by Albert Camus

What’s it about?

The main character is Meursault, a French man living in Algeria who is so disconnected from his environment that he barely registers the fact that his mother dies at the very start of the book, and seems to have no feelings whatsoever about murdering an Arab, for which he is sent to jail.

There is a context that most modern readers miss. The book was written in the middle of World War II, but the book explicitly deals with the brewing tensions in Algeria which would eventually erupt. As a pied-noir himself, Camus would have been very sensitive to these tensions.

There is a strong argument that proper, grown-up literature doesn’t need “context” and any effort to provide one dilutes the universality of the text. For instance, you don’t need to know anything about Joe McCarthy to get the point of The Crucible. I agree with this argument, but I’ve given you the context anyway because I’m complicated and I have layers.  

That all sounds a bit grim.

While it is indeed a bit grim, it should be judged as a work of absurdist literature, which includes Waiting for GodotandCatch-22. They are all unquestionably a product of existential philosophy, which broadly speaking deals with how people should relate to the universe when god has been removed from it. 

I don’t care about any of that. Also, you sound pretentious.

Right. I might be pretentious, but the book was a genuine attempt to respond artistically to the idea (now very mainstream) that each individual is horrifically alone in the universe, and that life is meaningless. Mersault has several opportunities to make things easier for himself by simply lying about how he feels, and he refuses to do so. 

Therefore, the sociopathic character is more “authentic” than all the “good” people who end up killing him. Although if you’ve read Game of ThronesandThe Outsider has too much meaninglessness for you, you should present yourself to the relevant authorities at first light.

Camus was famous for putting across his existentialist philosophy in accessible literature, while his frenemy, Jean-Paul Sartre, was famous for more direct, intractable existentialist philosophy in works such as Being and Nothingness. As you might expect, both men violently rejected the idea that either could be considered an existentialist.

What should I say to make people think I’ve read it?

“Even if you can’t relate to it, it’s probably a good idea to play the game of whatever society you’re in.”

What should I avoid saying when trying to convince people I’ve read it?

“A guidebook for people interested in solving the Muslim problem.”

Should I actually read it?

Yes. Every so often, it’s good to be confronted with how meaningless everything is. Some people never consider it at all. 

“I’ve never really had much of an imagination. But still I would try to picture the exact moment when the beating of my heart would no longer be going on inside my head.”

Albert Camus - The Stranger

-via posttoxic

So I saw these mannequins through a window behind a display at a local museum and my brother who’s also listened to tma and I look at each other in unison and screamed “THE UNKNOWING” to the great confusion of our parents and other siblings

Tma brainrot is real because I watched Us the other night and I could not stop thinking about the Stranger

Its always End!Tim this Desolation!Tim that.

What about Stranger!Tim?

What about Tim being forced to serve the very entity he devoted his life towards stopping.

Thinking about how Tim Stoker in the s3 finale was only being the lighthearted person he was in s1 because he fully believed that he was going to be used as bait for the unknowing, and die.

He literally only felt anything resembling peace and happiness because he was sure these were his last moments.

I have more proper drawings of him on my comp at home but here’s a scribble of the stranger from darkwood in my notebook at work