Albert Camus Books

Camus' The Rebel is yet another brilliant outcry of the human conscience, the urge to revolt and man's timeless struggle against the conditions of his existence. Albert Camus is one of the most profoundly influential thinkers of this century. The Rebel is a definite must read for lovers of L'etranger and Myth of Sisyphus. Camus maintains his signature style of short, simple yet hard-hitting sentences that leave a lot to the imagination, thus giving the reader a chance to re-create their our vision. One of the best writers to come out of France, Camus' sharp eye toward the French Revolution shows how inevitably the course of revolution leads to tyranny. Much like his predecessors such as Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky, Albert Camus writes with an unshakable decency and his work is eloquent and supremely rational.

I first became interested in Albert Camus after reading a quote from The Rebel online. "I rebel, therefore we exist" was the quote, and I must admit that, after reading the book, there has never been anything truer written. When I was in a bookstore a few months ago I found a copy of The Rebel, which is apparently a rare sight these days, since The Rebel is often ignored. Camus is one of the most famous writers of the 20th century, so why would one of his masterpieces be ignored?

It has been ignored, from what I can gather, because it is a philosophical work in which Camus pulls no punches and examines thoroughly why the excessive crime and violence of our era exist. Camus explains how, in both philosophy and politics, the reigning attitude has been one of nihilism for the past two centuries. This nihilism, being necessarily without an aim, leads to dictatorship and gross amounts of suffering for humans, no matter what principles it claims on the surface. Camus systematically destroys those who have used the philosophies of Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, surrealism, u.s.w., to justify their murderous plots.

Camus proposes that instead of nihilism and murder, we take to heart the ancient concepts of moderation and responsibility. Camus' destruction of modern governents and his proposals of these ancient ideas seem to have made this book unpopular. In this era of oppression, it is easy to ignore what offends us or makes us think. Camus gives the reader no choice. He must either raise a defiant fist to the giants of power, or he must give way to these minds that are utterly without scruples. I admire Camus deeply because of this--he has summed up the ideas I have been carrying around for years--but some will be deeply hurt by his comments. I leave you with a final thought: everyone is partly to blame for the state of the present and the future. You have the choice to make it either good or bad.

This book followed his 'The Myth of Sisyphus'. Camus explains in the beginning that while his previous work was about the question of suicide, this one is about the other aspect of taking human lives - other people's lives (murder). The book however is not so much about murder, as it is about the ethics of rebellion.

At a deeper ideological level, Camus was reacting to the excesses of Soviet style communism with which he disagreed. He felt that rebellion is always at the risk of falling prey to the very tyranny it revolts against and destroys.

Camus however does not believe that rebellion is therefore not desirable. His humanitarian ideals harmonize with the dream of rebellion. So he tries to answer the question of how rebellion can escape falling prey to tyranny, albiet unsuccessfully, by taking the examples of Russian nihilists who fought tyranny through murder, but nevertheless punished themsleves for that act (because the act of murder becomes tyrranny if routinized).

In all his works, Camus is generally good with analysis but poor in his conclusions. This book is brilliant for its analysis of the ethics of rebellion and the dilemmas of a rebel. It raises important questions and leaves you free to find your own answers. That also harmonizes better with the spirit of existentialism.

This is largely the explanation behind all of Camus's works. Everything Camus ever wrote, from "The Myth of Sisyphus" to "The Plague," had some form of rebellion. What kind, though? In order to understand, you must read this book. There are different types of rebellion (metaphysical and romantic), and different types of circumstances surrounding both. Camus seeks to explore individual's humanity through the notion of rebellion.

This book is not for the faint of heart, but Camus fanatics will enjoy this extremely well-written work.

Without straying into the dogamtism or the sentinmental romantic mindset that Camus warns of, this book had a profound affect on me as it helped me reconcile my 'reasoned' agnosticism and irreligion with my 'intuitive' socialism. I have since come to the conclusion (with the help of Camus) that both the above aspects of my world-view are logical, and perhaps most importantly,that it is necessary to temper whatever ideolgies you happen to find yourself agreeing with, your own intuitive morality.

This is in my opinion the crux of The Rebel as Camus examines the history of religous (metaphysical) and social rebellion. From the Marquis De Sade and Neitzche in the former to the French Revolution and USSR in the later.

Camus seems to have started from a point of being at a loss to explain the seeming contradictions in apparently well meaning revolution's that dole out (or promise freedom over here) and practice tyranny over there. Camus shows the depth and originality of his thinking by showing that these contradictions can be seen as the logical conclusions to total obediance to the doctrines of Marx, Hegel and Rosseau amoungst others ( these contradictions are found in the works themselves of Marx et al as these thinkers have been 'slaves' to their own logic which can be seen as analagous to Weber's notion of 'over-rationalism' and the 'iron cage' ). The result is a wise and profound analysys of social rebellion and a proscription for future reform as well as presenting a kind of 'eudaimon' for the contemporary existentialist.

Camus first book, though published after his death and without his consent, is a lens into the mind of the young author. Great imagery, strong philosophy, and a good mystery feel, leaves the reader fulfilled through out the novel. A MUST for those taking on the philosophy of Camus.

Those who come to A HAPPY DEATH after THE STRANGER tend to note the similarities in plot and theme that relegate they believe the former to the latter as a juvenile attempt--not bad maybe, but not the real thing either. Such a judgment is overhasty. The Mersault of A HAPPY DEATH may or may not be the Mersault of THE STRANGER. Both live in Algiers and both wander aimlesslessly in life, seeking a philosophical underpinning. Both kill a man, and both suffer for it. But such a facile comparison omits a great deal that suggests when Camus took up the pen again a decade later, he has more in mind than a handy earlier book from which he could self-[...].

The Mersault of A HAPPY DEATH has a first name, Patrice, who is poor and seeks a way to battle a losing effort with time that his poverty proves a hindrance. He finds a rich cripple and kills him, and steals his money, which he uses to work out the details, however bizarre, of a philosophy that involve his finding happiness. The other Mersault seeks happiness too, but with him he already is "happy" in the sense that he knows his place in the universe, which he sees as a disordered self-contained field of entropy from which he concludes that nothing makes sense and everything is meaningless. This Mersault does not need to steal money to reach a higher state. Patrice Mersault seeks to elevate himself to reach a higher state that he feels money is the key and murder is the means. His later counterpart would find it amusing that his namesake would bother to look outside himself for anything. Patrice, could he but jump into HIS counterpart's book, would feel, not amusement, but rage at someone who has no purpose in life except to keep doing what he is doing. Both Mersaults share some surface traits, but in the final analysis, they are no more than two distinct individuals who share a name and a few piddling details of their surface lives. And perhaps this is what caused Camus to take up the pen with his twin Mersaults: to show his readers that the universe cannot mean more than what you put into it or what you don't.

If you haven't read Camus yet, read "The Stranger" or one of his other works. "Happy Death" does not really hold its own as well as a stand-alone novel; and The Stranger is a much better read. However, "Happy Death" does provide some keen insight into Camus and his philosophy and is worth reading for that reason alone as well as for a decent number of really thought provoking powerful passages scattered throughout.

I am a Camus fan. I've read everything of his, starting with The Stranger and ending with A Happy Death. I must say that A Happy Death is my favorite. I (re-)read it several times a year.

A Happy Death is the most beautifully written, in my opinion. Content aside, the language (albeit in translation) is gorgeous and incredibly evocative. I can't get over it.

Content-wise, I felt that A Happy Death was much more human, we got to know Mersault much better. In The Stranger he is so cold, deliberately almost one-dimensional and I felt it was lovely to get to know a different side of him in A Happy Death. The language and descriptions are lush and vivid, the character has a lot more depth, and above all else, when I read it, I can clearly see why Camus vehemently denied being called an "existentialist". Some of the "existentialist" ideas certainly are present, but there seems to be such a different aesthetic.

This novel may be well the best proof about the enormous influence exerted by Dostoievsky in Albert Camus .
When you are inmersed in this intriguing storytelling you will feel the giant and dark shadow of Crime and Punishment covering the unhappy existence of our murderer . The shame will load the soul of this nasty and filthy man all the way .
And you will understand why sometimes you may talk about a suggested suicide .
A crucial text in the Camus universe .

The language in this short novel is simple and engaging, and probably the best (if not only) reason to read this book, particularly for students of french such as myself.

Unfortunately the story is very contrived and unconvincing, despite Camus' apparent attempts to ground it in a believable, ordinary world. The problem (as I see it) is that Mersault is easily Camus' least interesting protagonist, and the entire story is told in first person from his perspective. Mersault feels nothing and thinks nothing throughout the narrative, so that the narration gives the reader an intimate view of... nothing. Admittedly, previous and subsequent authors have dealt quite thoroughly with the thoughts and feelings of human characters in somewhat analogous situations to that of Mersault. Perhaps Camus was consciously treading new ground by placing his protagonist in what would be trying and difficult situations if only he cared about anything, but he doesn't, so they aren't.

There is plenty of good Camus out there, particularly his short stories and plays, but this is not it.

Quel roman savoureux. Du passé simple, j'en prendrais volontier. Un incontournable.

I first read the novel in english, but I read it in french once I became fluent in that language. After the first sentence: "Aujourd'hui, Maman est morte," you know that you are in the good hands of Albert Camus. The existential theme is just awsome, and it was all the better en français! Surtout, je sait que je l'aimais.

Je fais mon debut comme instite a un lycee. Pour le cours de francais V, on va commencer la litterature avec L'ETRANGER de Camus. Je crois que c'est l'endroit ideal pour commencer, car le livre se presente simplement au lecture, mais le mene aux themes importants de la philosophie francaise/absurdiste. A mon avis personnel, la scene du meurtre sur la plage est exceptionnellement emouvante et vive. Ceux qui disent que c'est n'importe quoi comme livre completement ratent un chef-d'oeuvre.

What a way to begin a story?! And what can one say about Camus that hasn't already been said? This is a great novel filled with observations, images and actions carefully stitched into words by a master narrator. If you're a novice to French literature, this is a perfect place to begin.

This gives a good albeit brief synopsis of the book. I needed a good outline that I could use as a companion to teach from the book and this worked.

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 concetration camp 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 heros rather they are murdering arabs, run giant corporations, or countries or trying to ridicule or silence people.

I read this book during a trip by train, (all at once) a few years ago, and i read it again recently. One of the best I've ever known, until now.

The darkness and simplicity of this wonderful book are frequently misunderstood. Many readers find Merseault cold and emotionless, but this is not the case. Merseault displays emotion in his argument with the prison priest, and (big surprise) his feelings toward his mother.

Although he is put on trial for killing an Arab, Mersault is actually condemned for failing to grieve for his mother in public. Have any of you been to the funeral of an elderly realative? Sometimes, despite the emotions you feel for that person, the experience of the funeral is flat, meaningless and logical. All of the love came before the event and will come again many times later. But somehow a funeral leaves one dry and plain. Mersault experienced his mother's death for what it was: a dry and uncomfortable event. He did not put on a show for the people involved with the funeral or those who knew the deceased. His actions were plain and honest.

But Merseault does have feelings for his mother. When he learns much later that she had a lover in the elderly home she occupied he feels glad for her. That moment of empathy if an extrordinary act of comppassion. It is also a private one.

"The Stranger" reveals many simple truths about the kind of people we are and it raises questions about the inegrity behind our thoughts and actions. It is a wonderful book whose value is easily overlooked by people who only put stock in a verbose work.

"The Stranger" is a wonderful little book, filled with deceptively simple language and actions. It's understated, very subtle, and except for the outright atheist vs. church stuff at the end, you've really got to work for it. You can pick it up, read it in a night, put it down, and refuse to be affected...but if you listen, the meaning is in there, deep and dark, not didactic, more like a whisper.

The apparent indifference Mersault carries strikes one as inhuman: shrugging off his mother's death, swearing off the church, agreeing to marry in a heartbeat, and, most poignantly, accepting his fate - a death sentence. But the things Mersault is trying to say through the gaps between what's actually on the page is simple: it's all arbitrary, we're fools on a ball spinning around a star, and contentment is the simplest thing to feel amidst chaos.

Although the murder and the trial, and definitely the funeral, are fantastic moral-bending existentialist scenes, what sticks with you in the dark of night, is as simple as the prose and also as endlessly complex: we're here, we'll never understand each other, we see what's most convenient to see, and we all die in the end anyway, whether or not our tenure here can be marked as "good" or "bad" or "moral". Not the most uplifting read in the world, but literature is a cruel mistress sometimes.

Though this book is not intended to offer three character sketches per se, it has done more to bring these great twentieth-century Frenchmen to life for me than any other work I've read. Judt is able to bring some continuity to the idea of intellectual integrity by not only describing what each of these men stood for but also what they stood against. Yes, they all stood against Communism (with a big C), but each of them stood against elements of political and intellectual fashion in defense of their own convictions as well. Blum stood against malice. Camus, against moral relativity. And Aron, against intellectual ignorance and conformity. Together they did more to defend the human condition from political and intellectual tyranny than all other twentieth century French intellectuals. This is a powerful look at how the temptations of intellectual and political affiliation need not take the place of rigor and conviction. And, to be honest, it's lucid presentation of each character nearly brought this one to tears. Deserves to be read by a general audience, or anyone who continues to be mystified by these great French figures.

Tony Judt's "The Burden of Responsibility" makes a fitting companion volume to his earlier "Past Imperfect" (1992). While that volume was concerned with how some of the most important post-war French intellectuals willfully blinded themselves to Stalinist atrocities, "Burden" shows us the obverse. Judt presents us with three clearly-written and balanced portraits of men who refused to let ideology shield them from confronting the complexities of their times. Each of these three men - Leon Blum, Albert Camus, and Raymond Aron - were men of the Left but they refused to adhere to the (then-)standard line of justifying Communist political violence and terror in the name of the higher goal of revolutionary social transformation. The difficulties that each of these men faced in trying to etch out a moral and practical political position between the bitterly divisive ideological contests of their times, in Judt's view, makes each of these men distinctive. Yet, the author is even-handed enough to point out each of his protagonists' failures - Blum's inability to create a workable governing coalition or a rational economic policy, Camus's philosophical ineptitutdes, and Aron's rather mandarin arrogance, for example. Judt is fair enough to accept that many of their opponents's criticisms of them were justified (he doesn't turn his protagonists into saints or martyrs) but convincingly argues that each man gauged the issues of their day - (Socialism for Blum, Algeria for Camus, and Marxism for Aron) more accurately than their more ideologically-driven counterparts. All this is by way of saying that "The Burden of Responsibility" carries an unstated but not-so-discreet warning against the theoretically-driven academic left of our day. In his intelligent appraisal and recognition of three men who moved past the boundaires of ideological thinking and faced the contemporary issues as they actually existed, Judt also presents us with a model of intellectual enagement that goes beyond mere word-spinning. Both an compelling history of men caught in conflicts of their times (and Judt situates them in their epoch with masterly ease) and an engaging polemic, "The Burden of Responsibility" is an essential read for anyone interested in modern intellectual history.

The author of this book is my prof. at NYU and he is simply amazing. He is the best history prof. I've ever had, and words can't describe how intelligent this man is. I'm enrolled in his course titled "History of Europe since 1945" and I must say that the prof. is a walking encyclopedia, and really knows everything there is to know about Europe. I haven't had the chance to read any of his books yet, but I will look them up at the NYU library soon.. I have so much reading for his class I don't think I'll be able to do any leisure reading for the rest of the semester, but I'll pick up one of his books this winter break.

This is a very good appreciation of 3 distinctive French intellectuals, all of whom played a significant role in larger French culture. Blum, Camus, and Aron were all leftists, but of a moderate sort, and in different ways, opposed to the superficial and dogmatic Marxism that characterized much of the French Left. All were quite accomplished intellectuals, independent thinkers, and French patriots. All were stigmatized by the 'mainstream' of French intellectual life because of their independence. The three essays comprising this book vary somewhat in quality. The best is on Leon Blum, partly because Blum, the major figure of the interwar Socialist Party, was the most important, and perhaps the least known to American readers. Judt offers a very nice, and occasionally eloquent, analysis of Blum's career as a politician and statesman. The essay on Aron is also very good and shows nicely the range of this polymathic figure. The essay on Camus is perhaps the least interesting, but that is partly because Camus' story is relatively well known, rather than because of any deficiency on Judt's part. What contributed to the independence of these individuals? Partly it was a matter of their considerable intellects and distinctive personalities. Partly because unlike many intellectuals, they were all engaged in what might be called 'real world' activities. None was content with a purely intellectual career. Blum was a prominent politician and prior to his political career, a successful attorney. Camus worked as journalist, as did Aron, and the latter was involved in politics to some extent. All were also in different ways outsiders. Blum and Aron were both Jews, and Blum in particular was subjected to anti-semitic vilification which he bore with considerable dignity. Camus was a poor provincial boy from Algeria. All made significant contributions to French life that will probably outlive the achievements of their critics.

Perhaps this review isn't justified (I have only read the section on Camus), but this book is a marvel. Tony Judt has created perhaps the most endearing written portrait of Albert Camus I have ever read. If you are interested in the artist's life, please do yourself a favor and read this book (then read Olivier Todd's full biography). Albert is presented here in a most proper fashion: ambiguous but dignified, somewhere between Pascal and Nietzsche. (Much like the characters in his works, no?) FYI: Judt has written a forward for the new translation of "The Plague" - due out soon, I hope. To summarize: Thanks, Tony.

Camuses book 'The Outsider' follows in a very vivid and simple style the life of Meursault, whilst wearing the spectacles of a society 64 years previous the book has as much significance today as it did then. Just over 100 pages of carefully crafting western society and the morals and laws that underpin everybodies lives...the legal constraints the tabloid lines taken through the eyes of one man...whether protagonist or hero young Meursault is still an 'open verdict' today. Recommended reading.

The Outsider, one of Camus' earlier works, reads distinctly as a vehicle for Camus' philosophy. The novel is a short, icy delienation of the notion that life is absurd. People serch for meaning, for shape, for explanations behind actions. What if a person existed who found no meaning in the course of his life? Meursalut is a man who lives an unremarkable bachelor life in Algiers. His mother dies - he does not grieve, circumstances lead him to shoot an Arab man at point blank range on a boiling hot day at the beach - he feels the stinging sweat and reflection of the sunlight off the knife held by the man.

The second part of the novel focuses on his trial for this killing, which is where the novel fails to convince. The scenes of the prosecution are rigged to provide convenient metaphors for the alienation of Meursalut: a chaplain is provided, he is not interested, the judge asks him if he felt grief for his mother, he says he didn't. Finally he is condemed to death for his murder.

In the afterword by Camus to my Penguin Classic edition, Camus sums up The Outsider in a sentence: 'In our society any man who doesn't cry at his mother's funeral is liable to be condemned to death.' The hero is condemned because he fails to comply by the normative rules of society. Well hang on, surely Meursalut is condemned because he has murdered a man? The fact that he comes across as indifferent, shows surprise rather than remorse, does not believe in God are all tangental to this central moment in the book. As the character of Meursault developed he reminded me of those chilly serial killers who stare blankly in court offering no explanation for their crimes. It is not like 'The Trial' by Kafka where the protagonist is alienated and bewildered, condemned for a crime he doesn't know he has committed. Thus the predominant image that comes out of The Outsider for me is not a man refusing to play the game, but the struggles of the prosecutors to find a motive for a crime which, nevertheless, must be punished anyway.

Il est un homme qui ne joue pas le jeu. Il est un peu différent et pour cette raison, il n'est pas accepté dans la société. Il est Meursault. Meursault est un homme 'taciturne et renferme' et parce qu'il ne montre pas ses emotions, il est condamne a mort. Le livre commence avec l'enterrement de sa mere ou il ne pleure pas. Il est indifferent a la mort de sa mere, et il continue sa vie, comme si rien s'est passé. Un jour quand il va a la plage avec ses amies, il tue un Arabe. Il pretend que c'est a cause de la chaleur et du soleil, mais est-ce-que c'est? Ce livre pose beaucoup de questions intriguantes, au sujet de la psychologie de Meursault. Pendant le proces nous apprenons que Meursault est condamné a mort parce qu'il ne conforme pas, et pas parce qu'il a tué un Arabe. La société ne peut pas accepter un homme qui n'est pas comme tous le monde. L'Etranger est un livre qui vous fait penser, je vous conseille de le lire car ca changera votre vie.

Albert Camus' "Outsider" is a short, to the point, two part novel. The first introduces us to the characters and leads up to the killing of an Arab on the beach by the principal characters. The second follows his ordeal afterwards, his thoughts and his trial. He is persecuted as a cold killer due to his lack of visible emotion or remorse. He is concerned only for himself.

As mentioned in a previous review, this is a book of thought and questioning. Camus questions the pillars of Western society and questions humanities uncanny ability to believe that the majority is correct and that anybody else is different and thus can be persecuted.

I would recommed "Outsider" for a quick, extremely thought-provoking read. This classic is reknowned as one of the basic foundations of existentialist philosophy.

Originally L'Etranger, the english version I read was (obviously) a translation from the original French language in which the book was conceived.

The story is in two parts. The first is of Meursault, the main character- establishing and developing his character. It traces his days up until the point where he commits a murder for no apparent reason. The second part describes his incarceration, reflections on what has transpired, and his trial.

It is written plainly enough to be taken as a simple story, which makes it somewhat enjoyable on a most basic level- though to take it as such ultimately defies the purpose of the novel. I wish my French was strong enough to have read the original. I hate translations as they destroy half of any author's story- the language he chooses for his tale.

**WARNING** SPOILERS POSTED BELOW **WARNING**

Historically, the book was partly written to defy the conventions of the time by utilizing the common daily language of the people (instead of the rigid formality that was enforced at the time). It was also written to identify, interpret, explain the ins and outs of Existentialist thought.

The basis of Existentialism, as I understand it, is that life is simply what it is, and no more. Concepts such as God, Heaven, Hell, the Soul, Eternity, Destiny, and so on, are but illusions that we feed upon to define some form of meaning for ourselves. Wake up, (says the Existentialist) your life is only your life. You are not pre-ordained to greatness. There is no Master Plan. You live and die, and in between you will make some choices that are of no ultimate consequence- nothing stops when you do; only you cease to exist. Our life, if I may, is just the flip-side of a coin. When no one is flipping anymore, the coin remains.

In The Outsider, Meursault essentially wakes up one day and realizes that his "life" is manmade, and really, dictated by society; that anything he does or has done will not and can not have any consequence. With this new liberation, he begins a fresh journey, unchained from the burden of the concept of "consequence". Though the story is told from a first-person perspective, it is conveyed in a flat, impersonal tone that would suggest even Meursault himself feels detached from the events that surround him.

When his Mother dies, Mersault is unaffected emotionally (though complains of the distance he must travel for the funeral and the inconvenience of having to miss work) and refuses to put on the show that society demands in such a situation. I believe that Camus had a clear point to prove in how the other characters responded to him. Though he is sincere in his responses, he is perceived by some to be alienating and suspicious, while others continue on playing their game/roles (i.e., his girlfriend Marie) despite his inability (or lack of wont) to play along with them- the former outcast him for not playing along, while the latter simply keep playing as though he were. This illustrates our lack of autonomy from the social body and, ironically, our immobility without it. If this helps, check out www dot yourwords dot ca for more.

Don't bother with this book unless you're into philosophy and pulling a higher meaning out of people's writing. The first time I read it I thought it was garbage until I talked with my Philosophy professor about it and got some insight into the imagery of the text.

**WARNING** SPOILERS POSTED ABOVE **WARNING**

the book is good written but the story itsselfs is a bit dull and also a bit unbelievebale but i recommend anybody to read this book for school because the book has only 77 pages!!!!!

Un libro excepecional, tanto por el argumento como por la forma en que esta escrito. Un agudo analisis de la sociedad y del hombre. Para leer varias veces. Lei un comentario en Amazon sobre este libro que decia que la historia era poco creible pero que lo recomendaba porque tenia pocas paginas. Una verdadera estupidez. ¿De donde saco este buen señor que la historia tiene que ser creible? ¿Y si la historia fuese lo de menos? ¿Se puede recomendar un libro solo porque tiene pocas paginas? ¿Es que acaso "Los demonios" de Dostoyevski, o "Los Hermanos Karamazov" no son recomendables porque tienen mas de 700 paginas?

This spare and lucid novella is one of Camus' finest. The extended monologue format is intriguing, and the fact that it was a rather nasty send-up of many of the existentialists with whom Camus had had a falling-out was especially marvelous. One is reminded of Dostoevsky's The Underground but, Camus' message is far easier to swallow. La Chute can't help but confirm Camus' brilliance as a writer.

Not every book in the "Introducing..." series is good, but this dealing (in a comic book fashion) with the life and works of French author Albert Camus (1913-1960) is really fine. Two of his novels are covered at some length: "The Stranger" and "The Plague". Besides, we get his biography: his birth in Algeria from working-class French colonists (the so-called pied-noirs), his start as a novelist in Paris in the pre-World War II years, his activities during the German occupation, his political positions (after starting out in the left, he became an anticommunist in the 1950s, becoming at odds with the majority of France's intelligentsia), his position on the Algerian War (he was opposed to independence, probably out of fear for the fate of his mother, who was living there, and put forward some naive proposals for peace), his opposition to the death penalty, his philosophical positions. Reccomended.

I wish I had picked up this book before I plodded through a THICK, renowed biography of Camus.

Considering I wasn't writing a thesis on Camus, and was only interested in learning about the man for my own knowledge, "Introducing Camus" filled my needs very well.

The book is set up like a comic book, with the odd "see notes below" parts, and I was able to read it in about 1.5 hours. With remarkable clarity, the book distilled Camus' essential philosophies and much of the important points in his life. But make no mistake; this book is not some superficial glamourization about Camus. I would say that a person reading the thick biography of Camus vs. the person reading "Introducing Camus" would come away with basically the same points. Isn't that amazing? (Now I'm starting to think that the thick book was filled with WAAAAY too much filler...how very un-Camus-esque).

Not only is "Introducing Camus" factually and philosophically sound, it is also engaging and gives great background and point-of-reference when reading Camus' actual works. For example, now that I know what was going on in Camus' life when he wrote "The Plague," I can read it with more insight. And now, I'm excited to read more of Camus' works (imagine if you gave this book to your high school or college kid!)

Overall, great primer for Camus. Start with this first, then read his books, and then maybe start reading those massive biographies.

Originally titled "Camus for Beginners", this concise biography combines personal information, short excerpts, and vivid cartoons to illuminate the man behind the modern literary myth.

Although I had read The Fall, The Plague, The Stranger, and a few collections of essays a decade earlier, I had only a vague memory of Camus' actual life and conflicts. This fine book, which I read in less than two hours, remains a solid primer. Both longtime admirers of Camus and undergraduate students forced to read his celebrated novels should find this brief work a valuable investment of time.

It's also worth noting that cartoons are often read by adults in Europe. The format provides readers with a superficial, yet accessible and non-threathening, way to enter into academic and philosophical discussions. College and high school teachers of French, literature, and philosophy would benefit from adding this book to their students while assigning any novel by Camus.

With both a preface and an introduction, the text gives fair warning that it is not intended as a comprehensive overview of Sartre's thought (of which I am no judge either). Rather, to quote the preface, it is "a clear but simplistic discourse that reflects the contradictions that Sartre was struggling with in 1945," specifically his attempt to reconcile existentialism with communism. While this main text makes for an enjoyable (albeit brief) evening's read, the real treat here Sartre's commentary on THE STRANGER. After reading the terse Q&A session--the criticisms are, to quote the preface once again, "muddled and hostile"--it is extremely refreshing to find theory put into practice. Here Sartre writes lovingly about Camus's novel as he interprets it via close reading and in light of Camus's THE MYTH OF SISYPHUS. On a whole, the text may be somewhat of a hodgepodge, but it is nevertheless a pleasant one; you may find yourself returning to this text not for reference so much as for inspriation.

Although this is not exactly an introduction to the theory of Existentialism, it is certainly a much more accessible account of it than Sartre's "Being and Nothingness." Sartre addresses the numerous detractors of Existentialism who posit that the theory is essentially pessimistic and anti-humanistic, that it suggests a cynical and amoral view of the world. Sartre argues that man wills what he is (a variant of Heidegger's Being-Becoming), and thus the theory provides for radical freedom. He writes, "when operating on the level of complete authenticity, I have acknowledged that existence precedes essence, and that man is a free being who, under any circumstances, can only ever will his freedom, I have at the same time acknowledged that I must will the freedom of others" (49). Sartre brilliantly links up this conception of radical freedom with the willing of the freedom of others such as communist are Marxist political action. This lecture is a lucid and rich work of philosophy, and it instigated a number of debates around the notion of Humanism, famously refuted by Heidegger.

This collection also includes a Q+A between Sartre and a review of Camus' "The Stranger," which he remarkably compares to Hemingway in terms of prose style. For Sartre, "The Stranger" is the great modern work exploring the fact of absurdity; he indicates that its primary strength is the co-existence of clarity and ambiguity.

the book came quickly and it was new as new can be. thanks!

This book is incredibly easy to read in French. It was the first book I ever attempted to read in French, the language is simple, but the ideas bigger. I think that it illustrates how one might live as un être en soi, instead of an être pour soi, as we ought to be. Meursault's existance is an ontological horror, he exists for others. He will write a letter that is sure to cause unjust injury to a woman, just because he sees no reason not to please his friend Raymond. He will marry a woman he doesn't love just to make her happy. This is like hte behavior of a dog trying to please its master.
horrific, contagious thought pattern.
5 stars