Whats the draw of this book?
I mean its not so bad, but it reads like a students homework assignment
"i went swimming, then i ate a sandwich, then i went to the cinema, then i looked over my balcony, then i ate another sandwich" etc etc
Is there a point?
Apathy.
It's not really a bad book if you ignore
>le stranger memes
before
>>7814870
So the whole draw is that he doesnt give a shit?
I sort of got that but why is it so lauded
>>7814879
The thing is mostly that the main character is despised, loathed or held in contempt by those around him simply because he doesn't care. He is so apathetic towards so much of life that he is seen as an >outsider. Later on in the book he seems to finally find some meaning in life, his conversation with the clergyman or priest contains the entire jest of the book and its outcome. Why it is so lauded I am not sure but then again I am not a particularily intelligent man.
The simple, direct, action based style of prose is meant to capture the purposelessness and lack of reflectivity of the main character? Go read Satre's review of the work to get an idea about how every single sentence of the book is careful constructed. Or for that matter read anything else by Camus to see that this is an intentional choice since every other one of his books is so very different in terms of prose.
>>7814879
>What was the point of his time in jail
>What was the point of the trial?
>What was the point of the execution?
>What was the point with the conversation with the priest?
The second half of the book is a commentary and ultimately an indictment of the first half. Meursault is not an Absurd hero for almost the whole novel. He is not some champion, or person to be aspired to. He is there to help Camus make a point. The problem seems to be is that everyone reads the first half, draws all their conclusions, assumes Meursault is either some self-insert on the part of Camus or is a direct mouthpiece for his philosophy. Then feeling smug in their intellectual superiority to such a lauded book that they don't take the book seriously, so by the time they reach the second half they aren't even trying to understand it, they are just reading to confirm their early and incorrect judgments.
If you take the book seriously and are careful and honest in your reading you should find it to be a pretty simple, straightforward read.
>>7815316
So it is basically a novelised groundwork for "the myth of sisyphus"?
I thought something like that when he was describing how he spent his time in the prison cel finding things to do and think about
>>7815336
Very much so, they are companion pieces in the same way that The Plague goes with The Rebel.
>>7814860
What kind of sandwich?
Every. fucking. day. there are multiple threads by confused high school students posting that they don't get this book. someone post sartre's commentary on it in the wiki ffs.
OP, just read sartre's existentialism is a humanism followed by his commentary on this book and you're set.
>>7815455
he was french algerian
so probably a baguette filled with cous cous or something weird
>>7814860
P much what the previous posts said. Keep reading past the first chapter and watch it develop, especially in the last chapter.
