L'Étranger est le premier roman publié d’Albert Camus, paru en 1942. Il prend place dans la tétralogie que Camus nommera « cycle de l’absurde » qui décrit les fondements de la philosophie camusienne : l’absurde. Le roman a été traduit en soixante-huit langues.
L'Étranger est le premier roman publié d’Albert Camus, paru en 1942. Il prend place dans la tétralogie que Camus nommera « cycle de l’absurde » qui décrit les fondements de la philosophie camusienne : l’absurde. Le roman a été traduit en soixante-huit langues.
Se nota que es un librazo. Pero no es para mí en este momento. Es un libro existencial, probablemente para tiempos más calmos que el actual. Las metáforas y alegorías que nos plantea son claras. El juego que hace el título del libro con su historia invita a pensar quién es "en realidad" el extranjero y, al responder esa pregunta de múltiples maneras encontraremos profundidad en el texto. Personalmente, creo que me llegó en el momento inadecuado. Por un lado, es un momento de optimismo en lo individual. Por el otro, es un momento de dinamismo en lo social. Creo que este libro rimará mejor en las lecturas de quienes se encuentren en un contexto mucho más quieto o, tal vez, atravesando un momento individual de desinterés y aburrimiento.
Se nota que es un librazo. Pero no es para mí en este momento.
Es un libro existencial, probablemente para tiempos más calmos que el actual. Las metáforas y alegorías que nos plantea son claras. El juego que hace el título del libro con su historia invita a pensar quién es "en realidad" el extranjero y, al responder esa pregunta de múltiples maneras encontraremos profundidad en el texto.
Personalmente, creo que me llegó en el momento inadecuado. Por un lado, es un momento de optimismo en lo individual. Por el otro, es un momento de dinamismo en lo social. Creo que este libro rimará mejor en las lecturas de quienes se encuentren en un contexto mucho más quieto o, tal vez, atravesando un momento individual de desinterés y aburrimiento.
I was confused for the first half of this book as to why it is so beloved. The setup is that the main character’s mother dies and he (Mersault) goes to her funeral, which is at the “home” (their equivalent of a nursing home) that he resorted to letting his mother live at because of his meager income.
You would think that having this death early on would be a fruitful ground to make the story interesting in a variety of ways. But instead it is made into the dullest affair one can imagine; mundane; everyday; no tension; no plot; no beautiful metaphors; in short he does absolutely nothing with this potentially powerful part of the story. At this stage, one can only wonder: what exactly is the point??
Life from Mersault’s point of view is dull. There’s nothing to draw myself to this aimless character and in fact the …
I was confused for the first half of this book as to why it is so beloved. The setup is that the main character’s mother dies and he (Mersault) goes to her funeral, which is at the “home” (their equivalent of a nursing home) that he resorted to letting his mother live at because of his meager income.
You would think that having this death early on would be a fruitful ground to make the story interesting in a variety of ways. But instead it is made into the dullest affair one can imagine; mundane; everyday; no tension; no plot; no beautiful metaphors; in short he does absolutely nothing with this potentially powerful part of the story. At this stage, one can only wonder: what exactly is the point??
Life from Mersault’s point of view is dull. There’s nothing to draw myself to this aimless character and in fact the way he lets himself be pulled into doing despicable acts shows me he has zero moral compass; in fact he’s a despicable person because of this.
Why should I care about such a person? He’s the opposite of inspiring.
But then, halfway through the book, things majorly change. Huge spoilers, but the character commits a murder. That’s where the real plot takes off with an investigation, time adjusting to prison, and a trial that are all much more riveting.
It’s also where I finally realized that this book is a sketch of a character archetype: the modern young man who has had all meaning stripped from him by growing up in modern society and so has nothing to care about, no causes, nothing matters if he does or doesn’t do it.
The essence of the novel is about the existential angst that is the result of the fall of religion in society. For the atheist who has become completely disillusioned with not only the concept of God but of the ability to find meaning at all, how does one go on?
Our character, Mersault, doesn’t feel anything deeply at all, he has no shame, no fear, no guilt, no joy. And so the feelings he does have are: boredom, mild interest, curiosity, droll amusement. And this novel is meant to illustrate the absolute worst path that that listlessness can take one down, and asks the question: what happens when they are faced with the direst consequences? When he goes to prison and goes on trial and then is faced with execution, will this character change? Can these extreme circumstances finally push him into a place of finding some sort of meaning in life? Some sort of character growth?
That is at least one way of reading it. I also am aware that Albert Camus, the author, was a philosopher who created the philosophy of absurdism, which basically postulates an progression on from nihilism, an answer to the question of how to find meaning. Basically, absurdism is the idea that yes, you accept that life has no essential meaning and is random and hard, and then you respond to that by embracing the absurdism of finding meaning in something that has no meaning. Life is absurd; embrace it, and enjoy it anyway.
I felt that he explored this philosophy perhaps a bit more convincingly in The Plague. In The Stranger, he has a moment of feeling happy at the end that isn’t very well explicated, and that’s it—he then dies. So it’s hardly an inspiring rally call to make me want to be an absurdist.
Nevertheless this book does very succinctly illustrate the nihilistic problem and show the absurdist solution, if perhaps too briefly and abstrusely.
In summary, the second half is riveting, but I consider the main flaw of this book to be that for the first half, it takes way too long to be able to understand “what is the point of all this?”. I’m glad I read it. I might read it again because I suspect the first half of the book will be much better when I know where all of this is leading to.
3'5 estrellas No es que no me haya gustado, es un buen libro, pero hay que cogerlo con ganas. Un personaje apático que nos presenta un mundo absurdo, donde la justicia es aún más absurda. Lo transmite tan bien que estás deseando que acabe.
3'5 estrellas No es que no me haya gustado, es un buen libro, pero hay que cogerlo con ganas. Un personaje apático que nos presenta un mundo absurdo, donde la justicia es aún más absurda. Lo transmite tan bien que estás deseando que acabe.
This book is straight-forward. A trip into the mind of a man, who acts and thinks like a stoic; his journey through life is simple, basically because he does what he wants and doesn't care for much. He's easily bored and seemingly steers away from what he's not attracted to. He doesn't even do a lot of "mandatory" stuff when he doesn't want to.
Even though I like the descriptions in the book as well as the plot, it's what's not there which interests me most; explanations to the man's behaviour are scarce, and this book is to me akin to Antonioni's "L'Avventura", where a clear plot is far from obvious, if even there.
All in all: short, concise and well-written. Highly interesting, mainly because it's so post-modern.
This book is straight-forward. A trip into the mind of a man, who acts and thinks like a stoic; his journey through life is simple, basically because he does what he wants and doesn't care for much. He's easily bored and seemingly steers away from what he's not attracted to. He doesn't even do a lot of "mandatory" stuff when he doesn't want to.
Even though I like the descriptions in the book as well as the plot, it's what's not there which interests me most; explanations to the man's behaviour are scarce, and this book is to me akin to Antonioni's "L'Avventura", where a clear plot is far from obvious, if even there.
All in all: short, concise and well-written. Highly interesting, mainly because it's so post-modern.
I honestly can't remember why I liked this when I read it in high school. So. Depressing. And the protagonist is not even a real person, with actual emotions and motives you could relate to. I mean. I know that's also the point, but still. This book just makes me angry.
I honestly can't remember why I liked this when I read it in high school. So. Depressing. And the protagonist is not even a real person, with actual emotions and motives you could relate to. I mean. I know that's also the point, but still. This book just makes me angry.
Dark. Camus says it is about a man who dies for truth. Most people would probably find it a story about someone completely devoid of morals. I think it's both. The main character is every religious persons worst nightmare - an atheist who refuses to pretend meaning and emotion when he sees and feels none. I must admit, I identify a bit with that part.
Dark. Camus says it is about a man who dies for truth. Most people would probably find it a story about someone completely devoid of morals. I think it's both. The main character is every religious persons worst nightmare - an atheist who refuses to pretend meaning and emotion when he sees and feels none. I must admit, I identify a bit with that part.
