Scan barcode
isidorara's review against another edition
challenging
dark
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
bradyoch's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.75
moreale's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
ponderinganas12's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
gillespiehj1's review against another edition
dark
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
worldthroughcurls's review against another edition
challenging
dark
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
ruminations on the vicissitudes of man, tempered by morality and time, revealed in approach of the existential question - a confrontation relegated futile by the ‘tender indifference of the world’. this was a beautiful book. bravo camus
briannasharpe's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
5.0
librarypusa's review against another edition
2.0
Albert Camus' The Stranger is primarily story as philosophical argument. It's a responsibility that I don't like to put unto text, although it's always a factor in my reviews. Due to Albert Camus's status as Important Philosopher and The Stranger as a narrative purporting the Absurd, my final rating was primarily based on that.
Two-way Effort. I engaged myself with the text due to the heaps of praise and long-withstanding prestige of The Stranger and Camus. In fact, I would say I gave more effort into engaging with The Stranger that I have with other books, so eager I was to "get in" on the hype around it. I wanted to learn what philosophical standpoint it was presenting, to experience an enlightened outcome The Stranger admirers attest.
The most applaudable thing about The Stranger is that it set out to engage me, the reader, in return. Uncommon for philosophy text, to be honest. The pacing was efficient, narration's focus cropped close. The voice was "American" (Matthew Ward) and "accessible" (Shilpi) . These are qualities in text that do extra legwork to bridge the gap between story and reader.
Meursault's Mindfulness. Camus's writing in the Stranger is at its best when Meursault indulges himself in The Present. Descriptions of his "surest, humblest pleasures" were pitch-perfectly poetic expressions of appreciation that break up his dull thought process about everything else. Amazingly written as sentences on their own, but made even better knowing its function within the story's context. It really supports the idea that Meursault is a man of the Present Moment and Immediate Future.
Still, I would rate this 3 stars if I would base it on its Story elements (pacing, character writing, etc). Nothing is spectacular or mind-boggling or standout in the execution. Maybe I'd chalk it up to something forward-thinking for its time and appreciate it that way.
The ACTUAL Argument
Camus rejected the label of Existentialist, but it hasn't stopped people from saying that his novel showcases Existentialism. Absurdism is another word used to describe The Stranger and Camus' other works. Philosophers resist operationalizing anything with finality, so even what Camus was is not definitive.
Unfortunately, that doesn't help with creating a review so I declare the parameters of this write-up as a reaction to the Stuart Gilbert translation of The Stranger in particular. I want to argue that The Stranger does not show the unpredictability of the universe: it shows the predictability of getting incarcerated when you shoot a man with a gun 5 times and how lawyers will use emotional appeal in court proceedings.
Meursault is Guilty. The Prosecutor is not on the incorrect side of the case. But his name, the Prosecutor, reflects how the justice for the man killed was not the point of the case. It was about haranguing and punishing Meursault.
Murder is an act of violence. A man who murdered committed violence. A man murdered experienced violence. A murderer and a victim. Yet the Prosecutor, Meursault and the story only cared about the murderer.
The case hedged on showing Meursault’s capacity to commit violence. Establishing the pattern of emotional divestment hinging on his callousness to his mother’s passing created a portrait of a man who was “a criminal at heart”, who “had no soul”, with “nothing human” about him, who “lack[ed] every decent instinct”. Meursault’s cross-examination was framed as an unjust character assassination, wherein proof of his good character was disregarded by the public and the jury. Meursault’s inner commentary rebukes the logic that his outward unemotional reaction to his mother’s death signifies moral bankruptcy, and then the questionable further leaps in logic to conclude it as the nature of a murderer.
I agree that Meursault grieving in an unconventional fashion doesn’t directly correlate to capacity for murder. But I disagree with Meursault saying that they can’t possibly ascertain what was going on in his mind based only on his behavior (WHICH WAS KILLING A MAN, BTW). Meursault says that they cannot pass judgment on his soul because they cannot know what’s going on inside his mind. But I, the reader, am inside your mind! And the people judging you are correct about you! They used the wrong formula… but arrived at the correct answer.
To say that the Prosecutor was the reason why he got the death sentence is to ignore that Meursault led himself to that turning point.
Getting What’s Coming to You. The real turning point of the novel can be traced back to Meursault's friendship with Raymond. Meursault went through quite a lot of trouble for a pimp and woman-beater. Their friendship began by Meursault's support of Raymond's revenge plan towards his ex. He was a literal by-stander to the violence inflicted upon an Arab woman, ignoring his own girlfriend's plea for him to call the authorities. He helped Raymond get away with abuse by testifying to the authorities. When Raymond was confronted by the Arabs seeking their own revenge, Meursault stood by Raymond. Then, eventually, he killed the Arab, an enemy not to Meursault but to Raymond. The murder with which he was charged to death for.
Make no mistake: Meursault played the role of willing by-stander, enabler, supporter and then eventually, murderer, for Raymond, a woman-beater. The situation escalated and escalated. What damned him is not the Prosecutor, although he helped ensure capital punishment. What damned him is following through with the escalation and then reaching the penultimate act, killing a man.
Meursault’s distant relationship with his mother shouldn’t have substantiated the death penalty verdict. It was, and correctly so, substantiated by how fucking horrible he is to the Arab people.
The hoighty-toighty allusions to the indifference of the universe or whatever are so bullshit after reading Meursault’s thoughts and not once did he think about the Arab he killed, regrets or otherwise. How can we expect the cosmos to be empathetic to us when we don’t care about the human beings with whom we share the ground?
Not the Cosmos. The story's ending is an impassioned railing against conformity, as a man doomed to death because of his inability to conform. Offered an olive branch by a priest, a representative of God, Meursault digs his heels in and resists even harder. I felt pity for him going through the motions of marching to the guillotine, but I didn't feel like he didn't deserve it.
I have to ask, is showing the punishment for Non-Conformity really the end goal here? It seems to be the intent, considering how the book's title is The Stranger, who I presume is Meursault.
Through Part I, the characters already think Meursault is weird for his lax, no-care attitude toward everything. He wasn't really punished for non-conformity at that time, when the only parts of his personhood that were non-conforming hadn't affected anyone around him. In fact, he even sort of got what he wanted most times. He had the loyalty of his friends, the devotion of his girlfriend, a fine job, an apartment too-big. The funeral procession was smooth, so to speak. If it was just conformity that was the problem, he would have started to feel shunned for his attitude before he had done anything substantially heinous.
He was judged and tried for murder after murdering someone. Pled guilty, and asserted there were "Extenuating circusmtances". As to what those circumstances were, the book makes no mention. Meursault only offers up "the sun made me do it" as a defense.
You may argue "But that's the point! It was about the basis of his sentencing being his oddball behavior! Oh, the prejudice of it all!". If there were prejudice in the book, I'd more inclined to point to Mersault's treatment of Arabs before the treatment of him in the court.
Final Thoughts
The story trips on its own arguments. Dashes of atheist sentiments and anti-state thoughts in the end made it even worse because they felt like they were just randomly thrown in. Part I was a generally fine reading experience, and I think it tried its best to lay the groundwork for Part II’s Trial sequence. Part II’s Trial does somewhat show “accountability for one’s actions” facet of existentialism. But it completely fails to account for the fact that murdering a man and experiencing the annals of justice thereafter does make Meursault a “misfit", in a way that warrants the same grim gravity attributed to a different, incorrect thing by the story.
My reaction to The Stranger has actually been said before, popular and established enough to be indicated in the Critical Analysis section of The Stranger’s Wikipedia page. I feel comforted by the fact I'm not alone, as I feel like I was going crazy from how ultimately bonkers the philosophical angle of The Stranger is.
Two-way Effort. I engaged myself with the text due to the heaps of praise and long-withstanding prestige of The Stranger and Camus. In fact, I would say I gave more effort into engaging with The Stranger that I have with other books, so eager I was to "get in" on the hype around it. I wanted to learn what philosophical standpoint it was presenting, to experience an enlightened outcome The Stranger admirers attest.
The most applaudable thing about The Stranger is that it set out to engage me, the reader, in return. Uncommon for philosophy text, to be honest. The pacing was efficient, narration's focus cropped close. The voice was "American" (Matthew Ward) and "accessible" (Shilpi) . These are qualities in text that do extra legwork to bridge the gap between story and reader.
Meursault's Mindfulness. Camus's writing in the Stranger is at its best when Meursault indulges himself in The Present. Descriptions of his "surest, humblest pleasures" were pitch-perfectly poetic expressions of appreciation that break up his dull thought process about everything else. Amazingly written as sentences on their own, but made even better knowing its function within the story's context. It really supports the idea that Meursault is a man of the Present Moment and Immediate Future.
"...sitting in the darkness of my moving cell, I recognized, echoing in my tired brain, all the characteristic sounds of a town I'd loved, and of a certain hour of the day which I had always particularly enjoyed. The shouts of newspaper boys in the already languid air, the last calls of birds in the public garden, the cries of sandwich vendors, the screech of streetcars at the steep corners of the upper town, and that faint rustling overhead as darkness sifted down upon the harbor..."
"I looked at the countryside, at the long lines of cypresses sloping up toward the skyline and the hills, the hot red soil dappled with vivid green, and here and there a lonely house sharply outlined against the light...Evenings in these parts must be a sort of mournful solace."
Still, I would rate this 3 stars if I would base it on its Story elements (pacing, character writing, etc). Nothing is spectacular or mind-boggling or standout in the execution. Maybe I'd chalk it up to something forward-thinking for its time and appreciate it that way.
The ACTUAL Argument
"According to existentialist philosophers, human life is mysterious because of the unpredictability of the universe and the emphasis is placed on individual agency and personal accountability for one's actions. The Stranger is built on this philosophical premise."
—Saan and Al-Hasani, 2023
Camus rejected the label of Existentialist, but it hasn't stopped people from saying that his novel showcases Existentialism. Absurdism is another word used to describe The Stranger and Camus' other works. Philosophers resist operationalizing anything with finality, so even what Camus was is not definitive.
Unfortunately, that doesn't help with creating a review so I declare the parameters of this write-up as a reaction to the Stuart Gilbert translation of The Stranger in particular. I want to argue that The Stranger does not show the unpredictability of the universe: it shows the predictability of getting incarcerated when you shoot a man with a gun 5 times and how lawyers will use emotional appeal in court proceedings.
Meursault is Guilty. The Prosecutor is not on the incorrect side of the case. But his name, the Prosecutor, reflects how the justice for the man killed was not the point of the case. It was about haranguing and punishing Meursault.
Murder is an act of violence. A man who murdered committed violence. A man murdered experienced violence. A murderer and a victim. Yet the Prosecutor, Meursault and the story only cared about the murderer.
The case hedged on showing Meursault’s capacity to commit violence. Establishing the pattern of emotional divestment hinging on his callousness to his mother’s passing created a portrait of a man who was “a criminal at heart”, who “had no soul”, with “nothing human” about him, who “lack[ed] every decent instinct”. Meursault’s cross-examination was framed as an unjust character assassination, wherein proof of his good character was disregarded by the public and the jury. Meursault’s inner commentary rebukes the logic that his outward unemotional reaction to his mother’s death signifies moral bankruptcy, and then the questionable further leaps in logic to conclude it as the nature of a murderer.
"Is my client on trial for having buried his mother, or for killing a man?"
—Meursault’s Lawyer
I agree that Meursault grieving in an unconventional fashion doesn’t directly correlate to capacity for murder. But I disagree with Meursault saying that they can’t possibly ascertain what was going on in his mind based only on his behavior (WHICH WAS KILLING A MAN, BTW). Meursault says that they cannot pass judgment on his soul because they cannot know what’s going on inside his mind. But I, the reader, am inside your mind! And the people judging you are correct about you! They used the wrong formula… but arrived at the correct answer.
To say that the Prosecutor was the reason why he got the death sentence is to ignore that Meursault led himself to that turning point.
Getting What’s Coming to You. The real turning point of the novel can be traced back to Meursault's friendship with Raymond. Meursault went through quite a lot of trouble for a pimp and woman-beater. Their friendship began by Meursault's support of Raymond's revenge plan towards his ex. He was a literal by-stander to the violence inflicted upon an Arab woman, ignoring his own girlfriend's plea for him to call the authorities. He helped Raymond get away with abuse by testifying to the authorities. When Raymond was confronted by the Arabs seeking their own revenge, Meursault stood by Raymond. Then, eventually, he killed the Arab, an enemy not to Meursault but to Raymond. The murder with which he was charged to death for.
Make no mistake: Meursault played the role of willing by-stander, enabler, supporter and then eventually, murderer, for Raymond, a woman-beater. The situation escalated and escalated. What damned him is not the Prosecutor, although he helped ensure capital punishment. What damned him is following through with the escalation and then reaching the penultimate act, killing a man.
Meursault’s distant relationship with his mother shouldn’t have substantiated the death penalty verdict. It was, and correctly so, substantiated by how fucking horrible he is to the Arab people.
The hoighty-toighty allusions to the indifference of the universe or whatever are so bullshit after reading Meursault’s thoughts and not once did he think about the Arab he killed, regrets or otherwise. How can we expect the cosmos to be empathetic to us when we don’t care about the human beings with whom we share the ground?
Not the Cosmos. The story's ending is an impassioned railing against conformity, as a man doomed to death because of his inability to conform. Offered an olive branch by a priest, a representative of God, Meursault digs his heels in and resists even harder. I felt pity for him going through the motions of marching to the guillotine, but I didn't feel like he didn't deserve it.
I have to ask, is showing the punishment for Non-Conformity really the end goal here? It seems to be the intent, considering how the book's title is The Stranger, who I presume is Meursault.
Through Part I, the characters already think Meursault is weird for his lax, no-care attitude toward everything. He wasn't really punished for non-conformity at that time, when the only parts of his personhood that were non-conforming hadn't affected anyone around him. In fact, he even sort of got what he wanted most times. He had the loyalty of his friends, the devotion of his girlfriend, a fine job, an apartment too-big. The funeral procession was smooth, so to speak. If it was just conformity that was the problem, he would have started to feel shunned for his attitude before he had done anything substantially heinous.
He was judged and tried for murder after murdering someone. Pled guilty, and asserted there were "Extenuating circusmtances". As to what those circumstances were, the book makes no mention. Meursault only offers up "the sun made me do it" as a defense.
You may argue "But that's the point! It was about the basis of his sentencing being his oddball behavior! Oh, the prejudice of it all!". If there were prejudice in the book, I'd more inclined to point to Mersault's treatment of Arabs before the treatment of him in the court.
Final Thoughts
The story trips on its own arguments. Dashes of atheist sentiments and anti-state thoughts in the end made it even worse because they felt like they were just randomly thrown in. Part I was a generally fine reading experience, and I think it tried its best to lay the groundwork for Part II’s Trial sequence. Part II’s Trial does somewhat show “accountability for one’s actions” facet of existentialism. But it completely fails to account for the fact that murdering a man and experiencing the annals of justice thereafter does make Meursault a “misfit", in a way that warrants the same grim gravity attributed to a different, incorrect thing by the story.
My reaction to The Stranger has actually been said before, popular and established enough to be indicated in the Critical Analysis section of The Stranger’s Wikipedia page. I feel comforted by the fact I'm not alone, as I feel like I was going crazy from how ultimately bonkers the philosophical angle of The Stranger is.
alyc00per's review against another edition
dark
reflective
relaxing
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Content Warnings
Minor: Sexual harassment, Domestic abuse, Xenophobia, Violence, Gun violence, Murder, and Physical abuse
belisa's review against another edition
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0