. "The Stranger" is a must read masterpiece of literature.

I have read this book at least four different times ever since I was 15 -for the record, I am 34 as I write this review. When I read it the first time, I just wanted people to think I was smart since I was reading Camus.
Time went by, and I found myself reading this book again and coming to the conclusion that it is neither really about the murder (that became a song from the Cure later on, if nobody has written that yet), nor the stranger, nor his trial.
The book can be interpreted as an allegory to the European presence in Africa. If your heart is socialist enough, you can interpret it as an allegory of the European arrogant presence everywhere in the World.

In my view, it is not his best work (I like The Fall much better) but it is a must, no questions asked.

Camus was well known for defending values of justice, freedom and human dignity, I don't think his great work "the stranger" was a negative portrayal of human life in any way. The stranger is simply Camus' way of presenting his philosophy of absurdity in a very artistic, logical way.

Camus's absurdist philosophy implies that life has no rational meaning, and there isn't a rational reason for the order of events in this world, therefore existence itself is absurd, which of course would contradict all religious beliefs that there is a divine reason for everything that happens and that life itself is divine. However, Camus in pursuit of his absurdist philosophy never believed that the absence of meaning in our lives should push humans into despair and agony, rather he believed in humans dignity under the pressure of this indifferent world.

The stranger, or the main character of the novel: Meursault, who lived in Algiers, (Algiers was a French colony, Albert Camus was born there) is an emotionally indifferent person, who moves through life reacting to no event, even his mother's death. Meursault doesn't believe in God and doesn't have any emotional attachment to anything or anybody. Meursault on the other hand is an honest person who doesn't lie about his feelings and tells it as he sees it; he's simply a person with no hidden agendas and no mysterious motives.

Meursault's life exists as a series of random events with seemingly no logic to why or when the event occur, not even his marriage decision or the support that he gives to certain friends seem logical. For no clear motive or reason, Meursault commits a murder and is taken to prison. The trial that takes place in the second part of the book is the most intense and mentally engaging part of Camus' stranger.

The main focus of the trial shifts radically from the murder to an analysis of Meursault's character: his atheism, his lack of emotions at his mom's funeral, his brief interactions with people he met at his mom's funeral and even his conversation with the priest who came to prison to redeem Meursault and ask him to take Jesus as his savior. The court is trying to find the reason behind this irrational crime, just like society and religion are trying to find reason behind irrational events of life.

Meursault is sentenced to death and pressured again by the priest to choose religion before he dies. At this point, Meursault, who was never emotional about any thing in his life, becomes very emotional about his rejection of religion and accepts death as the only destiny awaiting all humans. Getting rid of all hope, and accepting death was the only conclusion that allowed Meursault his inner peace.

At a time of intense intellectual confusion after the second world war, Camus is not to be blamed for thinking that existence was absurd, at a time where lives are being lost for no reason and religion was being misused all over the world for political ,controlling, and non spiritual reasons. If the reader is interested in philosophy, religion, or literature, the stranger is a fascinating journey into the human mind and an exploration of life's purpose.

Essentially this book is about a man whose alleged crime is merely the excuse used to remove him from society. During the trial of the central character we are told he is guilty of neglect, lacks empathy, and is in a sense socially maladjusted. For this he is executed. Today all we need to do to witness such an injustice is turn on the news to see so many of our fallen members of society judged on their social habits and personal shortcomings in the name of justice and the greater good.

Like most of Camus' works, The Stranger's plot is simple but the meaning is trivially existentialist and compelling. The Stranger begins with the death of narrator Meursault's mother. After napping on the bus to her retirement home, Meursault is disengaged and unmoved by the vigil and funeral procession, and continues to be until the finale of his trial.

Meursault appears insensitive throughout The Stranger and lives for pleasure in the moment. When asked by ladyfriend Marie if he loves her, he responds nonchalantly, "...it didn't mean anything but that I probably didn't." Meursault, however, does have feelings for her, but chooses not to acknowledge them.

When faced with the conflict of killing a man for being a threat to his friend, Meursault's "live in the moment" persona erupts inside of him enough to pull the trigger five times and not panic. Throughout the lengthy period of time Meursault spent in prison, he continued to be indifferent, unmoved, and dispassionate. Though he did not feel like a criminal, he still struggled to come to terms with his disposition.

The end of the novel is disconcertingly troubling. Meursault fights to disengage his feelings from Marie as she sits in the visiting room of the prison, and struggles to choke back words of defense for himself during the trial. He listens to the prosecutor demean his image and is powerless over it. Finally, Meursault feels like a criminal, but convinces himself that he will be spared despite his murderous crime. However, Meursault is sentenced to a public execution and consequently becomes even more dispassionate than he had been. His final thoughts of resignation were impersonal and repugnant, due to the fact that Meursault had become entirely convinced that his world was truly a physical one and he had reached the inevitable end.

This was an amazing book, as well as an amazing translation. I loved it and I would wholeheartedly recommend it.

This is one of my favorite books. I got really into existentialism back in highschool before reading this (and it helps to know a little about that) and I just fell in love with the book. Not much happens really, plot wise. And, its almost impossible to view the main character in a good light, so it's really not like many books out there. But because of these facts, and not in spite of them, the book is able to hold your entire attention for its terribly short duration.

Traditionally this is considered a book about alienation. To me it tells the tragedy of having feelings considered alien by the society in which you live.

After killing a man, Meursault is taken before people who shamelessly express their desire to judge him by his personality rather than by what he did or didn't. Even the fact that he was not seen to cry at his mother's funeral becomes an evidence of his guilt. At the same time when all society turns against him in repulsion for his diversity, we start to see the honesty and naivety inherent in his thoughts and decisions. His realization at the end is genial.

This book is a true classic. It is very well written, concise, and accessible. It is a first person narrative of a seemingly ordinary Frenchman living in Algeria who finds himself involved in a murder. It is amazing and disturbing how easy the reader can be drawn in and caught up in the protagonist's detached view of the world.

The book portrays how pathetic, and irrational the mob (people in general) is. The main character is great, the book is descriptive and lucid. A great read.

The universe does not care for us.

For many, this is a daunting realization.

"The Stranger" is a fictional account of a senseless murder committed by a man that knows he is alive only through sensory experiences. Everything else, be it his mother's death, his misogynistic neighbor, or even the simple sunlight, means nothing. It has no bearing on Meursault. It does not affect him. It does not concern him. He continues living without consequence.

Until he visits the beach.

It is there that, through unfortunate chance, Meursault murders a hated Arab; yet Meursault knows not why this is, both the hatred and the murder. But it does not stop him.

It is at this point where Camus introduces an absurdist element to "The Stranger." Once ensnared in the legal system, Meursault's character undergoes a series of transformations at the hands of others. But Meursault the man, Meusault the persona, remains much the same.

Unchanged.

Camus highlights the banality of persecution, impending death, and salvation, stripping these elements of meaning and instead mocking them as absurd and, ultimately, meaningless.

And for some, this knowledge is salvation.

I was really disappointed by this book. It was really hyped by many of the people I know, as a must read. I can't see why. The main character was worse then shallow. The book was written as something critical but the line that Camus and his mentor Sartre seem to take, time and time again, is to side with tyranny. This character was a straight and clear clinical psychopath. Why was it that Sartre was completely "ok" with silencing concentration camp/gulag survivors from Russia? Well... If this character was Sartre and Camus' ideal person then there really is no confusion about that, now is there. It appears that in order for Camus to justify his positions on his politics he had to create bad people and then try to make them ideal. Sociopaths are not heroes rather they are murdering Arabs, run giant corporations, or countries or trying to ridicule or silence people.

After reading this book, it made me realize a lot of things about the present state of writing that I hadn't known. It was funny in many parts, although I wouldn't claim that it was as thorough as some other books deal with this subject. It was sort of banal in many ways, but definitely worth reading. What I mean by some of my previous statements is that in many literary journals writers try to tackle the banal but it comes of as boring. This book never does, it maintains a dramatic touch, and a bit of suspense to go along with the banal.

This is not light reading. Despite its length of 123 pages, The Stranger is a literary endurance test: exhausting, exhaustive, excruciating ... and excellent.

Meursault is nobody special. A pied-noir residing in pre-World War II Algeria, he guns down an Arab in cold blood on a blistering summer day. The protagonist is thrust into the limelight, and a man who once took life at face value finds himself examining a vacuous life.

Such is the plot, but this author's main interests lies elsewhere. Is life not absurd, Camus challenges us through his anti-hero Mersault, when human life is so terminal and soon-forgotten? If yes, why not thrash it and mock it? This question of the absurd has drawn many comparisons with Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky, but Camus shook off the existentalist moniker, and this is a tribute to the Frenchman's intellectual honesty. For the idea of the absurd in this novella contrasts sharply with those of classic existentalists, and Camus's artistic technique differs as well.

My reading of The Stranger hinged on whether, like existentialists, Camus intended to create humor or artistic distance, and in the end, finding no such evidence in the text, I decided he did not. This is bone-hard reality: a prima facie argument delivered with raw power and skilled craftsmanship, but without, I think, sufficient perspective. Unlike Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky, Camus is not poking fun at a 20th-century Chernyshevsky or Hegel here. Camus is right in there with Mersault--dead serious--in this tract of complex ideas and stark layering. The protagonist's declarative statements carry a raw, political force, and indeed he's quite terrifying, and the novel will leave many readers baffled and disturbed.

In a word, this book is surreal, and when read from a surrealist's perspective, the book falls neatly into place for me. A central, philosophical question is this: is Mersault stark-raving mad, or is the world? And if it's the latter, is this murderer in fact sane? What does this say about morality and ethics? Camus doesn't want us laugh at his protagonist as we do Dostoevsky's underground man; we might agree with him instead. As surrealist Andre Breton would say, Mursealth is above "conscious moral or aesthetic self-censorship," where the convicted becomes society's accuser. The crowd is lost in self-serving hypcrisy and delusion, and only Mersault has the wit and integrity to tell them. In this way, Camus argues for his protagnonist's sanity and ethical grounding as he delivers a dark, foreboding message from the cell of an Algerian prison.

The author's sillogism goes something like this: life's unhappy and then we die. Life shouldn't be unhappy, even though we're going to die. Therefore, if we want to be happy, we must embrace death. Like all arguments, this one makes assumptions: people aren't happy, people can't find happiness in the absence of embracing death (such as through spiritual faith). Mersault shouts out his disgust with a rotten world and finds solace in it; he does this in a kind of self-declaration, where he's entitled to speak for himself if he so pleases. In true, post-modern style, Camus suggests we listen to his maverick. Surrealists typically embrace the idiosyncratic and individual while rejecting all forms of group-think--even to the point of refusing to define insane. So no irony is intended when Salvador Dali declares, "There is only one difference between a madman and me. I am not mad." This is Mersault.

Surrealism was popular in Camus's France during the 20th century, but as a reader I nevertheless need to ask whether Mursealt is mad. Mersault is a man of acute awareness struggling in an insane world. This man can murder without contrition, and when the crowd screams out ugly bile in response, they speak with a twisted--but elegant--harmony on the matter of life's cruel nature. In this there's universal solice, and Mersault's individual, relative reality is conjoined with the universal's. Having come full circle, we're left in a moral conundrum where murder is sane. Now Camus has trapped us.

Or has he? It's difficult to laugh at Mersault since he's so disturbing. So I approached this question of Mersault's sanity by evaluating the argument, a dangerous foray inside a man's matrix. But this is precisely where Camus failed, in my view--a wry commentary on a book that was so beautifully constructed atop the human intellect. Kierkegaard avoided the trap of self-declaration when he acknowledged a universal idea of the ethical before allowing a need for a telelogical (i.e., with a purpose) suspension of that ethical, and only as a true act of faith. Mersault has no faith, and his suspension of the ethical is purposeless. That is, he has not placed his transgression on the shoulders of a higher authority. Faith is a paradox, Kierkegaard says, and a moral individual will transcend the ethical only on faith that a higher authority will intervene in this life. Mersault absolves himself of such consequences, and as such, morally disconnects himself from the world of mankind. If this is not a form of madness, then what is? I think the argument collapses here: what's missing in The Stranger is layering. Dostoevksy, too, on the other hand, layers his argument vis-à-vis artistic distancing by presenting his anti-hero in the form of parody. Knowing this, can't we begin to smile at Mersault's self-certain simplicity, despite the internal logic of his argument? The elements of paradox and mockery are not present in The Stranger, but should be.

It's a shame. The 20th century was the most violent and ideologically deranged century in human history. This is a great novel and an excellent read, but like so much literature of that era, The Stranger said more about the world in which it was written than perhaps was intended.

My Titles
Shadow Fields
Snooker Glen

Kind of boring, and truly absurd as his philosophy represents. If you're not interested in his absurdism, then better find some other books to read.

Albert Camus superbly takes us through the thoughts of a Godless heathen; A Nihilist. The author shows us the husk of a man. A hollow being who cares for nothing except his selfish desires. Our protagonist (and I use that label lightly) does not love his mother, whom he just days ago buried. Does not care, and looks on as his acquaintance beats his ex-girlfriend. He also does not care of the consequences or immorality of roaming the beach in search of someone to kill. He is mildly interested in sex. However, the woman whom he shares a bed with is viewed only as a means to the eventual end of satisfy his base needs. The main character is naive, loathsome individual whom everyone who reads this book should take great strength and pains never to be.

"and the stranger - the killing of an arab"
It was those lyrics in Killing An Arab by The Cure that made me want to read this book. Plus, in high school, I thought I was an existentialist.
This story is really interesting and a great book to read if you're at all into the Cure - it's like adding some street cred or something - not really, but I feel somehow more orderly by having read it.
It's short, easy to read and gives an interesting view of life - it is written by quite a well known (ie. accessible) philosopher after all. One could call it a nice intro to existentialism or an addition to your goth music research, cuz you know you love to research music.

"and the stranger - the killing of an arab"
It was those lyrics in Killing An Arab by The Cure that made me want to read this book. Plus, in high school, I thought I was an existentialist.
This story is really interesting and a great book to read if you're at all into the Cure - it's like adding some street cred or something - not really, but I feel somehow more orderly by having read it.
It's short, easy to read and gives an interesting view of life - it is written by quite a well known (ie. accessible) philosopher after all. One could call it a nice intro to existentialism or an addition to your goth music research, cuz you know you love to research music.

I have used this book in a variety of classes ranging from beginning level French culture to teaching college reading prep skills. I choose it because students are often surprised at the lack of involvement Meursault has in his own life. This was the point Camus was trying to make, to be sure. This book is separated into two distinct parts: before and after M. goes to jail for killing some arabs. The book will spart a debate on racism, gender issues, cultural issues of the pied-noir and lliterary styles like absurdism. Did I mention that it is not that long? That is the students' favorite part.

Anyone should try it for something different. You don't need to be in a lit class to enjoy it.

This book is required reading in many high schools - I'm grateful that I'm a long-time out of high school, and nobody required me to read or even understand this short and depressing novel.

The story is about a man (early thirties?) named Meursault. In the beginning, he finds out that his mother has died. He isn't sure exactly what day she died, or even how old she was and it doesn't seem to matter much to him. He confesses that he wasn't sure if he loved his mother and shows no appropriate emotions at her funeral. Soon after he admits that, he's not so sure he loves his girlfriend either. He thinks that at one time or another, all normal people wish that their loved ones were dead. He tells a friend that it is his nature to let his physical needs get in the way of his feelings. What feelings? Then claims that he is like everybody else.?

Near the end of the story he declares that he has never been able to truly feel remorse for anything. It is only in facing his own demise that he displays any emotion.

Okay, so Albert Camus is trying to communicate his belief that there is no absolute truth, that everything is relative and that reality is only found in those things that we experience physically. I can buy into everything is relative theory, but without emotions, feelings and spirituality, is there any such thing as physical reality?

I was required to read this novel in my English class and I am ever so glad that I had too. This story works on so many levels that most people will find one aspect of the story to love. Each of the characters is original and intriguing and makes you think. It is an easy read at only 144 pages but you will finish it wishing that there were more. I highly recommend reading Albert Camus's The Stranger because it is a thought provoking book that will satisfy even the causal reader.

I hated, hated, hated this book. It came highly recommended and I voluntarily (and rather enthusiastically) picked it up. There has never been a main character I have been more disgusted by, a storyline that has been less interesting, and a writing style that has been more obnoxious. I would burn it if it weren't borrowed.

"The Stranger's" theme is that from the moment we are born we are already fated to die and there is no escaping this, so life is largely pointless. Yes, this book is a classic European existentialist-angst downer. The main character, Meursault, is one of those too-cool-to-live guys that just sits in a chair all afternoon and smokes cigarettes blankly--as he does in the book.

Meursault, however, is a post-war Western man. This description may not have been Camus' intention. But the lack of feeling or concern for anything, whether the fact that his "Maman" (a term of affection?) just passed away or that a girlfriend loves him enough to think of marrying him, clearly crosses the line into sociopathy. Meursault goes wherever the events of the day may take him. It might be sitting on his balcony all afternoon or working or shooting a guy to death on a beach. Either way, it doesn't make much difference to him.

Camus' "The Stranger," after this first reading, seems to be an introduction of Western man's inner self after World War II: shiftless, unbelieving (in anything larger than himself), devoid of any intimacy or emotion; utterly uncaring about anything around him. The theme of "we're all dead anyway" is clearly revealing and is much food for later thought. "The Stranger" is a book that will require lengthy revisiting despite its brevity. Just don't revisit it during the holidays.

Camus' The Stranger gives us a portrait of the logical extremity of Nihlism in his character who goes through life with a detachment that is quite disturbing. A numbing look at life as experienced as a series of disconnected episodes without meaning, without commitment , without love.

Does this short novel deserve the critical and academic acclaim and analysis it has received for the last 50 years? Maybe not as literature but as a reflection of the philosophical climate of postwar Europe in which it was conceived and written it still resonates.

This book has been analyzed to death already - we can say its existentialism or point numerous fingers towards the words of Nietzsche and other great philosophers, and we can even make arguments regarding the virtues of death. Yes, this book does all of those things, but the subtleties of this book warrant our appreciation nonetheless.

This book paints a vivid portrait of extremes. At first, the simplistic so-called American language and writing style, the utter lack of imagery and emotion, not to mention Meursault's complete lack of sensitivity, put me off. Nevertheless, very shortly we come to realize that Merusault is not actually a mere character in a story; he is a mirror, reflecting back all humanity's apathy.

Meursault got used to his life, got used to the mundane, got used to the day to day drudgery, so used to it that "the emptiness of a man's heart becomes an abyss threatening to swallow up society." Meursault is the victim of indifference. Every pleasure in life is meaningless for him, worth less than nothing. And it's only after Meursault is imprisoned for murder and confronted with his own death that he sees all he has taken for granted. Not only does he see the great beauty in the world, he also sees humanity as the world's greatest ugliness. Meursault holds fast to this exposed truth; when confronted with his own impending execution in the end, his only wish is "that there be a large crowd of spectators [...] and that they greet me with cries of hate." One wish, and that is to live one moment free from indifference.

Many struggle through this work. Yes, it can be seen as painfully boring in the beginning, but as you read, the story changes pace, the language shifts, and the beauty of the words begins to bloom as the pages turn. Meursault's situation might seem unrealistic, absurd even, but given a longer look ... its truth is glaringly apparent and quite disturbing.

I was required to read this book for my english class. The only books we ever read are depressing, sad and pointless. If you want to conteplate how pointless life is and whether it is worth it for you to be alive right now breathing and wasting air, then this book is perfect for you. I don't know how it can be hailed as fantastic when the english level is quite low and meaningless. It doesn't make you contemplate the mysteries of life, it just makes you feel more sad and depressed, like our lives aren't. If you don't want to be cornered into an idea of contemplating suicide, then please do not read this book.

Camus is here proponing his absurdist theory, as something of a counterpoint to existentialism. The amoral main character, Meursault has a short attention span and an utterly lazy approach to life - not that he doesn't work hard, but that it doesn't make any difference to him what happens. His catchphrase is that things and events are "of so little importance." "It's common knowledge that life isn't worth living, anyhow," is what gets him through the day.

The novel begins as Meursault's mother dies, and then takes us through his daily activities, culminating in a rather inexcusable murder. The second half of the novel traces Meursault's trial.

Ultimately, Meursault rejects God repeatedly, although it certainly didn't help that the minister (along with the one other Christian in the novel) is something of a buffoon, and has a very poor approach. Meursault is content to put his fate in the hands of "the benign indifference of the universe."

Considering the implications of some of these philosophies, it remains baffling to me that some people are content to die and then to cease to exist. Put another way, some people have so little regard for their own existence. Certainly both existentialism and absurdism are anti-Christianity in this and many other aspects.

The novel has a little trouble getting out of the blocks, but it picks up nicely and it's a quick read. Ultimately, the degree to which one enjoys this book is dependent on how one feels about its philosophies.

TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT

(Note: This is a review of Stuart Gilbert's translation)

I am not familiar with Albert Camus's work, but decided to read this. I was hooked from the beginning. Camus is very effective at instilling a sense of urgency and suspense. Throughout the novel, you feel helpless, nothing more than a passenger being swept toward the inevitable conclusion.

The main character is as much a victim of whimsy and circumstance as a willing participant in it. At times he seems like nothing more than a sentient animal, able to communicate with other people effectively, but unable (or unwilling) to emote. As I read, my mind became filled with questions. Is his condition the result of a mental handicap, or an innate acceptance of reality? Is it actually possible for someone to be like this? Was he always like this, or did something make him this way?

What's worse is the question I continually avoid: is he right?

The fictional story, The Stranger, was written by a French author, Albert Camus, and published in English in 1946. The short novel is about the fall of the main character, Meursault, due to his fatal flaw - indifference. The Stranger gives the reader a glimpse into the mind of a criminal and insight into the danger of human apathy.
If Camus's purpose was to depress the reader, he certainly accomplished his goal. The reading is heavy and full of despondency. The author takes us into the mind of a criminal and shows us why he committed murder. The reader may find him/herself swinging back and forth on whether to sympathize with Meursault or to detest him.
The plot of this book is very unclear and unorganized. However, this fits exactly with the tone of the story. Meursault's mother, Maman, is a big part of the plot even though she is not alive in any of the book. The Stranger opens with Meursault going to Maman's funeral. "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know." His mind cannot seem to focus that his own mother has died. He does not care that she is dead and all he can think of is his discomfort through the funeral. This is significant because later in the investigation of the murder, they use his insensitivity of his mother's death as evidence of his cruel and monstrous character.
Camus uses very short, concise sentences in his book. The thoughts of Meursault's are so rational that it is close to insane. He cannot seem to feel anything. The short sentences add to the way Meursault's mind works. The book is descriptive but the language is certainly not beautiful; the descriptions are cold and unattached observations.
Meursault's character is portrayed as exceedingly indifferent but he shows a little bit of humanity at the very end of the story when he is about to be executed. He is thinking over his life and Maman. "I felt as if I understood why at the end of her life...she had played at beginning again...And I felt ready to live it all again too." The only thing that takes away from his feeling of happiness at the end of his life is a desire to not be alone. "I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution..." This is the only element of humanity that is ever portrayed by Meursault. This show of humanity finally gives The Stranger a little bit of life and makes it believable.
Albert Camus wrote this book with wisdom and insight into the character flaw of apathy. His main character is an extreme example of how apathy can diminish morals and meaningful people into something that is just another insignificant thing in this huge world.

It didn't sink in until the next day. I couldn't believe how sad it was.

"Is my client on trial for having buried his mother, or for killing a man?"

That question, asked toward the end of "The Stranger", will stay with the reader. Meursault lived a simple life, uncomplicated by extravagant emotion. And that--by judgment of his society--was his real crime. Chilling.

And here is another question which may haunt readers: Just what emotions should one feel, and just exactly how strongly should they be felt? Careful, Camus may have said, your answers will be used against you.

In summary . . . this automaton-like self-absorbed jerk shoots a guy to death, and the jury correctly finds that it is not self-defense (you read me correctly fellow reviewers. It is NOT self defense to shoot someone laying on the ground that possibly possesses a knife with evil intent. You should simply step back. Society accepts use of deadly force as justified in order to "stop", not recreationally "kill". That is referred to as murder, not self-defense). So, the jury found Msr. Meursault guilty of taking another man's life, unjustifiably, and with intent. I agree. (Do you?)

So anyway, this thick jerk is sent to prison awaiting execution. He doesn't seem to mind very much. His long term future certainly looks bleak since he has decided that there is no God, and he is scoring near zero on the repentence meter. Yes, he is an existentialist and a nihilist.

So much for the renowned Albert Camus. Technically, this book is well written. However, I found it rather boring, only marginally believable, and generally depressing. For me, it was no more "thought-provoking" than observing someone in a cycle of picking and regrowing a scab (inexplicable, but not interesting). There is NO REASON for the acclaim that this novel has garnered (except perhaps that there are academics out there that wish us to believe that this philosophical tripe is truth).

This is an unlikable story about a small unlikable man. Not recommended, but I understand that your teacher may be forcing you to read it. Fear not, it is short. It's a little above average as literature, but written about a fool by a fool.

I read this book in High School and I hated it. Even to my young 17 year old brain, the concepts of philosophy seemed ludicrous. I guess I must have understood them on some basic level, because like I said, I got an A. But it was a shock to me as well! I understand why a book like this is in an Honors English class. It may be more interesting in the original French.

Nihilism...existentialism...theory of the absurd...I don't which category this book technically falls into, all I can say is that it made me squirm. The protagonist of the novel was a very calm person, quite detached in fact, but ironically it is his calmness which unsettled me.

Is this what life really is all about? Does it have no meaning, no purpose? Are there no morals? No God? I don't know...I'll the philosophers and thinkers argue that. I can't alter my beliefs now, but the book provided me a window into all the things which I don't believe in.

I would certainly recommend it to anyone and everyone.

This is a top contender for the worst book ever written. I thought about giving it a tied position with Pamela Anderson's _Star_, but upon reflection I have decided that I would rather read _Star_ again than read _The Stranger_ again, although I would rather be eaten alive by rabid wolverines than do either. This book is so bad that it is painful for me to read it. If I had a time machine, I would pay to have Camus beaten to death on a deserted beach, ultimately preventing this disaster from ever coming into existence.

Camus claimed in an interview that the main character who is "the stranger" died for the truth. The reader can make their own judgement. I thought it was more complicated than that.

Albert Camus (1913 - 1960) was a French writer and philosopher. He is often associated with existentialism, but Camus rejected any ideological classification. Camus was a young recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature when he became the first African-born writer to receive the award in 1957. He died in a car crash only three years after receiving the award. He was a social activist and Communist, and fought with the French resistance in WWII. Later he rejected Communism.

I like his work because he combines realism with the rational versus the irrational. He creates an interesting combination of intense and compelling plot along with political and moral ideas. His trademark contribution was his idea of the absurd, "the result of our desire for clarity and meaning within a world and condition that offers neither, which he explained in The Myth of Sisyphus and incorporated into many of his other works, such as The Stranger and The Plague."

The Stranger is short, just over 100 pages. It is about a North African man probably in his late twenties or thirties, called Meursault, and his girl friend Marie, and a neighbor Raymond.

Without giving away the plot, the story follows the reactions of Meursault to the death and the funeral of his mother. He puts on no airs or false fronts, and acts in a way he thinks is honest. Others interpret his emotions as being deeply flawed.

The reader can judge if Meursault is honest or flawed.

I liked the short novel. It has a certain bite to it and it grabs the reader and holds the reader through the whole novel, right to the last page. The story is both unusual and plausible. Camus makes his philosophical point in the 120 pages.

It is an outstanding piece of writing, and it is far less complex and easier to understand than some of his other works.

Camus claimed in an interview that the main character who is "the stranger" died for the truth. The reader can make their own judgement. I thought it was more complicated than that.



Albert Camus (1913 - 1960) was a French writer and philosopher. He is often associated with existentialism, but Camus rejected any ideological classification. Camus was a young recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature when he became the first African-born writer to receive the award in 1957. He died in a car crash only three years after receiving the award. He was a social activist and Communist, and fought with the French resistance in WWII. Later he rejected Communism.



I like his work because he combines realism with the rational versus the irrational. He creates an interesting combination of intense and compelling plot along with political and moral ideas. His trademark contribution was his idea of the absurd, "the result of our desire for clarity and meaning within a world and condition that offers neither, which he explained in The Myth of Sisyphus and incorporated into many of his other works, such as The Stranger and The Plague."



The Stranger is short, just over 100 pages. It is about a North African man probably in his late twenties or thirties, called Meursault, and his girl friend Marie, and a neighbor Raymond.



Without giving away the plot, the story follows the reactions of Meursault to the death and the funeral of his mother. He puts on no airs or false fronts, and acts in a way he thinks is honest. Others interpret his emotions as being deeply flawed.



The reader can judge if Meursault is honest or flawed.



I liked the short novel. It has a certain bite to it and it grabs the reader and holds the reader through the whole novel, right to the last page. The story is both unusual and plausible. Camus makes his philosophical point in the 120 pages.



It is an outstanding piece of writing, and it is far less complex and easier to understand than some of his other works.

Camus claimed in an interview that the main character who is "the stranger" died for the truth. The reader can make their own judgement. I thought it was more complicated than that.

Albert Camus (1913 - 1960) was a French writer and philosopher. He is often associated with existentialism, but Camus rejected any ideological classification. Camus was a young recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature when he became the first African-born writer to receive the award in 1957. He died in a car crash only three years after receiving the award. He was a social activist and Communist, and fought with the French resistance in WWII. Later he rejected Communism.

I like his work because he combines realism with the rational versus the irrational. He creates an interesting combination of intense and compelling plot along with political and moral ideas. His trademark contribution was his idea of the absurd, "the result of our desire for clarity and meaning within a world and condition that offers neither, which he explained in The Myth of Sisyphus and incorporated into many of his other works, such as The Stranger and The Plague."

The Stranger is short, just over 100 pages. It is about a North African man probably in his late twenties or thirties, called Meursault, and his girl friend Marie, and a neighbor Raymond.

Without giving away the plot, the story follows the reactions of Meursault to the death and the funeral of his mother. He puts on no airs or false fronts, and acts in a way he thinks is honest. Others interpret his emotions as being deeply flawed.

The reader can judge if Meursault is honest or flawed.

I liked the short novel. It has a certain bite to it and it grabs the reader and holds the reader through the whole novel, right to the last page. The story is both unusual and plausible. Camus makes his philosophical point in the 120 pages.

It is an outstanding piece of writing, and it is far less complex and easier to understand than some of his other works.