Albert Camus Books

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

***SPOILER INCLUDED****

The story based around the deaths of Meursault's mother, a distant acquaintance of his, and his execution is ludicrous, yet the mindsets of the characters are strikingly real and fitting considering the situations that they are faced with.

The plot is just plain ridiculous. Meursault, the protagonist, subsequent to partaking in his mother's funeral, kills a man because the sun gets in his eyes and he blunders, clicking the trigger, and then letting the barrel pop four more times.

After spending months in jail awaiting a trial, the magistrate tells Meursault that he can be forgiven for his crime, with the help of God. Meanwhile, the presiding judge believes that Meursault has no soul. Therein lies the theme of the novel: are Meursault's qualities attributed to an underdeveloped way of thinking and expressing himself, or do his actions speak for themselves, proving that he is all but inhuman, a man, or even a spectacle, with no soul? What makes this argument so compelling is that it is easy to identify with Meursault, but his actions take on a role of their own. He is seemingly indifferent to just about everything, with exception to being imprisoned. But even that he gets used to. His carelessness may be due to subconscious depression. Is he hiding his true feelings? There's plenty of evidence to argue this point..

When Meursault visits his mother's funeral home, he falls asleep in an abnormal position, possibly so that he doesn't have to deal with his thoughts of his loss. When he arrives at the home, he notices minute details of all of the old men and women there, including those of the caretaker, the funeral home manager, and Mr. Perez. He distracts himself from thinking about his mother. He clearly has feelings for her, however, because later in the novel, when he's in trial, he can't help but be infuriated at himself for not crying on the day of the burial. When Meursault shoots the Arab five times, he envisions knocking on the door of unhappiness with each hit. Is he doing himself in because deep down he thinks he deserves it? Is his crude indifference towards the world mistaken for his open mind and lack of understanding of others, and of himself?

On the other hand, may be merciless and hard headed. He doesn't know how old his mother was when she died, or exactly when she died, and he is under the impression that being at her funeral is a bother, because he could be doing other things, and later he admits that he deserves to be killed.

Meursault's relationship with his girlfriend, Marie is essential in this novel. Whether Meursault has a soul or not is debatable, but his admiration for Marie is not. He uses love as a distraction from his worries, and the pairing of the couple is perfect fit. Marie appears to be as open minded as Meursault, and while Meursault voices that he doesn't seem to care about much of anything, which might be perceived as an immature viewpoint, Marie demonstrates the same notion through her innocent laughs. But neither Meursault nor Marie are really innocent. Marie wants to be with Meursault in bed, and, like Meursault, doesn't seem to have much else on her mind. Meanwhile, Meursault writes a letter for his friend threatening his friend's girlfriend, and later he hears them fight without intervening. Yet, in a way, the two still are innocent until they face Meursault's prison sentence and execution.

Meursault is a criminal, whether or not it was his intention, but he has feelings, just like everyone else. And his thought process makes more sense after his prison sentence than anywhere else in the novel. The reality of his emotions, during the time he spends in lock up, jump out of the page. I don't believe this work would have earned Albert Camus the Nobel Prize without the detail in the final pages. Suddenly, Meursault sees the world in a different light. He had taken his life for granted when he was a free man, wasting time watching passer-bys in the street from his porch, keeping anything important from lingering on his mind. And now the only thing he can think about is his anticipitated death, the most important thing in his life. Why hadn't he learned more about the guillotine? he wondered. Why didn't he read books on escaping prison? Impetuously, Meursault began thinking, but it was too late. Even without knowing his fate, Meursault could have imagined potential decision based outcomes, such as going through with marrying Marie. But he had decided not to think, because he didn't have to. He didn't think when he committed murder. He didn't even have the ability to think about why he did it. Was Meursault gutless and cold hearted or did his thoughtlessness become a danger to himself? The moments leading up to his execution represented a new life for him, as he finally began to think about his previous actions and the tolls they took on himself and everyone who he knew, all of whom testified in court. He was finally able to see the light, but it was too late. Even while seated in the courtroom, where there was no way to see the sun, Meursault was able to sense what time of day it was by the sounds outside. The sun had haunted Meursault throughout the book. Everywhere he went, he was too hot. As he killed the Arab, he was attempting to get out of the sun. But the light is exactly what he needed. And that's the irony of the novel.

This is not a novel to read for its story. The plot has little significance in the beauty of "The Stranger." In fact, if someone explained every detail of the book before you read it, they wouldn't be giving much away. It's the style of Camus's writing, even after surviving a translation, that captures the mind of his readers. "The Stranger" is a must read masterpiece of literature.

I have read this book at least four different times ever since I was 15 -for the record, I am 34 as I write this review. When I read it the first time, I just wanted people to think I was smart since I was reading Camus.
Time went by, and I found myself reading this book again and coming to the conclusion that it is neither really about the murder (that became a song from the Cure later on, if nobody has written that yet), nor the stranger, nor his trial.
The book can be interpreted as an allegory to the European presence in Africa. If your heart is socialist enough, you can interpret it as an allegory of the European arrogant presence everywhere in the World.

In my view, it is not his best work (I like The Fall much better) but it is a must, no questions asked.

Camus was well known for defending values of justice, freedom and human dignity, I don't think his great work "the stranger" was a negative portrayal of human life in any way. The stranger is simply Camus' way of presenting his philosophy of absurdity in a very artistic, logical way.

Camus's absurdist philosophy implies that life has no rational meaning, and there isn't a rational reason for the order of events in this world, therefore existence itself is absurd, which of course would contradict all religious beliefs that there is a divine reason for everything that happens and that life itself is divine. However, Camus in pursuit of his absurdist philosophy never believed that the absence of meaning in our lives should push humans into despair and agony, rather he believed in humans dignity under the pressure of this indifferent world.

The stranger, or the main character of the novel: Meursault, who lived in Algiers, (Algiers was a French colony, Albert Camus was born there) is an emotionally indifferent person, who moves through life reacting to no event, even his mother's death. Meursault doesn't believe in God and doesn't have any emotional attachment to anything or anybody. Meursault on the other hand is an honest person who doesn't lie about his feelings and tells it as he sees it; he's simply a person with no hidden agendas and no mysterious motives.

Meursault's life exists as a series of random events with seemingly no logic to why or when the event occur, not even his marriage decision or the support that he gives to certain friends seem logical. For no clear motive or reason, Meursault commits a murder and is taken to prison. The trial that takes place in the second part of the book is the most intense and mentally engaging part of Camus' stranger.

The main focus of the trial shifts radically from the murder to an analysis of Meursault's character: his atheism, his lack of emotions at his mom's funeral, his brief interactions with people he met at his mom's funeral and even his conversation with the priest who came to prison to redeem Meursault and ask him to take Jesus as his savior. The court is trying to find the reason behind this irrational crime, just like society and religion are trying to find reason behind irrational events of life.

Meursault is sentenced to death and pressured again by the priest to choose religion before he dies. At this point, Meursault, who was never emotional about any thing in his life, becomes very emotional about his rejection of religion and accepts death as the only destiny awaiting all humans. Getting rid of all hope, and accepting death was the only conclusion that allowed Meursault his inner peace.

At a time of intense intellectual confusion after the second world war, Camus is not to be blamed for thinking that existence was absurd, at a time where lives are being lost for no reason and religion was being misused all over the world for political ,controlling, and non spiritual reasons. If the reader is interested in philosophy, religion, or literature, the stranger is a fascinating journey into the human mind and an exploration of life's purpose.

Essentially this book is about a man whose alleged crime is merely the excuse used to remove him from society. During the trial of the central character we are told he is guilty of neglect, lacks empathy, and is in a sense socially maladjusted. For this he is executed. Today all we need to do to witness such an injustice is turn on the news to see so many of our fallen members of society judged on their social habits and personal shortcomings in the name of justice and the greater good.

Like most of Camus' works, The Stranger's plot is simple but the meaning is trivially existentialist and compelling. The Stranger begins with the death of narrator Meursault's mother. After napping on the bus to her retirement home, Meursault is disengaged and unmoved by the vigil and funeral procession, and continues to be until the finale of his trial.

Meursault appears insensitive throughout The Stranger and lives for pleasure in the moment. When asked by ladyfriend Marie if he loves her, he responds nonchalantly, "...it didn't mean anything but that I probably didn't." Meursault, however, does have feelings for her, but chooses not to acknowledge them.

When faced with the conflict of killing a man for being a threat to his friend, Meursault's "live in the moment" persona erupts inside of him enough to pull the trigger five times and not panic. Throughout the lengthy period of time Meursault spent in prison, he continued to be indifferent, unmoved, and dispassionate. Though he did not feel like a criminal, he still struggled to come to terms with his disposition.

The end of the novel is disconcertingly troubling. Meursault fights to disengage his feelings from Marie as she sits in the visiting room of the prison, and struggles to choke back words of defense for himself during the trial. He listens to the prosecutor demean his image and is powerless over it. Finally, Meursault feels like a criminal, but convinces himself that he will be spared despite his murderous crime. However, Meursault is sentenced to a public execution and consequently becomes even more dispassionate than he had been. His final thoughts of resignation were impersonal and repugnant, due to the fact that Meursault had become entirely convinced that his world was truly a physical one and he had reached the inevitable end.

Cozmans introduction and tranlation are no improvment over the Justin O' Brian translation in fact Cozman's translation can not touch O'Brians flow, elgance and art. Cozman's tranlation is a labor while Justin O' Brian is tranaltion is a pleasure to read and easly comprehended. If Camus French was a bad as Cozman's English translation then we would not be reading Camus today.

The introduction by the Turkish nobel prize winner is in same leauge as Cozmans translation. He is verbose and not elganant in any way. His novels reak of Camus and Camus should never reak.

The first tip off is that Camus dedication to Frances is deleted from this edition. This is sad when a publisher does not respect the orginal author enough to give a page to a dead nobel prize winner for a dedication. Camus gave us so much that he deserves this respect.

The O'Brian text has no introduction, no forward, just Camus translated well and the dedication to Frances. That is enough for me.

The EXILE and The KINGDOM is wonderful. The Silent Man, The Adultrous Woman and The Artist's Life three of the greatest stroies ever written. I read this book cover to cover twice in succesion. Most books of short stories only have one captivating short story and idea. This book of stories was orginally published with the Novel the Fall. The O'Brian editon of these two books are comnonly found used on Amazon and at your local library.

Having not read Camus since my school days, with the exception, that is, of his play *Caligula,* I picked up this collection of short stories remembering Camus as an old favorite. I wonder if I would now find *The Stranger* and *The Plague* just as passé.

These stories just don't hold up, if they ever did. Are they really considered representative of Camus `at the height of his power,' as the biographical note to this edition maintains? I'd have to think, indeed hope, that was just hype.

Delivered with all the subtlety of a trumpeting elephant, the themes comprising *The Exile and The Kingdom* seemed terribly dated, naïve, and without any particular distinction as great literature. As translated, the stories are written with admirable clarity in predominately short, clean sentences reminiscent to me somewhat of Hemingway, which makes the reading quick and simple--but after fifty years, Camus isn't only saying nothing new; he isn't saying anything old in a particularly compelling way either.

Perhaps the best story is *The Renegade*--a `mad' monologue delivered by a missionary captured by a savage tribe in the middle of a salt wasteland and converted to their religion of uncompromising cruelty. Probably the worst of the lot is *The Artist At Work*--a didactic author omniscient narrative that has the simplicity of a fable and all the clichés of one, too.

In the end, I'd like to think that *The Exile and the Kingdom* is a collection of basically throw-away work of fourth-rate Camus that nonetheless made its way into print--and stayed in print so long--because of Camus's Nobel Prize-winning status. And because, at his level of literary importance and influence, everything he's written is of lasting interest, if only to Camus scholars. I'd like to think that, but I'm not so sure. One thing I am sure of, however, is that these weren't of much interest to me at all.

Albert Camus, born in Algeria in 1913, won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1957 and died three years later, but his writings live on. This collection of six unusual, strange-endinged stories will probably be of interest to a wide range of short story fans. Sometimes seemingly vague and symbolic (and with odd titles and endings), they are thoroughly enjoyable and readable. Though similar in complexity, subject matter and settings vary greatly: a woman joins her fabric-selling husband on a business trip, a detongued former missionary awaits his replacement, barrel makers strike, a prisoner is foisted on a schoolmaster, an artist works amidst ever-changing chaos, and an engineer visits inhabitants near the site of a future dam. Exile and the Kingdom is an excellent, strange, brief book. Other strange short stories: Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman by Haruki Murakami.

As a point of reference, I have read most of Camus's major works. The present collection is an interesting mixture of six short stories. The stories are more varied than his novels which tend to reflect his philosophy of the absurd. I thought the present stories were among his best works. The story The Guest is outstanding, two or three of the stories are excellent, and the others are good or are at least interesting.

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 was copyrighted in 1957.

The present novel contains six works:
- The Adulterous Woman
- The Renegade
- The Silent Men
- The Guest
- The Artist at Work, and
- The Growing Stone.

I had previously read The Guest in other collections of short stories. It is one of his best short works and it it is about an Arab prisoner who had murdered a family member and who is now transferred to a schoolmaster, Daru, at an isolated outpost in the desert of North Africa. Daru is supposed to deliver the prisoner to a jail the next day.

The Silent Men are a group of workers who have returned to work at a barrel factory after a strike, and who are not interested in talking to the boss who stopped the strike. The Artist at Work is about the rise and fall of a young painter. The Growing Stone is about a civil engineer on an assignment in the coastal jungles of South America, while the remaining two are set in desert towns of North Africa, and are the most eclectic and imaginative stories in the group.

The stories are all interesting and I enjoyed the reads.

The Stranger and perhaps The Fall remain as his best works and they are must reads, followed by The Plague. Those works include his use of irony and philosophical views. Also, Camus has written some good drama and non-fiction. The present work shows the broader range of his writing skills and is an entertaining set of stories.

Justin O'Brien's translation renders beautifully into English six of Camus' finest stories, including the masterpiece "The Guest."

If you ever wanted to know anything about Albert Camus, this is the book to read. An exceptional job of research and writing. I hated to see it end. Oliver Todd is an excellent writer and his book a joy to read.

One hopes that the French edition, which is 400 hundred, not 100, pages longer, is considerably better, but I find that hard to believe. The writing is unacceptably choppy and awkward, with paragraphs springing from nowhere and sentences shifting from one grand topic to another without stopping. It's almost laughable. Chock full of details and totally lacking in style or spirit, this book will only be useful to those seeking a blow by blow chronology of Camus' life - and the chronology is uneven at best (many times Todd goes back several months without clear indication).

Poor writing wouldn't be a problem if there was at least a point of view, but Todd offers us none, preferring instead to recounting facts and quoting at length from Camus' letters. The fact that Camus was such a crystalline writer only makes this book seem like more of an insult.

I was hugely disappointed by this book. (...)

This book provides an interesting portrait of someone whom most would now qualify as one of the more interesting (if not most important) authors of the twentieth century. This book documents his early life (somewhat disappointingly for anyone who has read 'The First Man'-- Camus' own account) through his dallainces with careers and women to his litery triumphs.

This is a well-written and researched book, with the only negative from me that Camus comes out a lot less heroic and a lot more bitter and stereotypically hepcat and existentialist, which was a disappointment for I, who had raised him toward being a god....

A must read for anyone interested in Camus....

The only real problem I have with this book was that the American edition has been abridged. Over 150 pages have been cut. As a result much of the portrait of Camus as a philosopher has been deleted. So I would recomend reading the French edition if at all possible

If you want camus' angle on his life, read the first man, if you want an outsiders opinion, oliver todd is as good as it gets. Todd is a stickler for detail which is what anyone reading a biography really wants, so it's a must read on my list

The friendship and then the falling out between Sartre and Camus is more than biography and tells the story of the Cold War in story book dialectical form. This account brings this self-reflective history to light, beginning with the period of the War, the Vichy regime and the Resistance, then the postwar euphorias of both authors as they become public intellectuals par excellence. Their friendship and vanguard solidarity conceals hidden differences, and as the Cold War gets into gear the divergence of 'lefts' finds its exemplars. It would seem sad in one way, and yet this encounter and division produced the dialectic needed to confront the legacy of Communism and capitalism in collision, as if a fated broil. Within a few years all the issues, later the stuff of endless discourse, were tabled, and the stakes clear til the end in 1989.

While this book is supposedly meant to be a "balance" between the "fundamental legitimacy" of the philosophies of these two men, it is more an apology for Sartre than any kind of a balanced introspective of two men who shaped much of French intellectual debate after WWII.
Sartre essentially sat out WWII and offered up "Being and Nothingness" in 1943 while Camus not only wrote "The Stranger" and "The Myth of Sisyphus" in 1942, but was an active resistance fighter who fought the Nazi occupation of France. Sartre seems to have been quite envious of Camus' courage, but could never seem to be able to do anything but convert his loathsome cowardice during WWII into attacks (in the safety of salons of Paris) on Camus after publishing the venomous review of Camus' "The Rebel".
Aronson's greatest failure in this book is to try to find a moral equivalency between Sartre, who supported violence in overthrowing colonial regimes except the colonialism of the Soviet Union which he supported, and Camus, whose virulent anti-communism was way out of the "mainstream" of much of European thought after WWII. While Sartre found every reason he could to support communist regimes around the globe, he ignored the fact that the Soviet system was really an evil empire far worse than any created by the West. Stalin's forceful death by starvation of over 20 million citizens of the Soviet Union went un-noticed by Sartre as he condemned the "Imperialists" of the West. Only after the Hungarian uprising of 1956 did Sartre abandon his blind allegiance to the Soviet Union, while still supporting communist hegemony elsewhere.
Camus, on the other hand is condemned for not supporting the overthrow of regimes installed by Western European nations, even though none of them came close to the brutal nature of Soviet imperialism in the Ukraine, Chechnya, and the other conquered satellites.
Aronson's book however is really just another attempt by admitted academic leftists in the USA and other Western universities to hang onto a discredited economic system which has failed in every country it has been tried. This book is essentially not about Sartre vs Camus, but about how Marxism and its supporters have been given a bum rap. It isn't the system that is bad, but it was only implemented improperly. If only someone would just do it "the right way" then the utopia promised by Marx and his followers would be able to blossom and relieve us of the ills of capitalism. By offering a theory which places Camus and Sartre as moral equivalents, where a supporter of freedom of thought like Camus is equal to an opponent of freedom like Sartre, the left tries to level the playing field of history where the lessons to be learned are ignored or dismissed as an aberration. Only tenured professors who have never worked for a living or experienced the ravages of the philosophy he espouses could possibly write such a book. If you are looking for a book that deals with the issues that divided Camus and Sartre, you would be far better off reading "In Denial" or one of Jean Francois Revel's books.

man myself)and it's difficult to stomach an "even-handed" (i.e., non-judgemental) account of his behavior during and after WWII, but, solely from the perspective of this work being a window into the relationship of, arguably, the two foremost French thinkers of the twentith century (and please don't throw-up Foucault, Derrida and crew against C & S) - it has considerable value and is worth the read.

is way off the mark. There's more to say about this book, but for now, let me just say that the guy above doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

I read this to learn about the relationship between the two protagonists, Camus and Sartre. Both authors were previously familiar to me through their writings and also via some incidental biographical material; what was not familiar was the story of their collaboration during WWII and thereafter, and the specific nature of their philosophical difference, blossoming as it did into a very public and influential break.

This book was entirely successful in providing the information and analysis necessary to understand how two close collaborators, both very gifted and politically committed men, could come to be outspoken mutual antagonists. Especially interesting was Aronson's elucidation of the view of history each man held, and how the two activist intellectuals treated the tension between freedom and the seeming constraints of material reality.

While it is helpful to have some familiarity with the work of Sartre and Camus, a prior technical reading of their philosophical outlook is not necessary. Aronson does a good job of presenting the subject matter as a stand-alone volume geared to what is sometimes called "the informed layman." This text is well worth reading, both for historical interest and presentation of the transcendent issues it addresses.

i agree with both comments below. lottman did an excellent job in his research. and ,at times, he seems to hesitate to cut out all the extra detail that makes it an unnecessarily long read. but i really have to commend him for the work he did. you can find any information you need if you're doing research on camus, all you have to do is look a little.

what i most enjoyed, however, was the feel of lottman's writing. you can just tell that lottman knows his subject and has the right kind of passionate drive to deliver the biography.

I think I most love this magnificent book because the chilly reception it has received mirrors the deeply ironic incivility the French elite reserved for Camus himself. One can love Camus for his words, his insight, and his passion, but I think I love him most for the fact that he was hated by idiots. It is this theme that runs throughout Lottman's wonderful biography, and it also seems to describe to an extent Lottman's own experience.

For nearly the last quarter of Camus's short life, he lived in disfavor amongst the Paris literati. And for what? Because he, virtually alone amongst French intellectuals, recognized early on the horror that was the true nature of the regime of Joseph Stalin(socialism being virtually an article of faith with the likes of Sartre and others in France at the time).

Lottman himself seems to have had a rather similar experience in his publication of this book. As he points out in his preface to this second edition, a cottage industry has evolved in France and elsewhere in Camus scholarship and criticism. However, though that body of work is deeply indebted to Lottman's research, his preeminent role is rarely acknowledged. I think this is probably because, like Camus, Lottman is an outsider. Neither man was a French native (Camus was an Algerian of mixed French-Spanish descent, Lottman is an American expatriate living in Paris) and neither is an academic by trade (Camus was a newspaper editor, novelist and a man of the theatre, while Lottman is a journalist). Thus, Lottman has seemed at times as unwelcome amongst the French elite as Camus did himself. Again the irony is too much; Lottman has received comparatively little recognition even though he himself is an extremely important cornerstone of current Camus research.

Anyway, this book for whatever reason has received little more attention here in the United States than it has gotten anywhere else, and I think that is a shame. It is a wonderful, readable book. Most importantly, it is non-judgmental and it is very deferential. By that I mean that Lottman nowehere preaches to us how we should understand Camus; as he himself says, the essence of an artist is not in his biography, but in his works. It is long, but has only that level of detail befitting an intellectual biography of this caliber.

For anyone who really wants to understand Camus's literature, a thorough understanding of his life--like Lottman's--is priceless.

Although an accomplished and thorough book, it sometimes get bogged down in detail. However, it is a very carefully compiled and analytical book. Good selection of pictures and details of others artists in Camus' life. I enjoyed it greatly.

A long time ago, I started trying to think somewhat seriously about whether life without God had any meaning. A friend pointed me to Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus. So I read it - twice actually. And I went on to read The Stranger, The Plague and even The Rebel. I found in those books some powerful passages (and in the case of The Plague, a pretty good story) and considerable evidence that their author was a decent man, writing in indecent times. But to be honest, Camus' underlying message eluded me. I found his philosophical musings needlessly complicated. Why, for example, does he start The Myth of Sisyphus by asking whether life's absurdity demands suicide? Surely, the survival instinct alone renders the question meaningless; not to mention the possibility of experiencing earthly pleasure. Isn't a better question - the one I wanted answered anyway - how, not whether, to live in a world with no God watching over us? But I wasn't ready to give up on Camus. So I picked up this biography in search of clarity. I didn't get it. Lottman is no better at explaining Camus' philosophy (to me) than Camus himself. Take this Camus line, transcribed as if it were self-evident: "There is only one case in which despair is pure. It is that of a man sentenced to die.'' Huh? What about a parent who loses a child? What about a man or woman betrayed by someone they love? Is their despair somehow different from "pure despair"? And if so, does it matter? Lottman does do a valuable service in compiling the details of Camus' life. He is a relentless searcher of truth, separating fact from myth, getting the dates right, admitting when the evidence is unclear. It's yeoman's work, and deserves praise. And he makes a long story readable. His feisty preface to this new edition is a wonderful rebuke to those who supported Stalin's butchery and condemned Camus (who, as an earlier Amazon review nicely put it, had the good fortune to be "hated by idiots.") But Lottman sometimes doesn't see the forest for the trees and doesn't always put Camus' activities in a context that gives them meaning - assuming, apparently, that the reader already understands the backdrop. For example, I still don't totally understand the Camus-Sartre split, though Lottman tells us the names of the cafes and magazines in which it played out. In summary, this is a valuable book for Camus scholars and those already grounded in his philosophy. For the rest of us, the search continues.

In the short imaginary interviews conducted by Solomon in Introducing The Existentialists, I quickly discovered that Existentialism is a far more profound and in-depth philosophy then I had first interpreted it to be. To me, Existentialism has been the baseless ness of the universe, the idea to destroy the traditional patterns of beliefs and methods and to replace them with a more universal set of categorical imperatives (as Immanuel Kant would say). However, after briefly reading the earlier mentioned book, I soon discovered I was incredibly mistaken. Not only did the three philosophers (Sartre, Heidegger, and Camus) seem incompatible in many aspects of their existential perspectives, two of them even broke away from each other due to their differences in their own philosophy (Sartre & Camus). This furthered my doubt and reliability of my earlier definition of existentialism even more so, almost to the point that it felt like I have been lied to all my life about this philosophy from textbooks and history teachers in my High School. Nevertheless I discouraged the simple concept of quitting and continued to plunge into Solomon's imaginary world.
Amongst all of the philosophers, it seemed one topic held the same power and influence on the human mind. That was the topic of death wherein after one is dead one no longer exists except in the written articles left behind in the material world (Sartre). Camus seems to adopt Heidegger's philosophy concerning death, which is that death is undeniably going to occur, but it is not until one's mortality is actually at risk that one becomes more aware and petrified of the outcome of death. I found this idea the simplest to comprehend and agreed to it automatically. Another topic the philosophers seem to hit similar cords on seemed to dissipate due to terminology and mere personality complexities. This is the topic concerning the human being's ability of just `being' and the actual actions the human being takes.
In accordance to Sartre, the human being's actions are always ruled by natural causes and the actually `free will' we believe in is just a mere idea of subjectivity. For instance, if one is going to be a coward, he will always be a coward and it does not matter if he breaks those bonds of cowardice or not. Heidegger seems to go for a more pessimistic ideal of consciousness (almost everything seems pointless or wasted to him), which consists of the fact one is never really conscious of anything and is just simply in the world. He supports this argument with the entity of Daesin and being, which seemed to cause electric shocks of incomprehension to rack my mind. In fact, I was so confused with Heidegger's beliefs that I soon began to realize it means nothing at all even if I did understand him (his indifference and impersonal way of thinking portrayed a concept below the human being way of feeling). Finally I came to Camus, who relieved my past mental tensions with his good humor and simple way of explaining things.
Like Sartre, Camus seems to focus on the idea that actual free will is just a matter of subjectivity. However, instead of being indifferent to his ideals like Sartre seemed to be, he personalized his arguments with the character Meursault in his novel, The Stranger. Meursault is a simple man who falls from innocence to self-destruction due to his death. The idea seems simple enough, but I, for one, seem to have lost my innocence when I entered Elementary school. Thus, the novel itself seemed like a romance written by Hemingway. However, I quickly denounced this previous thought when Camus and Solomon speak of how Meursault does not love his girlfriend (not that he is an evil man, but what would be the purpose of love; better yet, why would he love anything when that would be absurd because it would be meaningless). Although Camus portrays Meursault as a character who understands that most, if not all, of his actions are meaningless because they will inevitably lead to nothing particular that has a point, Meursault himself seems like a much better projection of the existentialist theory than the depressing and monotone voice of Heidegger. In conclusion, I found Camus much more compatible to my adolescent methods of thinking as opposed to Sartre and Heidegger.
All of these philosophers seem to have placed my mind in a paradox unknown to me before. I now remember during my pre-teen years I used to think like Meursault (or perhaps I should say Camus) in the sense what is the point of doing anything? Not that I had evil intentions for my fellow student, teacher, relatives, whatever, but it just seemed ridiculously pointless since I was inevitably going to pass away from this physical realm (hopefully into a better afterlife than Sartre's). I also understood the possibility that there was no Hell or Heaven, which would make my afterlife a real after-life, hence nothing is happening afterwards. If it's just game over when you're playing the game of life, then why do anything at all. What's the necessity of action? It is interesting to relive these ideas, but hopefully, considering my current relationships and situation, I will not completely embrace this philosophy again.

'Introducing the Existentialists' is an interesting book, but my all-time favourite group is STILL the Beach Boys.

I found this little gem in a used book store in a college town after having read 'The Fall', 'The Stranger' and 'The Plague'. This is not so much a biography or literary criticism as it is a reading companion. A well written examination of Camus' work for the casual philosopher who wants to get the most out of their literary experiences with Camus. Philip Thody was Assistant Lecturer of French at Queen's University of Belfast at the time of publication (1959).

The chapters are 1) The Expression of The Absurd 2)Resistance and Revolt 3) The Plague 4) Two Plays 5)True Rebellion and False Rebels 6) The Creative Revival and 7)Achievement and Limitations.
It is paperback bound.

Philip Thody dicusses pertiant existensial topics and uses the philosophical allegroies found in most of Camu's works with excellent focus on 'The Plague'. The language is concise and clear. I found both disagreement and agreement with many points and observations made. The Reference section is robust and helful for further study. A solid find in any used book store. Recommended for any entry level, moderate or self studied student of the French Existensialists. It may also be a useful for anyone who simply doesn't 'get' what all the fuss is about for Camus.