Albert Camus

I was left feeling confused after reading the book. Meursault is a character that embodies absurdist ideals, and is Camus' mouthpiece for many of his philosophical beliefs. However, am I supposed to therefore pardon him and feel pity for him in spite of his immoral crimes? Does morality not hold any meaning to Meursault and am I supposed to be ok with his murders or his help to Raymond? Am I missing something? It seems to me that the book is giving license to immorality, under the banner of nihilism. It is as though Camus is saying that since life is meaningless, therefore moral codes can be forsaken.

Edit: this is my first ever post on reddit, and I'm honestly blown away by the amount of comments it's getting. I've read most of the comments and it gave me a deeper appreciation of the book. I'll probably reread it soon. Thank you all!

Just finished the stranger - mouth agape. The last chapter with the interaction with the priest was just incredible.

Here’s one of my takes. I’m with the whole existentialism/absurdism perspective of the book but I haven’t seen much discussion further about the character’s peculiar relationship with the world. To me it was clear that Meursault either had an autism spectrum disorder or perhaps less likely antisocial personality disorder.

Throughout the whole book he can’t relate to people. Doesn’t feel emotions or connections to people on the same way they do towards him. He just does whatever seems logical to him. Furthermore he constantly told us he was overwhelmed with sensory stimuli that clouded his ability to “check in with himself.” He killed the Arab “because of the sun.” This is what Salomono was trying to tell the jury- that they weren’t seeing him- he was never malevolent, he was just him. He was never really on trial for murder- he was on trial for being neurodivergent.

And this adds to the absurdity of it all in two ways. 1) Putting someone to death for premeditated murder when we the readers know it was not premeditated at all because the jury can’t relate to the accused’s logic/actions/relationships. 2) we the readers are given this at times very profound philosophical insight to the nature of existence and what it means to be human- but from kind of an unreliable source. One that throughout the course of the book is at times more robotic than human. So are we supposed to agree with his philosophical insights or discount them? Does that make us absurd?

Would love to hear your thoughts on the book in general or anything I’ve brought up here.

El año pasado tuve que leer El extranjero de Albert Camus para la U y ya lo he leído 3 veces. Me deja pa' dentro la idea de que todo le de lo mismo al protagonista, como que todo lo hace por compromiso y no necesita nada para su felicidad, sin ambición, sin deseo, como cuando su pareja le dice que se quiere casar y el le dice que sí a pesar de que no le interesa.

Were his noteworthy life ever to be put to film, which actor do you think would be able to portray him in a credible and resembling manner?

'Humphrey Bogart' would be an understandable, albeit impossible, option ofcourse.

So I read "The Stranger" by Albert Camus a few months ago and, despite having watched videos and read texts on the internet analyzing it, I think I still don't understand it.

First of all, I want to clarify that I agree with the interpretation that most people give to the book: life has no meaning, it is absurd, but that is okay. We have to accept the absurdity of life and be happy with it.

Now, my doubts are the following:

1. What is Meursault's philosophical development? Throughout the book Camus represents Meursault as a person detached from life, who knows that nothing has meaning. It seems to me that his perspective on life doesn't change that much from the beginning to the end. So what conclusion does he reach at the end of the book? What does Camus want to teach us with this character? I don't understand how Meursault, who apparently has the same ideology at the beginning and end of the book, represents the optimistic message that Camus seems to be trying to give.

My interpretation is that the difference between the Meursault at the beginning and the one at the end is that, while they both know that life is absurd, the one at the end accepts that fact and is happy with it. But anyway I feel like I'm missing something with this character.

2. One of the main themes of the novel is how Meursault, due to not meeting social standards and seeing life so differently from the rest, is rejected by society and is seen as a monster (hence the title: "The Stranger"). I don't understand where Camus was going with this. Did Camus just want to show how society views those who are different badly? Or is there another teaching behind this topic that I am missing?

3. Why does Meursault want to be greeted with cries of hatred at the end of the book?

Maybe I'm overthinking the points, or maybe my interpretation is not correct. Anyway, I'd like to see what you guys think!