Albert Camus Books

Bartlett's "Rebellious Feminism" reaffirms the importance of Camus to affirmative movements, and to the broader sphere of cultural politics. In contrast to the other interpretations of Camus' "the Rebel", like those rendered in the work of Jeffrey Isaac and of Stephen Bronner, Bartlett's explication of The Rebel anticipates and defines ways in which rebellious politics can be applied to diverse groups in society with defined social boundaries. Therefore, "irrational" and affirmative acts of rebellion might not only explain logical sequences in feminist discourse, but also in cultural, identity-based, or social movement-oriented politics, with the assumption that something common in the human condition exists beneath group boundaries that validates and "affirms" each movement. Particularly moving was Bartlett's description of how she came to be inspired by the work of Albert Camus during life-changing experiences. Her work provides promise for new directions toward which "The Rebel" can usefully be applied, while also introducing an original and creative interpretation of Camus-ian thought. In introductory political theory courses, which may include Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil," Albert Camus' "The Just Assasin," and Miriam Schneir's "Feminism in our Time," Elizabeth Bartlett's book could really inspire reallyt interesting and engaging discussion.

Not only does this book contain the original articles that comprise one of the great intellectual debates of the last century, it also has very helpful contextual commentary by the editors.

One can substitute terrorism for Stalinism and the debate is, if you will forgive the cliche, as current as the headlines. But it most certainly is not at all like the sound bite debates of Cross Fire. Great breath and depth in the arguments of the participants - anguished arguments about the relationships between means and ends, justice and freedom; and finally personal responsibility.

Camus corectly sees Stalinism, read terrorism, an an unmitigated evil. Yet, he sought to live as neither victim nor executioner. That caused him no end of grief, especially as he confronted the Algerian situation. Nevertheless his arguments call to mind the views of the Polish and Czech dissidents in the 80s. An anti-politics, a living "as if" one were free. No crusade to eliminate evil from the earth, no war; rather a third way.

Sartre on the other hand saw Stalinism as an understandable, even necessary, response to the injustice inflicted on the wretched of the earth. His understanding of human nature, dare one use that term in discussing Sartre, was such that chioce was required in all circumstances. By this time, in Sartre's thinking, no third way was possible. If the choice is between victim or executioner, he would choose executioner.

Sartre is correct, one must choose. Camus is correct, there is a third way. Enter the debate if you dare. There is no easy exit.

This is from Philip Thody's introduction to this volume." The essays and other texts published in this volume are not primarily concerned with Camus's philosophical or political ideas. They are intended to give a portrit of Camus the writer and literary critic, as well as of Camus the individual" The volume is divided into four sections, the first on Lyrical Essays the second on Critical Essays, the third 'Camus on The Outsider and the Plague, the fourth on Sketches for a Self- Portrait.
The essays and notebooks do not have the force of his major works, but it is good to have more Camus, more of his reflective wisdom and his lyrical perception of life.
Here is an excerpt from an essay titled, " The Future of Tragedy" It seems in fact that tragedy is born in the West each time that the pendulum of civilization is halfway between a sacred society and a society built around man. On two occasions, twenty centuries apart , we find a struggle between a world that is still interpreted in a sacred context and men who are already committed to their individuality, that is to say, armed with the power to question. In both cases , the individual increasingly asserts himself , the blance is gradually destroyed and the tragic spirit falls silent.When Neitzsche accuses Socrates of having dug the grave of classical Greek tragedy, he is right up to a certain point- exactly to the same extent that it is true to say of Descartes that he marks the end of the tragic movement born of the Renaissance. In fact, the traditional Christian universe is called into question by the Reformation, the discovery of the world and the flowering of the scientific spirit. Gradually, the individual stands up against the sacred order of things and against destiny. Shakespeare then throws his passionate creatures against the simulataneously evil and just order of the world. Death and pity invade the stage and once againthe final words of tragedy ring out " A higher life is born of my despair".

In this moving Nobel acceptance speech Camus reveals a deep humility and gratitude. He also reveals a solidarity with suffering humanity, and an understanding of the writer's role as part of a struggle for a better world. Here is one of the central paragraphs of his description of the writer's task.

"He has no other claims but those which he shares with his comrades in arms: vulnerable but obstinate, unjust but impassioned for justice, doing his work without shame or pride in view of everybody, not ceasing to be divided between sorrow and beauty, and devoted finally to drawing from his double existence the creations that he obstinately tries to erect in the destructive movement of history. Who after all this can expect from him complete solutions and high morals? Truth is mysterious, elusive, always to be conquered. Liberty is dangerous, as hard to live with as it is elating. We must march toward these two goals, painfully but resolutely, certain in advance of our failings on so long a road. What writer would from now on in good conscience dare set himself up as a preacher of virture? For myself, I must state once more that I am not of this kind. I have never been able to renounce the light, the pleasure of being, and the freedom in which I grew up. But although this nostalgia explains many of my errors and my faults, it has doubtless helped me toward a better understanding of my craft. "

If you always wanted to learn more about Camus and read his books, get this CD before a long trip and put it on!! It thrills the intellect and keeps you captivated. You will finish your trip looking for more existentialism.

Add to that the author's early death, still fashionable and cool Existentialist connections, and well, Frenchness, and it is hard for anyone to consider his work objectively. The only true test would be to imagine the response of a modern day critic who had no idea who the author was. If I were to put this book to that test, I'm afraid many would say that although competently written, to place this in the top ten books ever written would be a gross overrating of its qualities. A different reaction would result from The Stranger/Outsider, a strikingly original work that few who've read it will forget. I would have given the book 3 and a half stars if that was an option, but 4 just seems too many.

Why Camus only reveals who the narrator is till very late in the book, forcing some to re-read it, is revealed in the Appendix of The Myth of Sisyphus, in his analysis of Kafka's writings in the light of his concept of 'the absurd'. He points out here that part of the magic of Kafka is that very often the unexpected or open endings of his stories force a re-read on the reader. However, a re-read of this book in the light of the information of who the narrator is only brings to light several flaws in the story, situations where the narrator was not present, and could not possibly have had any idea of what had happened. It is hard to believe that the author overlooked this, but equally hard to believe that the oversight was intended for some effect it would have on the reader. Thus, when it is ultimately revealed that the whole time it has been Dr Rieux narrating, it's rather hard to believe.

Finally, the book has some moral ambiguities, such as a doctor fighting to control an epidemic, who out of 'humanitarian' grounds allows an individual to break the quarantine and possibly cause it to spread to other cities or countries. It is truly immoral behaviour for any doctor not to prevent such a breaking of the quarantine, as hard as it must be on the individual, and it is the height of selfishness for anyone to think that they should be the exception to the rule, when all others remain separated from their loved ones, or have lost them. All in all, I'd find out some more about this book before buying it, and don't assume that because you like the genius of The Stranger/Outsider, that this is anything like that. Like I said, a large part of Camus' fashionability in the English world is due to his Frenchness (many English speakers have a snobbish passion for French literature that throws a golden light on anything of French origin), his Existentialist connections, Nobel Prize and early death. Keep that in mind when trying to judge this book's qualities by the rave reviews you'll read here. Interesting, but not essential reading.

Albert Camus never fails to shed light on the stark being of the human condition. The Plague is a thought provoking, page turning, mind boggling, and philosophically-laced novel. If you're looking for a book that creates an existentialist vibe and evokes drastic change in society during a period of turmoil, then The Plague is for you.
The Plague begins with a gruesome and unexplainable observation of rats coming out of the woodwork and dying in some of the most painful ways possible. From the deaths of the rats stem a series of similarly bizarre human deaths in which the protagonist, Dr. Rieux, is assigned to investigate. Rapidly and unmercifully, the death toll rises and no effective cure is available. The city becomes quarantined and Dr. Rieux enlists the help of some of the unexpected characters. Soon enough, the society evolves into a more pacifist state that comes to terms with the plague that ravages what they once knew and loved the most.

I really enjoyed this book for its insightfulness and bringing a sense of reality to a fictional plague. The book is basically about the plague and the tolls it takes on a city and the ways that the people remain buoyant. The narrative is compelling and analyzes the ways in which different characters, but mostly what the whole town loses and gains in the plague. This is the third book I've read by this author, and they all explore the theme of dying a happy death if there is such a thing. Don't know what else to say but that its insightfulness into a fictional plague will keep you going.

And masterfully written. I now understand why Camus won the Nobel Prize in Literature.

just a note.. the Vintage version has a few typos which don't at all disrupt the book's reading and are actually quite funny.

A book that watches a city's population slowly die of a plague will never be an uplifting book. Other reviewers have suggested that this book gives a glimpse into a dying man's soul. At least to analyze the surface, one can analyze the book as a city's reactions when they are quarantined for a period of plague.

Readers may find the book difficult to follow as the perspective of the story changes often. It is not until the last chapter that we discover the narrator. As the book begins with rats dying, people deny the existence of a problem. Even as people begin to die, the denial continues. As the bureaucrats decide if a problem exists, people die in greater quantities. This is the expected shot at an unfeeling bureaucracy that one expects from Camus. As a plague is recognized, the people must make unpopular sacrifices and decisions. While one might not expect the entire town to die out, the morbid nature of the story leaves some doubt in the readers mind.

Many reviewers give this book lofty praise, calling it one of the best books ever written. In truth, I do not even think it is the best book by Camus. I prefer "The Stranger". Yet I respect that each has his/her own tastes.

I've been reading some of the reviews for this book and can't believe that there are so many people writing about this book without really understanding it. I have read this book about a dozen times, never read any other book more than once. The first time I read it I thought it was very boring and dry, just two guys talkng in a bar. The second time I thought this Jean-Baptiste guy might be the devil talking.
About the sixth time I really understood it. The narrator of the story is the Devil himself (for real). And he was talking not to somebody in the bar, but he was talkng to me personally (for real).
This book changed my outlook on life and my actions in life. Just about every word in every sentence has more than one meaning. Does anyone else get this from the book?

"The Fall" was my introduction to Camus. I believed it was high time that I read the work of this Nobel Laureate and, so, in I dived.

I regret to say that I was disappointed. Camus' short work is a monologue from its principal character, Jean-Batiste Clamence, who serves as the narrator of the tale. First person grammar is used to tell what can best be described as a very meandering story. To use the term plot would be unfair. The book simply has little or no such plot.

Now, it is probably quite unfair to come to a sweeping conclusion on the basis of one short work. The work of Camus is widely praised. Many people deem him to be one of the literary giants of the twentieth century. So, it is incumbent on me to read further into the work of Camus. I trust that my efforts will be rewarded in due course. For the moment, I feel somewhat cheated.

This is the second book I've read by this author, the first one being "The Stranger". Both books tend to examine human thoughts in the face of death. The book is more or less a collection of thoughts directed at a few abstract objects of interest like modern life, celebrity, death by suicide, and modern love. As such it's a decent book considering it's pretty readable, despite the lack of much of a story. It's kind of just a bunch of thoughts with a few events few and far between, but it manages to captivate and project a mood onto me (or maybe someone else whose reading it). He's able show the amusement and glorify this modern life in a somewhat self-effacing way, showing the advantages and the humor of this type of lifewhich includes a placid rebellion, lust and hypocrisy for a major group of its beneficiaries.

Its really not that great of a book but its hard to give three stars, because it depends what you're comparing it against. If compared to other literary masterpieces than maybe three stars, but I'll give four.

As others have stated so far this is an interesting and deep novel, one that drags you into its questionable and illusory narration through the use of the first person monologue. With this in mind, the novel becomes necessarily more complex and demands the reader's attention at all times. Nothing should be taken for granted - not the speaker's ideologies, professed history, and certainly not the way in which he is talking to another character. The manner in which the tone and companionship moves throughout the novel is as important as anything else - do not for a second fall into the persistent trap of thinking that Monsieur Clamence is speaking to you, the reader.

The novel requires no extensive knowledge of philosophic topics in order to be appreciated, however, having that knowledge will only enrich the experience. Anyone with an interest in ethics, social roles, confession or simple artistic capability will enjoy this short, but dense novel.

On a final note, the novel presents a startling insight into the nature and power of confession, which is ultimately what Clamence is performing (reliable or not). Foucault's the History of Sexuality Part 1 speaks to this matter, one which is every bit as pertinent to the content and experience of *The Fall* as is any other philosophic or artistic reference, and one that is consistently relevant.

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. The present book is one of his last works.

Camus combined his philosophy with his writing skills to produce literary art. The end result is sometimes complicated. It takes a close and careful examination to see exactly what points he is trying to make. Camus descibed The Stranger as a story about someone who was telling the unvarnished truth, but it was more complicated than that.

For The Fall, the analysis needed to discuss the work is far beyond the scope of a simple one page review as we have here. I humbly suggest that those wishing to learn more about Camus and The Fall should read some of the lengthy analysis found elsewhere.

Back then to The Fall and two basic points. As most know, the present work is a monologue set in an Amsterdam bar and parts are set on a foggy winter evening. A former Paris lawyer tells his tale to a listener. This is not a novel as we think of a novel but a slightly confused story in prose. In any case, there are two major points and a few others that we do not have space to discuss.

The first is that Camus's ideas and his theory can be found in the non-fiction work The Myth of Sisyphus (Le Mythe de Sisyphe) (1942): it is about "the absurd sensitivity." That idea is continued here in The Fall. We cannot conclude that Camus "found religion" in the present work nor are there any changes in Camus's philosophy. Any idea that he found religion is a misunderstanding of Camus's method. To say he found religion or God would be a bit like having Dostoevsky come out as an aetheist in one of his final books, i.e.: impossible. Also, Camus remains involved in "the confrontation of this irrational and the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart." This is a continuation of his past themes, but with a different setting and with a different plot and characters.

Secondly, a similarity exists in the existential condition of loneliness and isolation that is "man's lot" in this world without "transcendental hopes." So, the character of Jean-Baptiste Clamence brings us the monologue and he describes and he reacts to his inner discovery. He does so in an extremely ironic fashion - and that is part of the "art" part of the novel along with accepting the notion of the absurd.

Overall, this is a good book from Camus that takes only a few hours to read and probably will take much more time to understand. Some will want to read it a second time, or even three or four times. It is far more complicated than The Stranger, and it is less straighforward to read and understand.

This is one instance where you should look beyond the reviews here to get a deeper understanding of the work; and, it is probably best to read some of the detailed analysis found elswhere in critical books or on the net.

I easily read this book in a few hours, it was short and it keeps your attention. It's definitely entertaining, but I can't say that I truly loved it. The characters are such bad people that it's hard to sympathize with them in any regard. For a love story, it wasn't that romantic or inspiring, and I will probably never read another book by the same author, because I was really just not blown away by it.

Great story and Stanley Tucci does a great job with the narrative. Far better than the Nicholson-Lange movie version.

A very good book, that for the most part has stood the test of time well. Some excellent twists, about people who you get the feeling might have turned out differently if the circumstances of their lives had been different. Short enough for anyone to take a chance on, and most will probably enjoy the time spent.

This story is about the triangle between an unhappy wife, her older husband, and a hired drifter. It tells how diner owner Nick Papadakis hires Frank Chambers because his hired help won't stay with him. Frank sees Cora, Nick's wife (Chapter 1). There is a fatal attraction (Chapter 2). [Did the other hire help leave quickly to avoid this setup?] Cora won a beauty contest in Des Moines and got a trip to Hollywood; but her pride kept her from going back home. [The beauty contest racket brought hopefuls to Hollywood who lacked money, connections, and acting experience.] Cora married the first honest man she found. But now she is unhappy and in love with Frank (the first who stayed?). They are now planning to murder Nick (Chapter 4).They consider running off together, but its not practical; Cora would return to the life she left. A new crisis for Cora leads to a new plot (Chapter 6).

They have a fatal accident on the mountain road to Malibu Beach. Their car goes off the road and down the cliff. Nick dies in the ambulance, Frank is badly injured with a broken arm. Cora escaped the falling car. The police and an ambulance take them away. After the Inquest District Attorney Sackett questions Frank, and gets him to sign a statement. Sackett suspects murder (Chapter 9). The best lawyer in town will defend Cora against murder; Katz will handle everything. Nick's insurance policy is the alleged motive. There is a shocking surprise plea (Chapter 10). Katz says this is the greatest case in his life, then explains how he will argue in court from the insurance policies (Chapter 11). [This technical detail is simplified in the film.] The rest of the story plays out. The differences in personalities between Cora and Frank result in growing conflicts. After one critical argument they resolve their differences. But an accident brings up the past, and their fate is sealed. [This story is told from Frank's point of view and seems self-serving to me.]

This book essentially is Kerouac meets the three horsemen of mystery: Marlowe, Hammett and Spillane. Written with curt statements, little detail, and almost exclusively dialogue (could be a movie script), this book quickly outlines a thorough story in about 100 pages.

The protagonist, Frank Chambers, is basically another impulse driven, good-for-nothing, tiger on the road. He is the bad boy which good girls fall for. And the girl in this book is Iowa blond beauty queen, Cora Papadakis - whose surname comes from older husband Nick Papadakis. Frank's character reminds me immensely of Kerouac's "On the Road" hero - Dean Moriarity.

Cora hates herself and her life. After Nick employs Frank, she falls for the help. The femme fatale employs Frank to free her from her misery - which means murdering Nick. After botching the job the first time, and failing to run away while Nick sits in a hospital bed, Frank meets up with Cora for a second chance (hence the title).

The second attempt leads you through another botched caper which only leads to an ingenious and fruitful legal maneuver which climaxes with the insurance agent perjuriously testifying in order to save the company money. Money acquits evil.

But, if you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas. A few escapades later, Frank and Cora mutually mistrust one another to the point where each believes the other will do to them what they did to poor Nick.

The ending is classic irony. And, that is what makes the book so ingratiatingly wonderful for film makers and readers. Love is conquered by the unknown. Isn't it usually "Love conquers all?" Then the unknown conquers all, or does it?

If you are looking for flowery prose, detailed description, or poignant passages of reflection - forget about it. This is Hemingwayesque, it is Marlowe-like or Hammett-influenced. This is about dialogue, slang, or street talk. This is classic fodder for film noire. This is a classic mystery novel.

This popped up on my screen to be reviewed, so what the hell. I read this book many years ago, and I liked it. It is if I remember a collection of philosophical/ethical essays. I preferred his collection of descriptions. I know the story of Sisyphus, and I remember that Camus compared that to the human condition. That's certainly how it feels when it gets near payday. I preferred Sartre. I thought he was more interesting and humane and complex. I never understood Nausea (though I loved the chapter in the portrait gallery), never understood his point though of course the story as a story made sense. It's one of my favorite books. My favorite book for many years, however, was The Stranger. I think it's a gem. (Nausea, Sartre; Stranger, Camus.) For me the overall problem with Camus is his obsession with violence. I don't like it and now that I'm older I won't read it. His first book (A Happy Death, the main character of which has the same name as the central character in The Stranger, Mersault, why?) is a nightmare. Camus said that the most important thing in life is justice. In my pre-Bush years, that always struck me as a strange, almost superfluous credo. I don't recommend this book to anyone but philosophy majors (I'm not one), but (if you can stand things like Caligula), Camus is an interesting writer (not as much as Sartre I don't think), and I recommend over Sisyphus his collection of descriptions.

I don't think Camus could have written a bad book if he had tried. In this case, I think it's accurate to say that this is the sort of book that makes you think and enjoy thinking.

i have read this book in hebrew
it is absolutely great
i recommend it to everyone who wants to "think outside of the box" and had wondered about the meaning of life...

The myth of Sisyphus is a model essay to comfort people in those moods of bleak, existential despair that assail us all from time to time. The moral to emerge from this fable is a simple one - life in the post Nietzsche age, with no god, is absurd, there is no overarching meaning outside life itself, but there is still great nobility in fighting the good fight right to the death.

The best part comes for those readers who stick it out through the final appendix: Camus offers a stunning commentary of Kafka's work - the fate of his tragic protagonists in 'The Trial' and 'The Castle', viewed in light of the universal plight of mankind. Very telling is his addendum which acknowledges that he is not precluding aesthetic critiques of Kafka's work. Great art offers so much, yet resolves nothing. Like life.

Not everyone is inclined to navel lintgazing. Nor is everyone up for the level of effort necessary to gain any type of understanding of Camus' writings either. That doesn't mean the effort should not be made though! I avoided Camus for years, until a reference at work (hostage negotiation) made me realize that Camus' work was an essential element for my toolbox - namely being able to agree with folks about the absurdity of life, have a story to tell (Sysyphus) and a general explanation how one of the "great philosophers" worked through it. At times like that, you would be amazed at what kind of attention folks pay!

I read the work at least five times through, and I can say that each time I read it, I bring a bit more away. His writing is very rich and dense. No sentence can be passed over - and that sucks if your a lazy reader!!! But... at the end of the effort, the results are worth it. You have another take on the whole "Is life, is the effort worth it?" I'll leave that for you to decide, but I do heartily recommend this book!

Interesting side thought - compare the worldly Camus with the rugged individualists across the pond (Emerson, Thoreau, and all the Transcendentalists) with their eternal optimism. Comments welcome! :)

All the best,

Jay

I just finished this book, and can only voice my disappointment. Not that it was a bad book,It was great, but that It wasn't finished. I have read The Stranger, The plague, The myth of sysyphus, and the fall. This book really helped to understand Camus more. You can see how his life overflowed into his other works, and i only wish he could have finished. I have been a fan of his work ever since a high school literature teacher recommended the plague, after a heated discussion about the belief that we need God to be moral people. I couldn't believe the criticism I was getting for turning away from religion, especially from some very immoral characters. Camus has had a major influence on me ever since, and I am sad this book will never be finished.

As a point of reference, I have read most of Camus's major works. The present novel is a straightforward story and it is supposed to be partially biographical. It was published decades after Camus's death by his daughter. The work was unfinished and it was never edited by Camus. As such, it has a bit of a raw feel to the story and I thought it was not as good as his other works, all of which are all excellent.

It could have been a much better novel if he had finished the work. The work does not contain Camus's famous irony and references to the absurd that are found in other works, i.e.: unlike his other works, he does not delve into his ideas on the absurd, and the revolt against a world of the absurd and of injustice.

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. The present book is his last work and was never finished.

On January 4, 1960, at the age of forty-six, Camus was killed in a car accident outside Paris and the manuscript of The First Man was found at the crash scene. The protagonist is a man similar to Camus himself, Jacques Cormery, who grew up in Algiers. It is a novel about a young boy growing up and his interaction with his mother and grandmother. It is a story being told by an older Cormery, now 40 years old, who is visiting his older mother, now 72. Camus's technique is to use flashbacks of Cormery's childhood injected into the story during the visit by the 40 year old Cormery. In addition to the story of his youth from the era of WWI and post WWI, there are a number of comments on the struggle for power in Algeria and the attacks on the French in the 1950s.

This novel has just a neutral recommendation and it is not a good example of his work. It is different and perhaps Camus was taking a new path with his work, but as a novel as it stands it is flawed. The reader is left to wonder what Camus could have accomplished if he had lived. Having said that, the novel was unfinished, so The Stranger and perhaps The Fall remain as his best novels, followed by The Plague. Those works include his irony and philosophical views. Also, Camus has written some good drama and non-fiction. This leaves the present unfinished novel down near the bottom of his body of work.

I was going to read this book. I bought it for a graduate class I'm taking in the English department at the university where I am attaining my Master's. Then I looked into the history a bit and decided that to read this book would be to engage in ideological rape. Albert Camus did not give his CONSENT to publish this book in this version. Period. Posthumous publishing of a dead author's UNCOMPLETED work or works is immoral and unethical. I don't need to quench my voyeuristic thirst by reading something the author never intended me to read. Some might argue otherwise, but I just don't see how peeking at your sibling's diary is EVER justified. It is someone else's private property, we don't have a right to read it without their permission.

Sincerely,

Sean Hooks

The manuscript of this book was in the car with Camus when he had his fatal crash. His family held back publication for over thirty years. One reason was the incompleteness of the manuscript. A second was the hostile political atmosphere which had emerged in relation to Camus. Unlike Sartre Camus had refused to justify Soviet crimes. His position on Algeria which was a nuanced one , angered both sides.
The novel itself is closer to a memoir than anything else Camus has written. It lacks the kind of mythic and philosophical dimension of Camus most well- known works, "The Stranger" " The Plague " " The Fall" "The Myth of Sisyphus". it tells the story of a child whose father has been killed in the First World War, and who is raised by his mother and grandmother. It tells of a world of Algerian poverty .And it to tells of how the child finds a way out of this world through having been guided and helped by a beloved teacher. The teacher who Camus honored and remembered throughout his life saw the great ability in young Camus and developed this.
There are some outstanding passages in the book in which Camus shows the reflectiveness so central to his major works
" To begin with poor people's memory is less nourished than that of the rich : it has fewer landmarks in space because they seldom leave the place where they live, and fewer reference points in time throughout lives that are grey and featureles. Of course there is the memory of the heart that they say is the surest kind, but the heart wears out with sorrow and labour, it forgets sooner under the weight of fatigue. Remembrance of things past is just for the rich.For the poor it only marks faint trances on the path to death"

This work it seems does not rank with Camus' best work but does have importance in throwing additional light on the details of the life of one of the great writers and moralists of the twentieth century.

It is reallly not fair to rate a work that is not complete. As an artist, I know how horrifying it is to show unfinished works to anybody. It really is a violation. However, whether this is Camus's first draft or 2nd draft, the evidence is everywhere what kind of great book it would have been had he had a chance to edit it, re-structure and re-write it. It was a great learning experience for me to study what a potential masterpiece looks like in the early stage of its creation.

In this draft, it seems that he was just writing down everything that had come to his mind, the things that he remembered and thought could be part of the story. It's not edited or organized well, so there are some inconsistency, unfinished sentences, and confusions. The plot is not clear, you don't know where the story is going, and the structure is not solid. There are some parts that can be eliminated as well.
But the writing itself is still very strong and beautiful, and there is a lot of wisdom in it. I especially enjoyed the chapter "the school." In this chapter he talks about the school life of the protagonist and how the teacher M. Bernard taught the children with love and discipline, and how the children loved and adored him, despite the corporal punishment they received from him for misbehaving. It's the kind of teacher-student relationship you rarely see in today's society. Each episode is vivid, detailed, heart-warming, full of wisdom and love, and beautifully written.

At the end of the book, after the story ceases, there is a section called "Interleaves." It's a collection of notes and memos of Camus, bits and pieces of scenes or dialogues, thoughts and ideas, which didn't have a chance to take parts of the book. Obviously Camus was planning to use them. They suggest that had he lived to finish the work, it would have been a totally different story, or that the story would have developed and ended much differently.

While it is disrespectful to read an incompleted work, it would have been a great loss if I didn't read it.
Thus I shall give him bright shining 5 stars, and thank him for having written this story.