# Reading > Write a Book Review >  The Stranger ~ Albert Camus

## Dark Muse

I brought this book to read while I was away on vaccation and I thought it was excellent. I could really relate to the main character and narator of the story, and this book really spoke to me on a deep level. 

The story is about a young man who stands outside of the normal bounds of society, and tended to go through life with a rather apathetic feeling. And tended to be emotionally distant. He ended up getting mixed up in some trouble because of a friend of his, and had to go to trial and during the course of the trail he was crucified because he did not experience things in the way that was considered to be proper and normal, and socially acceptable. As well the fact that he was an atheist shocked and horrified others, and he was painted to look like some sort of inhuman monster. The book was marvelously written, and very provocative

----------


## kelby_lake

It was quite interesting

----------


## Gibran

I have read this book in both Chinese and French, Camus was a great writer indeed, he was far more talented, inspired and skilled than Paul Satre. I think the aim of this weird book may be to proove that a philosophical view towards real life is sure to be beaten. Logic is loved, but doesn't fit human life.

----------


## Orpheus

I just finished reading The Stranger earlier this evening and I agree, it was very well written, provocative, raised questions of great importance, and involved a character that I could relate to as well. I especially liked the way Camus' writing style differentiated between the first and second parts, shifting from the short, almost mechanical-sounding sentences of the first part to the more fluid and allegorical descriptive writing prevalent in the second. Are there any ideas as to why Camus decided upon this stylistic shift in his writing? It was effective and I applaud his wonderful use of language, however, my understanding is rather elementary. Any ideas?

----------


## amalia1985

Extremely well-written, Camus exposes- once again- all the cruelty and hypocricy of society, and how those who "dare" to be different are ruthlessly persecuted and victimised.

----------


## bazarov

> Extremely well-written, Camus exposes- once again- all the cruelty and hypocricy of society, and how those who "dare" to be different are ruthlessly persecuted and victimised.


They should let him go? I am also different, but I haven't killed anyone.  :Smile:

----------


## Dark Muse

The guy he shot did stab his friend and than draw a knife on him. A case for self-defense I think could be made here. He did not kill a perfectly innocent civilian in cold blood. The victim here bares some of the guilt for what happened.

----------


## amalia1985

> The guy he shot did stab his friend and than draw a knife on him. A case for self-defense I think could be made here. He did not kill a perfectly innocent civilian in cold blood. The victim here bares some of the guilt for what happened.


Exactly, that's my opinion, at least.

----------


## bazarov

> The guy he shot did stab his friend and than draw a knife on him. A case for self-defense I think could be made here. He did not kill a perfectly innocent civilian in cold blood. The victim here bares some of the guilt for what happened.


In that moment he didn't made any dangerous acts; it was only blackout in his head. He accused Sun, and that's not the best reason for self defense. Personally, I really like Mersault but he is guilty and had to be punished.

----------


## Dark Muse

Even if he is guilty of the crime, which I am not completely convinced that he should have been punished the way he was, when the victim had acted in a way to bring about such an action. 

The trial was not truly about the crime itself, and never in the course was the fight mentioned or the fact that the victim had in fact instigated it, or was armed and drew a weapon. 

Mersault was not truly punished for his actions. He was punished for not fitting into normal society, and for not perceiving things, or reacting and feeling to things in a way that is considered to be acceptable

----------


## dm1337

im studying this book in literature atm, i really like it.
its true, he is not punished for his crime, but rather becuase he does not conform to society in the expect mannor.

----------


## Nossa

I've wanted to read this book for sometime now, but I couldn't find it anywhere here!

----------


## dward1

I am very surprised that some of you think that he is punished for being socially different or outside of the norm and seem to think that is wrong. It's true he does not conform to society in the expected manner but that expected manner is he murdered a man. That is not just a societal law but a violation of natural law. I don't think Camus wrote this book with any intention of portraying Meursault as innocent. I think he is guilty of the murder and in a deeper sense his lifestyle. An indifferent lifestyle of ignoring distinctions between everything (saying Salamano's dog is just as good as is wife) and living life passively leads to the life of Meursault. 

I just don't understand how Meursault's life could be viewed on the whole as a positive?

----------


## Dark Muse

But there were circumstances in the murder. He did not just walk up to someone and shoot them in pure cold blood. The man he shot did stab his friend, and had been looking to get into a fight with them, as well as had pulled a knife upon him before he shot him. But none of that was discussed in the trail. In the trail he was persecuted purely because of how he lived his life. 

Though the way he lived his life may not have been "positive" he should not have to live according to the standards of society. 

I think considering his crime was not 1st degree murder, and could possibly be viewed as self-defense executing him was an extreme. I am not saying he is completely innocent, but he was persecuted for being abnormal.

----------


## Dr. Hill

I read this thrice, and absolutely loved it each time, finding more and more to take from the novel upon every reading.

----------


## ArunSaxena

the way you described the story has made it sound really appealing. it has increased my curiosity. would definitely read this new book.

----------


## optimisticnad

I read this twice in a row because it baffled me. I couldn't understand what Camus was trying to say. I still don't, there's so many conflicting interpretations! It's a brain teaser.

----------


## kelby_lake

It is very confusing, yes. Not a lot of fun if you don't have an understanding of philosophy.

----------


## Emil Miller

I read this book years ago and, despite all the philosophising, the plain fact is that the main protagonist killed a man and paid the penalty.
I really couldn't see why Camus seemed to be arguing a case for the killer.
I didn't think at the time that it was a very interesting book: it seemed to me to be rather vacuous and to some degree pointless. We all have to conform to a set of values, even if philosophers make a living out of questioning them;the alternative is anarchy. It certainly didn't come anywhere near The Plague; where the philosophy was at least carried by a well-written story.

----------


## MilindChatterji

i read this novel some time back and i feel the author, Albert Camus is too good. the story and the narrative is so engrossing that even after i finished reading it, the apathy the young man received from the society in the story was there in my mind for several days! really a touching story.

----------


## kandaurov

This was a great read. Simple, to the point, yet very insightful. I too could relate to him, which probably explains why I liked it so much. I've just given a copy of to my sister, a week ago or so, I just had to.

Love the irony in how he's ultimately tried for the life he leads and the values he embraces and not really for his actions. Could Larry David and Seinfeld have gotten some inspiration from it for the series's _finale_?

Funny how it does nothing to debunk the myth that 'atheists are morally bankrupt and more prone to being irresponsible towards others and even violent'. I bet it makes some people think that even more.

----------


## Tallon

Everytime this novel is refered to i've always though that it sounded a lot liked The Outsider, i've only just realised it's the same book. Doh.

Am i right in remembering that Mersault remains apathetic even when he has been arrested and then convicted?

----------


## Genejo

I read the book years ago in French and was very much impressed by it. Camus' style is quite unique and he still stands out as one of the greatest French writers.

----------


## Caspa

Nice review, Dark Muse.

This is definitely one of my favourite books, if not my most favourite book!

----------


## ArunSaxena

i just finished reading the dark muse and am deeply moved by the apathy the society showed towards the protagonist. the narratives is too good that i almost felt reading some real life incident which happened not so long ago.

----------


## Gladys

I recently saw a fine Turkish movie of 'The Stranger' with English subtitles.

Mersault is a man is deep despair: life consists of a short bursts of moments...then _death_, the one certainty. Nothing matters to him but the moment. Once his mother dies in her sleep, she may as well have died fifty years before!

He acts on impulse because 'future' has no meaning, and 'past' or 'present' no worth. His murder, imprisonment and court case are a series of momentary distractions of *no* consequence. Since nothing has consequence, his choices are arbitrary. He is not depressed: he simply sees the world without veneer.

I don't see Mersault as an atheist so much as a man in utter despair, who _arbitrarily_ chooses to live on rather than suicide. He is a fascinating character. 

Reading the intellectual giant, Soren Kierkegaard, helps in understanding Mersault .

----------


## bouquin

In your opinion, why the title _The Stranger_?

----------


## kelby_lake

> Everytime this novel is refered to i've always though that it sounded a lot liked The Outsider, i've only just realised it's the same book. Doh.
> 
> Am i right in remembering that Mersault remains apathetic even when he has been arrested and then convicted?


The French title is 'L'Etranger', which basically means 'The Stranger' but it's more of an alienation, disconnection (like estranged). 'The Outsider' probably gives a better translation.

----------


## Chava

> In that moment he didn't made any dangerous acts; it was only blackout in his head. He accused Sun, and that's not the best reason for self defense. Personally, I really like Mersault but he is guilty and had to be punished.


As I see it, he accepts this too. The priest asks him to accept god in his heart for eternal forgiveness, but essentially isn't that just showing the real social hypocrisy? Meursault knows he is guilty, and accepts that he will be killed.

----------


## Page Turner

The Stranger was my least favorite Camus, which is not to say it wasn't a great book. IMHO it can't beat the power of The Plague or the beauty of The Fall.

----------


## libernaut

> I have read this book in both Chinese and French, Camus was a great writer indeed, he was far more talented, inspired and skilled than Paul Satre. I think the aim of this weird book may be to proove that a philosophical view towards real life is sure to be beaten. Logic is loved, but doesn't fit human life.


Just wanted to say that i completely disagree with your comment about Camus being better than Sartre. Camus and Sartre were actually good friends and two very talented individuals. If you have read Sartre's Nausea or any of his plays I doubt you would be saying that. Though Camus is great in his own right, he is no better or worse than sartre, they are both genius.

----------


## faithosaurus

This book is definitely in my top five, and Albert Camus is one of the best writers I have ever seen. The fact that he can get someone to want to defend Meursault, even if they hate the man, and also respect him regardless. 

(WARNING: contains spoilers [in case anyone hasn't read it])

Personally, I absolutely love Meursault. His apathetic/stoic behavior attracts me immensley for some odd reason. I love how Camus has his character develop, and how he develops Meursault's ability to feel.

In the beginning, we see a man that seems heartless. He can't show emotion; for what reason, we don't know. I think of it as the emotional part of his brain isn't completely developed, and the fact that he can't get in touch with his own feelings means that he doesn't know how to deal with other's emotions as well, such as when he got 'annoyed' but his mother's friend's crying.

We see how he shows some emotion toward his mother when something reminds him of her, and he instantly finds a way to shut it off. 

As we get further into the book, Meursault's feelings seem more apparent. When he kills the Arab, it's as though he is letting out all of his anger in those four extra shots.

At the trials, he keeps his stoic demeanor at first, which turns most of the people against him and practically seals his fate. I found it odd when he told that all people wish a loved one dead at some point, but he's terribly burdened by lying, as he tells his lawyer.

At this point - to me - Meursault is showing more emotion that he had ever shown in chapters before. When I saw how he was able to recognize others emotions, it was apparent that he was starting to break loose as well. 

When the last chapter is read, Meursault's emotions really break loose. One can tell that he is trying everything in his might to keep from feeling anything about his execution - such as when he sees that when he dies, it really won't matter anyway since it will happen eventually and the world will still go on regardless - but in the end it doesn't work. 

One thing I noticed in the last chapter was the use of an exclamation point. When I saw this, I instantly felt the emotions radiating off of him. He tries to keep his cool at the end when the man comes and talks to him, and at first he does a pretty good job. You can see his old demeanor for a split second when he is 'annoyed' by him. But the last part, he ends up breaking down. 

The last sentence really just sticks with me. It's such a crazy way to end the book, and it makes you go "..why?"

Anyway, that's my two cents.

----------


## Gladys

It's a good read!




> We see how he shows some emotion toward his mother when something reminds him of her, and he instantly finds a way to shut it off.


Meursault proceeds to _shut it off_ because it doesn't much matter?




> When he kills the Arab, it's as though he is letting out all of his anger in those four extra shots.


_Anger_ at the raised temperature?




> ...but he's terribly burdened by lying, as he tells his lawyer.


I can't find the reference but it sounds odd.




> When I saw how he was able to recognize others emotions, it was apparent that he was starting to break loose as well.


Meursault seems to understand emotion without much valuing it.




> When the last chapter is read, Meursault's emotions really break loose. One can tell that he is trying everything in his might to keep from feeling anything about his execution - such as when he sees that when he dies, it really won't matter anyway since it will happen eventually and the world will still go on regardless - but in the end it doesn't work.


Meursault's _emotions really break loose_ only because people are annoying him. Does he feel _anything about his execution_ except, perhaps, a passing interest mingled with a passing, but natural, fear of pain? _In the end it doesn't work_ because, in an absurd world, what does? 




> . He tries to keep his cool at the end when the man comes and talks to him, and at first he does a pretty good job. You can see his old demeanor for a split second when he is 'annoyed' by him. But the last part, he ends up breaking down.


In a word, the priest bores, and therefore irritates, Meursault; so he loses his cool as he did when he shot the Arab.




> The last sentence really just sticks with me. It's such a crazy way to end the book, and it makes you go "..why?"


Why? That_ they should greet me with howls of execration_ would add a fleeting spice to an indifferently happy life.

----------


## faithosaurus

> It's a good read!
> 
> 
> 
> Meursault proceeds to _shut it off_ because it doesn't much matter?


This seems like a good response, since it really seems that it doesn't matter to him.





> _Anger_ at the raised temperature?


Anger at the temperature, at how the sun reminds him of his mother's death, etc.






> I can't find the reference but it sounds odd.


There's one part where it doesn't necessarily say that he's burdened, but when his lawyer asks him not to say that (meaning about everyone wishing a loved one dead) Meursault responds with the fact that it's the truth. He would rather tell the truth since it was how he felt, regardless of what others thought.

----------


## Baudolina

It seems that those who enjoyed the book can identify with Mersault to some extent. Perhaps this is why I didn't care for it. I just could not fathom where he was coming from. He was not even capable of personal ambition. Example: not excited at the prospect of going to Paris for his job because apparently "One life is just as good as another." The only emotions he could muster up were lust and (eventually) desperation to avoid execution. I believe he should have been found guilty, and I'm sure Camus wasn't suggesting that there were extenuating circumstances, although perhaps he thought he should have been freed regardless (and it goes without saying that Camus opposed the death verdict). However, I entirely agree that what Mersault was convicted of was being a jerk. This seems to be how murder trials go: if you are sympathetic enough, the jury might give you a pass. The one point I could identify with him on was his willingness to state the obvious truth, even when it is in poor taste or later, dangerous to his case.

----------


## Jassy Melson

I read The Stranger about twenty-five years ago. I don't remember what the main character's motivation was for killing his mother. Can anyone tell me what it was?

----------


## Jassy Melson

I must be mistaken about this book. I thought he killed his mother.

----------


## OrphanPip

> I must be mistaken about this book. I thought he killed his mother.


He didn't kill his mother. Although, a major aspect of the novel is Meursault's lack of emotional response to his mother's death, and his unwillingness to view the body at the funeral.

----------


## Dark Muse

> execution. I believe he should have been found guilty, and I'm sure Camus wasn't suggesting that there were extenuating circumstances, although perhaps he thought he should have been freed regardless


I think the fact that the person he shot was approaching him while wielding a knife, after having already stabbed his friend, could be considered an extenuating circumstance. 

While his motivation for the shooting may not have in fact been self-defense, it is not as if did just walk up to some completely random person and shoot them. The person whom he shot, did pose a reasonable threat to his well being and was not some completely innocent bystander.

----------


## faithosaurus

> It seems that those who enjoyed the book can identify with Mersault to some extent.


SO true, and is true in my case. I've actually had a friend tell me I'm good to talk to because of my lack of emotions, haha.

----------


## jmnixon95

I'm quite happy to see the results of the poll, as well as the posts. I voted for: '**** Don't forget to unplug the phone for this one!'
I want to start picking up French one of these days, so I can read the French philosophical literature exactly as it was intended to be read. I already know German (Marx, Nietzsche, etc.)
But with that said, I might as well pick up Russian too... yikes, the alphabet.

----------


## OrphanPip

Camus' prose is very simple and direct so he translates well, The Stranger is read in grade 9 French classes here. It's actually a great medium difficulty text for learners of French.

----------


## hopesl

That's the problem with human nature. In the book, it says he killed the Arab because of the sun. In this case, the sun is societal pressure. During the trial, people are acting like everyone on this forum because it's human nature; everyone wants to know why. This doesn't just happen in the book, this happens no matter what the case is. Humans need to know why someone did something. Maybe he just did it because he could or wanted to- maybe he was thinking why not? He disregards the laws (social norms) and does it anyway.

----------


## Gladys

> That's the problem with human nature. In the book, it says he killed the Arab because of the sun. In this case, the sun is societal pressure.


Why not accept Meursault's explanation at face value? The unshielded, hot sun bothered him at that moment, so he lashed out in irritation. If all is vanity, isn't this reason sufficient?

----------

