The Stranger

Pre-College Issues High School Life
21

<p>Being able to fully appreciate The Stranger in fourth grade is extraordinary. Really, that's amazing. I would guess it is pretty unusual that a person of any age could read that book and then say "Yea, I understand what Camus is saying here." That you are so incredibly gifted shouldn't take anything away from the book, though.</p>

<p>Also, it's pretty ridiculous to say that The Stranger could have been written by anyone. You said it yourself, the style fits the theme, and very few writers would be able to so meticulously keep up that style throughout 100+ pages. Also, to create such a complex character as Meursault with such sparse details is a great accomplishment. You have to judge what an author does in the context of what he set out to do, and I don't think you could argue that Camus didn't just about hit the nail on the head in The Stranger. </p>

<p>If you don't have some appreciation for that, then I think your ability to actually appreciate the book must be questioned.</p>

22

<p>I HATED waiting for GODOT. PIECE OF CRAP</p>

<p>I HATE existentialism. it's like they try to convey the meaning of pointlessness through the pointlessness of reading their stories. after you read existential books, you feel, "Damn, that was a waste of time!"</p>

23

<p>I never said I could "fully appreciate[d]" it, only that read it like I read other children's books. </p>

<p>If you want to question my ability to understand literature, go right ahead, I know myself. Eight years after my first read, I know I "get it," but that doesn't mean I have to like it. </p>

<p>I have never said or thought that Camus wasn't good at creating what his muse inspired, just that I don't like the way he executes it. Yeah yeah, form fits function. But I really, if Sartre was able to convey existentialism in beautiful, intricate passages, then why couldn't Camus? He could have done stream of consciousness. That would have rocked.</p>

24

<p>I hated The Stranger (well, *L'</p>

25

<p>"Ugh, I didn't like it at all. The tone is too gloomy, the setting is too somber, everything..everything..is just too depressing. And the theme itself can be better found in philosophy texts or in some research about Camus' views."</p>

<p>I don't think it's gloomy at all. Of course, it starts off with an exploration of suicide, but the conclusion is that life is worth living despite the inevitability of death and the inherent lack of meaining in the Universe. Existentialism is a very positive philosophy in that sense.</p>

<p>By the way, has anyone read Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground? I find its narrator an evern more interesting character than Meursault.</p>

26

<p>I was never a fan of what people consider "great" literature (I never connected at a personal level with the text), so I'm just going to throw out some newer books that have appealed to me.</p>

<p>The Life of Pi
The Lovely Bones
Fahrenheit 451</p>

27

<p>elusivestranger: Where the hell do you live?</p>

<p>accel: Tuesday's with Morrie is a joke. To even mention it in the same sentence as The Stranger or Ulysses is blasphemy.</p>

<p>MzLover3: "What can I say...simplistic use of language in a work of literary merit disgusts me."</p>

<p>"simply because someone other than Camus could have written his books, meaning he wasn't that special"</p>

<p>Really? I guess anybody could have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature? </p>

<p>"you can imagine what I think about Hemingway...."</p>

<p>To reject an author because he/she is, "too simple," is one of the most absurd ideas I have ever heard. You sir, are a first-rank philistine. </p>

<p>"I just don't think very highly of a work which I was able to understand as early as fourth grade. Sorry."</p>

<p>To say that you could were able to understand Camus's existentialism/Absurdism when you were in the fourth grade, is but hubris of the highest degree.</p>

<p>"I never said I could "fully appreciate[d]" it, only that read it like I read other children's books."</p>

<p>Correct, you said "understand." Understanding does entail full comprehension of a work. </p>

<p>tigeruppercut: "I HATE existentialism. it's like they try to convey the meaning of pointlessness through the pointlessness of reading their stories. after you read existential books, you feel, "Damn, that was a waste of time!"</p>

<p>Read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, and tell me if you feel the same way. </p>

<p>Faithfully Submitted,
Cesare de Borgia</p>

28

<p>Yes, the plot as a whole might be considered beautiful, but the tone is largely gloomy.</p>

29

<p>yummmm - </p>

<p>I loved the Fountainhead. Outside of this philosophical/academic literary world, I love Rebecca Ryman's Shalimar. Yes, I like romance novels. But is tied in with historical fiction (set in colonial India) and espionage - like Bourne. Its not one of those cheesy, dramatic, dimepiece romance novels either. :p</p>

30

<p>"Correct, you said "understand." Understanding does entail full comprehension of a work."</p>

<p>In the context of my complaining, I obviously meant understanding as is in textual understanding. In other words: I could read it. "Understanding" as you use it, came later. </p>

<p>On a side note, if you can't get it through your head that different people have different ideas on what is aesthetically pleasing, then, it is you who is the first-rank philistine.</p>

31

<p>MzLover3: "On a side note, if you can't get it through your head that different people have different ideas on what is aesthetically pleasing, then, it is you who is the first-rank philistine."</p>

<p>That's not the problem I have. I do recognize that, "different people have different ideas on what is aesthetically pleasing." But you went beyond that. You mocked Camus' work, and said that you didn't like him, "simply because someone other than Camus could have written his books, meaning he wasn't that special," and, "simplistic use of language in a work of literary merit disgusts me." If it was just a question of aesthetics, I wouldn't have any problem. But you have stated your favorites, and gone on to belittle the favorites of other people. You are the one being narrow-minded.</p>

<p>Faithfully Submitted,
Cesare de Borgia</p>

32

<p>Well first off, I don't see how I'm "belitting" others for liking Camus. </p>

<p>MzLover3: "What can I say...simplistic use of language in a work of literary merit disgusts me."</p>

<p>"you can imagine what I think about Hemingway...."</p>

<p>Accuse further if you'd like, I don't think I'll reply again. But just so you remember, most people on CC are on the same boat (college). Once there, other students and faculty will directly belittle their views in ways I could never come close to doing. So if you can't take it now, (and again, I don't see how I'm belitting other's views), a painful four years await you.</p>

33

<p>MzLover3: "Well first off, I don't see how I'm "belitting" others for liking Camus."</p>

<p>I said that you are unjustly belittling Camus, for no other reason than you find him a bit too simple. I'll come right out and say it: That's a stupid reason to reject a whole book. I hate how Jonathan Foer writes, but I still recognize the greatness of "Everything is Illuminated"</p>

<p>Faithfully Submitted,
Cesare de Borgia</p>

34

<p>OMFG :mad:</p>

<p>I explicitly stated that I liked the spirit of the book, just not the body it was born in >.<</p>

<p>I mean it this time, no more replies.</p>