You know this person, we all know this person, this particular kind of person.

They are a real do-gooder, a person of the people, always doling out goodwill, spare change, and a helping hand. They act humble, but deep down, they are anything but. They revel in their own goodness and superiority, disguising their selfishness as selflessness.

This person loves and leaves others too, but the so-called "love" is just a shallow physical connection, lacking any potential for a genuine bond. They look at other people as if they were a collection of amusing bugs.

When they see someone in need of help, if it costs them anything, even just a bit of delay on their way to something they consider super important, they will pass that person by. In fact, this person doesn't really like people all that much; they despise them to some extent.

You know this person because you have been this person at least for a moment or a minute, maybe even longer. It might be something you had to overcome. This person is a part of you, unless you are some fairytale wonderland cartoon character who is incapable of such thoughts and actions.

If that's the case, then good for you! But if you've never been this person, not even for a second, then message me because I want to marry you. I've never been with a perfect person before.

You know this author, Mark, or at least you thought you did. Camus! The name evokes so many thoughts, ideas, and college memories, along with countless references. It's an intimidating name because Camus is an intimidating author. At least that's what I thought.

But not the Camus who wrote this excoriating and brilliant little novella, "The Fall". It is pure enjoyment. Camus gets into the head of his douchebag protagonist and makes you truly understand him. Even better, he makes the experience much more than a chilly intellectual exercise.

Camus is funny. He is more than clever; he has a genuine, albeit dark, sense of humor - wounding but never callow wit. But more important than either the depth of his characterization or his darkly sparkling wit is the fact that Camus is a man with reservoirs of empathy.

"The Fall" isn't just a hit job on some hypocritical asshole. Camus understands his character intimately, by recognizing that his character represents a trait within human nature. The deepest wounds come from those who are armed with empathy, as they know exactly where and how to hurt you.

Camus holds up a mirror for his readers to gaze upon themselves. Personally, I wasn't too fond of what I saw; I don't like that side of me. I hate confronting my own hypocrisies. But I sure did love the mirror itself! It was beautifully constructed, a real work of art.

8 of 16 in Sixteen Short Novels.

The Mexico-City Café in Amsterdam,

An unknown person invites himself to your table and starts a conversation with you.

Obviously, he has something to say... Obviously, he is watching himself. In any case, he weighs every word. As if he is afraid of compromising himself?... As if he is seeking your approval?

RELATED READINGS :

"La Nausée" - Jean-Paul Sartre

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8...

TRACK :

"Cinderella’s Waltz, Op. 107 No. 7" - Saint Petersburg Philarmonic Orchestra - Sergueï Prokofiev

In this Amsterdam café, the encounter with the unknown person adds an element of mystery. You wonder about his motives and what lies beneath his carefully chosen words. The atmosphere is filled with anticipation and a touch of unease. As you engage in the conversation, you find yourself trying to decipher his true intentions. Is he simply looking for someone to talk to, or is there something more significant at stake? The related readings and the musical track further enhance the mood, transporting you to different worlds and emotions. It's a moment that makes you question the nature of human interaction and the secrets that people hold.

This book is truly a remarkable experience.

It feels as if you have been plunged into a feverish and incoherent dream.

The story unfolds in a chaotic and disorienting manner, leaving you completely discombobulated.

Just when you think you have a handle on what is going on, it ends so abruptly and wakes you up so suddenly that you are left in a state of confusion.

You wouldn't know which day it is or even where you are.

The author has masterfully crafted a narrative that blurs the lines between reality and fantasy, leaving you with a sense of wonder and a desire to explore more.

It is a book that will stay with you long after you have turned the last page.

**The Fall: A Deep Dive into the Human Psyche**

Thought provoking and asking tough, uncomfortable questions about mankind. A talkative French judge in Amsterdam, after the holocaust, feels guilt and existential unease

I could not disguise the truth about my character from myself.

For a short work with just one person talking, Albert Camus accomplishes a great deal in The Fall. The key themes of morality and what it means to be a good human are meticulously examined, and the book delves deep into the heart of these themes in a rather bleak manner. It is perhaps the favorite among the works of Camus that I have read so far, although it has less of a narrative compared to The Plague.

The story revolves around a talkative French judge in Amsterdam, who, after the Holocaust, latches onto a countryman. This countryman is a representation of the reader and serves as nothing more than a listening ear. Over the course of five nights, we get to know the fictionalized baptiser, Jean-Baptiste Clamence. The concentric rings of canals that define Amsterdam (while the rest of The Netherlands is just a roughly sketched, cliched background for the story: In Holland everyone is a specialist in paintings and tulips.) are compared to the circles of hell, which is fitting as we descend into the reckoning that Jean-Baptiste has for not just himself but humans universally.

Jean-Baptiste comes from a privileged background, is handsome, and has led a life of fleeting between willing ladies. However, he comes to the realization that this life is just an endless treadmill: It’s true: I was at ease in everything, yet satisfied with nothing. Each joy made me yearn for another. I went from one party to the next. & In that way, I kept on running, always nourished, never full, not knowing when to stop, until the day, or rather the evening when the music stopped and the lights went out. This life of helping the orphans and widows while dining out, earning good money, having casual sex, and being respected by society is interrupted by two seemingly banal events. One is a waiter scaring away a beggar while Jean-Baptiste is eating lobster, and the other is his inaction in preventing a potential suicide attempt along the Seine. These events lead him to question whether he is really the good person he thought he was.

He then starts reflecting on the dynamics of power and how they drive nearly all human behavior: I’m well aware of the fact that one cannot do without dominating or being served. Every man needs slaves just as he needs fresh air. Giving orders is like breathing, you must agree? And even the most abject man manages to breathe. The lowest on the social ladder still has his wife or child. If he is unmarried, a dog. This reflection seems to lead to a full-blown existential crisis, centered around a lack of free will and the ability to be a truly moral person given how self-centered we as humans are hard-wired to be: I could not disguise the truth about my character from myself.

The prying eyes of peers and society at large are also a constant presence and are not conducive to self-reflection: In short, we would like to at the same time to be no longer guilty and not make the effort to purify ourselves. Not enough cynicism, not enough virtue. Debauchery and disregard for the self ensue to numb the realization, only offering temporary reprieve: Every excess decreases vitality, and thus suffering.

In the end, the main character (and by extension, we ourselves) are left with both the truth and ourselves, and this is almost as grim a conclusion as The Road by Cormac McCarthy offers us: No more acting, no more theatre: undoubtedly l, I was in the realm of truth; but truth, dear friend, is utterly tedious. Death could be a modicum of relief, but anyone who is highly educated and favored by society would think similarly to Jean-Baptiste, sans the existential dread: Well, let’s go straight to the point: I like life, that’s my real weakness.

Near the end of the book, the author also raises the question of whether this whole self-incrimination without action is actually genuine or if it still offers an ulterior motive, turning even the most lofty and intellectual pondering into a form of boasting and advancing one's own view as deep and nuanced compared to fellow humans: The more I accuse myself, the more I have the right to judge you

A fascinating work that leaves one thinking for a long, long time after reading about the self, society, and the (lack of) free will.

Quotes:

You have to be methodical when you have no character.


How many crimes have been committed for no other reason than that the perpetrator could not bear being in the wrong!


I have always mocked the greed which, in our society, takes the place of ambition.


I was made to have a body.


Perhaps we do not love life enough. Have you observed that only death awakens our feelings?


Something’s got to happen - that’s the explanation for most human undertakings.


In general, I love all islands: it’s easier to dominate them.


The only thing I ever remembered was myself.


If we are to end doubt, we must stop existing, purely and simply.


In any case, we cannot be certain of anyone’s innocence, while we can confidently pronounce everyone guilty.


Don’t wait for the Last Judgment, it takes place every day.


But in some cases carrying on, just carrying on, is the superhuman achievement.


So one must choose a master, God being out of fashion now.


Death is solitary while servitude is collective.


It’s too late now, it will always be too late

**The Significance of "Falling" and My Literary Journey**

- If only one of all your lessons could remain, which one would you choose?
+ I ask myself this question?
- I choose the importance of learning to fall.
+ I completely agree. Life is a constant fall, Marcus. So more important than anything is to know how to fall.
Quoted from the book
  
The Roots of Evil: The True Story of Harry Quebert


Something Like a Preface but a Bit Unrelated
Recently, in the virtual space, I came across a thought-provoking sentence that deeply made me think.
"A sincere person enters forty states in a day. A hypocrite remains in one state for forty years."
This sentence, which has the potential for hours of discussion and conversation, was recorded by "Javad Baghdadi" more than two centuries ago. If we assume the correctness of this expression, I, like many others, was wrong for a long time before encountering this sentence for the first time. Wrong for almost all of my life!
What percentage of the beliefs that I have adhered to for years have complete credibility and leave no room for doubt?
For someone like me, who proudly and skillfully softens his hand and fingers, this percentage has always been something close to one hundred. Yes!
Mr. Camus is the cause of this change. You might think that this matter is the result of studying the contents of the book "Falling", but it is not exactly like that. Without much trouble, through various posts in virtual communities, we are invited to reading. There are thousands of different ways to enter, but respected bloggers minimize the audience and list inappropriate and exciting suggestions for starting the study, each of which is more shameful than the other. One of the common options among the suggested lists of Albert Camus' books is. The argument of the greats of the cultural world is the simplicity and small volume of Camus' works. "The Stranger", "Falling", and even "The Myth of Sisyphus"!
I too, at the beginning of my serious engagement with books, was riding the waves of the bustling virtual space, and without experience and sufficient literary background, I headed towards some works that I now realize were wrong choices. Certainly, one of these wrong choices for me was "The Stranger". Contrary to your assumption, I easily read the book and did not feel any problem. Even after finishing it, I highly praised Camus. So where was the problem? I will write about it a little later.
For a long time, Camus was the only fortress of literature for me until later the others were placed at higher levels. Immediately after finishing "The Stranger", I decided that I would soon read the rest of Camus' works in a short period and experience this feeling and state again. A long time passed, and on this complex, unpredictable path, every time a different reason prevented the implementation of the plans until finally, I gave "Falling" to myself as a birthday gift. A souvenir of a year that ended with a long fall!
My problem with "The Stranger" started from the moment I finished "Falling". I was constantly thinking whether I could be sure that I had accurately and precisely understood Camus' philosophical thought in "The Stranger" or not?
Perhaps for the general public, it is clear that our perception of things like literature and philosophy changes and evolves over time. But there is a slight distance from knowledge to experience and belief. A little while after finishing "The Stranger", I was talking to one of my friends who was a little ahead of me in the study of a certain subject at that time, and he was unjustifiably claiming that Camus and "The Stranger" were not good, and I, with all my love for Camus, had no power to defend. My weakness was obvious, but I easily ignored it. Today, when I have made a little progress in the study compared to that dear friend, I am not easily defeated.



And But "Falling"

I never cross the bridge at night. This is a vow I have made with myself. After all, think about it, someone throws himself into the water. And at that time, he is not out of two situations: either you throw yourself into the water to save him and in the cold season, you face very difficult consequences! Or you leave him to his fate, and the unruly waves sometimes cause strange killings.

The story begins with Jean's monologues for a strange and unknown person in Amsterdam at one time and continues for several consecutive nights. But it turns out that the listener of the confessions is not the person opposite Jean. The listener of Jean's confessions is us. We who, according to Jean's beliefs, are not much like him. The similarities, which are not limited to physical characteristics, are more focused on our inner selves.
Jean's account of his flawless life in Paris begins. When he was a successful and prosperous lawyer. Jean does not hesitate for a moment to help those around him and is not stingy in doing anything that is possible and is eager to achieve justice. Everything is going well and happily until a seemingly simple incident reveals the true story. One night, Jean, while walking on the Pont des Arts, encounters a woman who throws herself into the river. Jean, without hesitation and considering the ease of his path, continues, but the consequences of this decision completely change him. By reflecting on this decision and not taking any action to save the woman, he is faced with the lie of his life and his actions. His life was completely built on the foundation of hypocrisy. All of Jean's positive behaviors are not for the comfort of his conscience but to obtain the praise of others and a social position. In fact, Jean fell at the same time as the woman, that woman into the river and Jean from the high tower of his illusions. Later, whenever he passes by the river, the sound of laughter from the river reaches his ears, and in a way, it is interpretable as a sign of a sense of guilt. But Jean, despite this feeling, shows no remorse or confession of his mistake in his words and limits himself to avoiding the experience of crossing the bridge at night again.


Apparently, in Camus' view, we modern humans are not innocent at all, and our physical desires have blinded us. As if we all fell from the Garden of Eden together.


A curious point that caught my attention somewhere, which I don't remember, was about the name of the bar. The bar where the conversation takes place, "Mexico City", is named. They claim that Camus considered the fall of the Aztec Empire to be tragic and magnificent.


"Falling" is Camus' last fictional work that was completed and published during his lifetime. Perhaps classifying "Falling" in fictional literature is a bit exaggerated, and it is closer to a speech. If only he had a longer life and could witness more and more of this strange creature.


Camus is still among the youngest people who won the Nobel Prize in Literature (the second person). One year after Camus, Boris Pasternak won the Nobel Prize in Literature with "Doctor Zhivago", and Camus wrote to Pasternak in a letter:

Without Russian literature of the nineteenth century, I am nothing.

A year ago, after a long time away from Russian literature, I read three or four important Russian works, and I don't know if this claim is baseless or not. "Falling" has a volume close to one-tenth or even less than the Russian novels of the nineteenth century. But in terms of worldviews, it has a little less than them.


P.S.: Perhaps the first part of this review may seem unrelated to "Falling". But I have a different opinion myself. I also tried to make a confession like Jean to the best of my ability. Also, for some reasons, I have been writing a little for myself for a while. In this regard, that unconscious writing style will accumulate in this review and future reviews.
If it is not useful, please easily pass it by.


If only in this imaginary study competition with an imaginary rival, we sometimes slowed down and reread some of the books. A book like "Falling" has the potential for me to refer to it again and again.


22nd Farvardin 1399

The text begins with an interesting quote about Dante and the concept of neutral angels in the limbo. It then poses the question of how to classify "La caída" within the realm of literary texts. It's not a typical novel, story, or essay. As the reader delves into the book, it initially seems like a monologue but is actually a soliloquy extracted from a conversation. The narrator, Jean-Baptiste Clamence, uses this conversation to confess about his life as a lawyer-turned-judge-penitent, highlighting various events from his past and present. Certain words like "vanity", "love", "egoism", "cynicism", "confession", "habit", and "lie" float in the reader's mind. The narrator appears to be an unorthodox one, who, despite having a relatively easy life, adheres to an existentialism marked by bourgeoisification. The author believes that "La caída" can be associated with other books like "La náusea" by Sartre, "Memorias del subsuelo" by Dostoievski, and "El innombrable" by Beckett. Regarding Albert Camus, the author expresses admiration and affection, stating that all his books have a unique stamp and are difficult to associate with other writers. Camus is an original writer, as seen in his diverse works such as "La peste", "El extranjero", "Los Poseídos", and "La piedra de Sísifo". The author considers Camus as one of his favorite writers and always enjoys reading and rereading his works.

"¿Conoce usted a Dante? ¿Realmente? ¡Diablos! Entonces sabrá que Dante admite ángeles neutros en la querella entre Dios y Satanás; ángeles que el coloca en el limbo, una especie de vestíbulo de su infierno. Nosotros estamos en el vestíbulo, querido amigo."

What kind of book is "La caída"? It's not a novel, nor a story. It doesn't have the characteristics of an essay. Is there a way to classify it within the "normality" of literary texts? Who knows...

When one sets out to read this book, from the very first pages, one believes to be facing a monologue, but it's not that either. It's rather a soliloquy extracted from a conversation in which the narrator, who uses an invented name, Jean-Baptiste Clamence, holds with another person in a bar in the city of Amsterdam, called México-city (which could also be the reader himself).

Throughout its pages, one reads, in a confessional manner, how the life of this lawyer-turned-judge-penitent has been, and who, as a way of unloading, uses this conversation to establish his position, emphasizing different events from both his past life and his current days.

There are certain words that remain floating in the reader's mind, such as "vanity", "love", "egoism", "cynicism", "confession", "habit", "lie"...

It would seem that we are facing a nonconformist narrator who has not had a bad life, but who, faithful to the author who writes his script, clings to an existentialism marked by bourgeoisification because of that easy life, while remembering the way he met different people from all classes to put his particular way of being into practice.

I believe, without a doubt, that I could associate "La caída" with three other books written in a very similar way: first of all, to "La náusea" by Jean-Paul Sartre since the philosophical and literary kinship is almost identical, not forgetting that Camus and Sartre defined what we know as "Existentialism".

Then to "Memorias del subsuelo" by Fiódor Dostoievski (although in this case the narrator has no name and his manifesto is acidic, recalcitrant, and of a very marked subversive tone, which he uses to rant against the system, against the world, and against everyone), and finally, with the book "El innombrable" by Samuel Beckett.

And regarding Albert Camus, what more can I say than words of admiration and affection that I have known how to have for this great author. All his books have a unique seal, very difficult to associate with other writers.

He is a very original author when it comes to writing, and we can verify this by reading such dissimilar works as his novels "La peste" and "El extranjero", his play "Los Poseídos" (inspired by his favorite novel by Fiódor Dostoievski, "Los Demonios", whom he admired very much), and the essay on the absurd "La piedra de Sísifo", with marked references to different famous characters and writers.

But all this he writes with mastery and with the imprint of his unique genius, something that made me consider him more and more as one of my favorite writers.

It will always give me satisfaction to read and reread the work of Albert Camus.

ΣΥΓΚΛΟΝΙΣΤΙΚΟ...

This is an article that delves deep into the profound nature of a particular book.

The author poses questions such as where to start and what to prioritize when approaching this book. It is emphasized that no words can truly capture the greatness of this work. One must read it alone and directly experience the emotions and actions described, as if living through them oneself.

The book takes the reader on a journey into the depths of the mind and soul, exploring paths that we usually avoid in our search for the deeper motives within us. The author attempts to explain our actions by placing self-centeredness, which stems from love for oneself, at the core. This is something that the ancient sages had already recognized, as seen in the myth of Narcissus.

The book skillfully criticizes various aspects of modern, mainly Western, human nature, such as hypocrisy, theatricality, indifference, greed, self-centeredness, cowardice, meanness, lies, money, politics, power, organized religion, and many others. All of these elements have the ultimate goal of the unbridled pleasure of the "I." We often hide these flaws behind the guise of powerlessness and forgetfulness.

The author also shares quotes from the book that highlight the challenges of living a truly fulfilling life. For example, "To live happily, I should have let none of the creatures I chose come to life. They should only have come to life rarely and by my own good will."

The story of a successful lawyer, Zan Baptiste Clamence, is told. He confesses to an unknown person about his admirable life, his "crisis," and his complete fall. The event that led to his downfall was when he heard a woman choking one night and did not go to help her, despite being a just, proud, and kind person who fights against evil and injustice.

The idea of freedom is also explored in the book. The author points out that we all strive for freedom, but often do not fully understand its magnitude and that it is a "servitude and a journey into the depths, completely solitary and utterly exhausting."

Finally, the author states that the most shocking, thrilling, revolutionary, and provocative part of the book is the last few sentences. The author refuses to disclose anything about them, as he believes that each person should experience their magic alone, preserve them, and journey with them.

The article ends with thought-provoking quotes from the book, such as "To be happy, you must not worry too much about others" and "The only defense lies in perversity. People judge in order not to be judged themselves."

How could the truth bear to write such a book?

The philosophical and psychological study of a man grappling with inner turmoil and an existential crisis is at the heart of this story. The man in focus is Jean Baptiste Clemance, a Parisian lawyer. While spending time in an Amsterdam bar, he begins to relate a poignant and somewhat disconcerting tale of self-pity and guilt to a complete stranger. There is a sense that a mirror exists between them, making it feel more like a confession to himself rather than to anyone else. This is a classic work by Camus, exhibiting all the hallmarks one would anticipate. It is deeply thought-provoking, sending shivers down the spine, with a great narrative and several memorable lines. However, my only concern is its brevity, being under a hundred pages. I found myself longing for more, eager to delve deeper into the complex psyche of Jean Baptiste Clemance and explore the profound themes presented.

I am truly at a loss for words. I am completely stunned.

I don't believe that anything I could say would adequately convey the sheer brilliance that this book embodies. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt.

It is an absolute literary masterpiece that delves deep into themes such as guilt, existentialism, nihilism, alienation, and redemption. This is accomplished through the captivating monologues of the introspective and critically self-examining Jean-Baptiste Clamence, who is engaged in a fierce battle with his inner demons. The narrative is not only thought-provoking but also haunting, leaving a lasting impression on the reader. The insights into the human psyche are astute and raw, cutting to the core of our being. Camus holds up a mirror to the contradictions, flaws, and moral dilemmas that plague humankind, representing the universal struggle to come to terms with our desires, choices, and their consequences, and to question the very nature of moral responsibility.

This is indeed a powerful and remarkable book that has the potential to change the way we view ourselves and the world around us.

**Title: My Opinion on a Particular Reading Material**

I have had two readings of a certain text. The first reading received a rating of ⭐⭐⭐. It was an okay experience, but there was still room for improvement.

However, the second reading was a completely different story. It earned a rating of ⭐⭐⭐⭐. I found myself enjoying it more and more with each page turn.

In fact, I think that every time I read it, I like it even more. There is something about the content that keeps drawing me in and making me want to explore further.

Maybe it's the engaging writing style, or perhaps it's the thought-provoking ideas presented. Whatever the reason, this text has truly captured my attention and interest.

I look forward to reading it again in the future and seeing if I can discover even more hidden gems within its pages.

Overall, I would highly recommend this reading material to others who are looking for something that will both entertain and challenge them.

The image that Camus presents in his latest work is so vast and extensive that few can claim to have fully understood the book. However, I have tried to provide a reading guide for the book and have written it in a detailed and organized manner to make it as useful as possible. For this reason, it is not necessary to read the entire text, and anyone can read only the part that interests them.

The Narrative of the Story

The narrative of the book is in the form of disjointed and long monologues. Although the size of the book may tempt you to finish it quickly, it must be said that reading the book is very time-consuming and requires repeated "stops and thoughts." For this reason, the book is not an easy read. The entire book is written in a language full of dialect and a semi-barbaric (!) style of a character named Jean-Baptiste Clamence. This writing style has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, Camus has been able to constantly change the subject of discussion and quickly create a vast framework in the reader's mind. On the other hand, due to the lack of coherence in the speech, a clear narrative of what is in the author's mind is not accessible, and there is a lot of room for interpretation and completion of the unsaid by the reader. However, it should be noted that Camus has resorted to this writing style not because of his artistic ability but because of a much more profound and meaningful reason. Camus deliberately intended for the reader to participate in the completion of the unsaid of Jean-Baptiste Clamence.

Regarding Translations

I have read both the translation by Amir Lahouti and the translation by Shurangiz Farrokh. In my opinion, neither of them is acceptable because unfortunately, not only does the beauty of the author's pen disappear, but also the language is generally incorrect and the concepts are inappropriate. I started with the translation by Shurangiz Farrokh, then after a while, I switched to the translation by Lahouti, and finally, I took refuge in the English translation and started reading from the beginning again. However, while reading the English translation, I also kept the two Persian translations beside me in case something was missed. Unfortunately, both Persian translations not only failed to convey the spirit of the work, which is actually the dialect, roughness, and accusatory nature of the sentences, but also in some places, the translation of the sentences and words is problematic.

The Plot of the Story

Since the narrative of the story is not clear and the task of arranging the events and plotting the story is left to the reader, I have tried to present the sequence of events here. {If you have read the book and are familiar with the story, there is no need to read this.}

\\n  Before the Fall\\n

The story begins with a man named Jean-Baptiste Clamence talking to a stranger (the reader of the book) in a bar called "Mexico City." After helping the stranger order a drink, Clamence gradually opens up the conversation and explains that he, like the stranger, is from Paris and was once a lawyer. A lawyer who was more interested in cases related to the poor and orphans. Clamence explains how much this work made him feel good and that he felt that by doing these things, he was moving closer to elevation. For this reason, he never missed the opportunity to help others: giving directions to a stranger, getting up from his seat on the bus for others, or helping a blind person cross the street. To the extent that if he noticed that someone else intended to help the blind person, he would quickly step forward to do it himself!

However, while he was only walking home, he noticed a young girl standing on the edge of the bridge and bending forward. Because fear had taken over his entire being (or perhaps because there was no one to witness his good deed!), Clamence did not help the girl, and the girl drowned in the river. In any case, after a while, he continued on his way and left.

After this incident, Clamence tried to pick up his life and for a while, he did so. But on a day when he had done many heroic and generous deeds, just as he was about to light a cigarette and enjoy the feeling of "completeness," he heard a laugh behind him. He turned around to find the source of the sound, but there was no one there. The sound was in his head.

This laughter bothered Clamence and made him remember things that his mind had unconsciously erased because of it. Clamence describes to his listener (the stranger-reader of the book) things that had happened before that night's incident.

One of them was an incident that happened to him at a red light. He remembered how he had been severely humiliated in public. Gradually, this incident became more important to him. Although this incident had no effect on people's behavior towards him, it had a great impact on Clamence's behavior towards people. Now, in every look of people, he felt a pretense. In every word, he felt an accusation. Clamence could no longer see his image of a kind and elevated person in the mirror of people's eyes. But there was something else. Clamence realized that as a lawyer and a defender of justice, he had only been able to do this when he himself was not in a position of injustice. But when he himself was in a position of injustice, not only did he not sit as a judge, but he also wanted to, like a despotic master, trample on the person who was the victim and force him to kneel and apologize.

But other things also came to his mind. Clamence, who was gradually realizing that his love for high places was due to his desire to be higher than others, remembered that he had only desired women for carnal pleasures. Clamence had a strange desire to take his relationship with any woman to the point where he could force her to swear that she would not be with another man except him. It was this desire for possession that made him so upset after seeing one of the women he had been with and who was now with someone else. For this reason, he decided to approach that woman again and finally humiliate and degrade her. Something was driving Clamence in this direction that he could not avoid. And the laughter that he later had when he remembered that incident was similar to the laughter that he had heard in his head for the first time. A laughter at all his speeches in the courts. A laughter at his entire life. Jean-Baptiste Clamence had fallen.

\\n  The Fall\\n

Clamence first tried to confront the reality that he had lived his entire life with hypocrisy and self-will. But he kept remembering everything. He remembered how he had taken off his coat and lectured the blind man he had helped, even though he knew he couldn't see. But others could see! That was the problem! All the things he had done until now were not to help others but to help himself! To satisfy an unknown feeling in himself. A sense of guilt? A need to be loved? The importance of people's judgment? Maybe all three. Clamence, who was gradually realizing that he had to somehow silence this voice, otherwise he would almost go crazy. For this reason, he tried to deliberately destroy all the reputation he had gained from his good deeds and thus save himself from the evil of "hypocrisy." So he started to mock and humiliate the beggars in the general public, puncture the tires of wheelchairs, insult the construction workers and run away, and leave the blind people alone in the middle of the street! Gradually, he realized what a strange excitement and pleasure he felt in doing these things, and he understood how much he hated these people! With all this, these things were not enough. Clamence realized that these were only for shooting at "his true self" and he was still not safe from the laughter in his head. It was necessary to change his life based on what he really was. This is why he resigned from his job as a lawyer, left Paris, and settled in Amsterdam and chose the job of an honorary judge for himself.

\\n  The Honorary Judge\\n

Clamence came to the conclusion that the only way to get rid of the pursuit of the laughter in his head was to judge others! Now that he had understood that he had fallen and sunk, it was necessary to bring others down so that he could still express that feeling of "interest in elevation and being higher than others" and also be safe from being judged by others. Because "Everyone judges others to avoid being judged by others." It was at this time that, after becoming familiar with the work of people, he realized the hypocrisy and duplicity in human nature. How man, through "veiling and revelation," engages in "exhibitionism." How he tries to "subjugate" others by "pretending" and how he tries to "dominate" others by "ethical principles." Gradually, he realized that every good deed that a person does is like a counterfeit coin, and on the other side of it, there is the opposite of that deed, although it is less visible. So here was the solution that came to his mind. Since it was impossible to condemn others without himself being judged, if he confessed his sins before judging others, in this case, he could go ahead with judging others (and condemning them) with a clear conscience. Because "People are not willing to confess when they are closer to themselves!" So by confessing his sins in front of others, Clamence could both force them to confess and be "his true self" without pretending and be free from the evil of the laughter in his head.

Camus and the Crisis of Morality

Camus, through the fall and the language of Jean-Baptiste Clamence, has created a shapeless but familiar creature. And precisely at the end of the book, when Clamence, after completing the creature, returns it to the reader so that the reader can see his own image in it. The destruction of morality and the precise presentation of its flaws and voids in a world where morality is relative and not absolute is one of the unique features of the book. In a world where God has been removed as an absolute, nothing is more destructive than hearing: "My dear moralist, I'm sorry. But there is no God in this work." Welcome to the new world. General relativity!

By presenting Clamence as a moral face and his confessions, Camus shatters the idea of pure behavior. When there is no longer a God to see your actions or know your good or bad intentions; when there is no longer a "final judgment" and judgment is done by humans themselves, the problem of sin and innocence also becomes meaningless. Just as when there is no absolute good, there is also no absolute evil, and from this perspective, truth also becomes somewhat meaningless. In fact, the self-will and excessive self-love of Clamence and his indifference to others can be attributed to this void between the pursuit of truth in life and the failure to find its meaning. A feature that reminds us of Rousseau in "The Stranger."

However, it must be said that for Camus, the existence of flaws in morality is not a sufficient reason to reject it. On the contrary, in fact, Camus wants to force you to face these problems by presenting them. In Camus' view, it is facing these problems that makes a person moral. In fact, the crisis of morality, in Camus' view, is this: Confronting Jean-Baptiste Clamence.

Jean-Baptiste Clamence in the Role of the Devil?

There are many indications that we can claim that Camus is interested in establishing similarities between Jean-Baptiste Clamence and the devil. Perhaps one of the most interesting of these is the choice of the place where Clamence lives and works and his description of this city:

“Have you noticed that Amsterdam's concentric canals resemble the circles of hell? The middle-class hell, of course, peopled with bad dreams. When one comes from the outside, as one gradually goes through those circles, life — and hence its crimes — becomes denser, darker. Here, we are in the last circle.”

The choice of the bar "Mexico City" in the middle of Amsterdam is also interesting from two aspects. First, because "Mexico City" is the name of a high city, and in the heart of a city that is below sea level, it satisfies Clamence's desire to be higher than others. Second, because "Mexico City" is the name of a modern city that was built on the ruins of the ancient Aztec city. A problem that is somewhat reminiscent of the conflict between the ancient and modern worlds.

But there is another point that is very remarkable. It is at the end of the book that we learn about the way the honorary judge works and how he forces his clients to confess. It is here that we realize that during the entire time we were reading the book, the stranger (the reader of the book) actually had the role of a client that Clamence wants to force to confess. And precisely here, the reader realizes that all the words that Clamence said in the first chapter to introduce himself do not necessarily have to be true. In fact, if we compare the entire plot of the story to a game of Jenga, at the end of the book, we realize that we can carefully remove those parts related to his being a lawyer and the description of his past good deeds from the book without causing a gap in the structure of the book. Was the introduction of Clamence as a neighbor and coworker of the stranger just a trick to start a conversation with him? Did Clamence himself not tell the stranger (the reader of the book):

it’s very hard to disentangle the true from the false in what I’m saying. I admit you are right.... Sometimes it is easier to see clearly into the liar than into the man who tells the truth. Truth, like light, blinds. Falsehood, on the contrary, is a beautiful twilight that enhances every object.

It seems that we can no longer accuse Clamence of hypocrisy!

But besides this similarity between Clamence and the devil, Camus has a clear interest in playing with religious expressions. For example, from one perspective, the entire book can be compared to the act of a sinner confessing before a priest. With the difference that this time, the key to "sincerity" is with the sinner, not the priest! "Say that you also sinned to be saved!!" Or, for example, the similarity in the name of Jean-Baptiste Clamence to the Latin name of John the Baptist (Jean de Baptiste), the interpretation of which is outside of religious knowledge. However, there is a point in this regard that leads to the painting "The Just Judges" and we arrive at it.

For these reasons, there are also some interesting points about the book, such as whether the bar "Mexico City" really existed or whether the theft of the painting "The Just Judges" really happened and none of them were fictional! It seems that Camus, by incorporating reality and imagination and playing with the truth, has tried to make the story seem as little like a fairy tale as possible and prevent our connection with the real world from being severed while reading the book!

The Painting "The Just Judges"

The reference to the painting "The Just Judges" can be considered the culmination of Camus' knowledge. This painting is actually part of a large altarpiece that has 12 paintings in the front and 8 paintings in the back, which are attached to each other in separate panels. In the center of this altarpiece, there is a painting of the Lamb of God, around which different groups of people are kneeling. Now, what is this Lamb of God? It is an allusion to the time when John the Baptist (Jean de Baptiste) first saw Jesus and said:
“Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”

And this saying refers to the sacrifice of Jesus on the way to God. The paintings of this altarpiece have many interpretations and stories that are not mentioned in this article. Finally, in 1934, two parts of this painting, named "The Just Judges" and "Saint John the Baptist," were stolen. The painting "Saint John the Baptist" was quickly found, but the painting "The Just Judges" was never found. Because of this, a substitute version of the painting "The Just Judges" had to be placed in the altarpiece instead of the original. Now, look at Camus' knowledge here: in the altarpiece of the kneeling Lamb of God, we have the "real Saint John the Baptist" and the "false Just Judges." In the book "The Fall," we have the "false Saint John the Baptist" and the "real Just Judges"! In fact, Jean-Baptiste Clamence has hidden the original painting "The Just Judges" - and has been forced to replace it with a fake version (an accusation against the removal of God and the replacement of man as the most important principle in existentialist philosophy?!) - so that he can go ahead with judging everything with a clear conscience.

In Camus' Court

After the publication of "The Fall," many people thought that Camus, by challenging the human-centered moral view, had shown a tendency towards Christianity! While according to many others, this was not the case at all. No matter what we call it, "The Fall" must be considered a passing work. The last work of the atheist thinker who lost his life in a car accident and the world was deprived of understanding what Camus had reached. Camus was definitely looking for a moral system that could stand without relying on absolute concepts. However, he had come

I can't help it, but this book reminds me of In Love, the equally short book by the American writer Alfred Hayes.

That also offers one long monologue by a man who apparently opens his heart, a confession, whether sincere or not. “In Love” appeared in 1953, “The Fall” three years later. It could be that Camus was inspired by Hayes' form.

But honestly, Camus convinces me a little less. From the beginning you suspect that the narrator, the French lawyer Jean-Baptiste Clamence who ended up in Amsterdam, is not so reliable. And so you are on your guard.

You constantly wonder where Clamence is heading for, because his story becomes heavier by the minute, an unrelenting portrait of his own moral decline and that of humanity in general.

Camus apparently saw this as an opportunity to once again address his existential themes: the absurdity of life, the moral responsibility of each individual, the almost impossible handling of the freedom that life allows us, the duplicity of the human soul, the inevitability of guilt and sin, etc.

Ultimately, this is a very dark book, even more so than L'Etranger or La Peste, which leave a way out in the form of (blind) humanistic commitment.

I must admit that I was a little disappointed by the ending that Camus gave to his story. It felt artificial, as if everything had been told, while you still expect more.

No, to me this is a lesser Camus. Rating 2.5 stars.