This truly was a journey. For me, a very short one, but undoubtedly very profound.

I read this book in a day as it was impossible for me to put it down, even when I was falling asleep. There are so many things to say about this story that I will surely fall short. The protagonist's lack of empathy, his disinterest in everything, and the demotivation with which he lives make him a complete stranger in his own social environment. No one seems to notice that weariness for life until finally a momentous event occurs in Meursault's life, and the reflections begin to have more depth.

Despite everything, it is that type of book that from the beginning discreetly invites you to think, feel, and rethink thousands of things. Sometimes the protagonist disgusted me for how unpleasant he was, and sometimes I completely understood him and even identified with him. It was a most gratifying reading about introspection and the search for oneself. Surely there will be a rereading in the future.

Overall, this book has left a lasting impression on me, making me question my own views and perceptions of life and human nature. It is a work that challenges the reader and forces them to confront their own beliefs and values. I would highly recommend it to anyone looking for a thought-provoking and engaging read.

L’Étranger (1942, when Camus was 29 years old) is a short novel that appears to be stunningly clear, yet at the same time, it is disconcertingly ambiguous. The story takes place in Algeria, the author's native country. In his writing, one can sense the screeching of the tramway, the nocturnal sweats, the light touches of skin, the sea breeze, the blond sand, the lazy waves, the blinding sun, and the stars. Meursault, the protagonist and narrator of the story, reports these concrete physical sensations with astonishing precision and sensitivity. And, in these moments of contemplating nature, the sky, and the sea, Camus' style takes on almost lyrical accents.

However, in the same vein, Meursault seems, on the contrary, completely insensitive and indifferent to the society around him, as if numbed to the issues of life. The burial of his mother ("Today, mother died. Or maybe yesterday, I don't know."), the affection of his girlfriend, his professional career, the problems of his neighbors, the ordinary acts of violence, and everything that will come after... All of this seems to pass on the surface of his existence, only reaching him from a great distance or, at the very least, provoking in him little more than a dull amusement and monotonous, monosyllabic responses. Meursault is the man who often says "no" and only rarely says "yes." And indeed, as Camus asserts in the "Preface to the American University Edition" (Pléiade, p. 215), Meursault is the man who "refuses to lie" and who "doesn't play the game." In other words, someone whom a hasty judgment would qualify, at a minimum, as maladjusted or antisocial, but who may simply be a bit crude and indolent.
Nevertheless, the very status of the narrative must be considered with caution. It is Meursault who tells his story. But from where is he speaking: is it his journal or is he writing from beyond the grave? And to whom? And for what purpose? Does he wish to set the record straight? Justify himself (like Humbert Humbert in Lolita)? Is it a matter of asserting a philosophical or moral stance on the absurdity of the social mechanism and, more broadly, the meaninglessness of human existence - as has been so often said since Jean-Paul Sartre's famous article, "Explication de l'Étranger"? A stance that seems unlikely in a young commercial employee? What is this strange little insertion of Le Malentendu within L’Étranger - just as there is also an embedding of L’Étranger within La Peste? In any way one takes it, it is evident that this little novel, seemingly so simple and direct, hides a multiplicity of reading levels, an opacity that makes these questions practically undecidable here. It will be up to the reader to judge "in his soul and conscience" … or not to judge at all.
L’Étranger, one of the most famous novels in the French language, is, in many respects, the heir of Victor Hugo's The Last Day of a Condemned Man. Meursault also recalls Raskolnikov and Joseph K. And there is a kinship of writing, a certain platitude of diction, a choppiness of syntax that circulates between Camus and Hemingway - not to mention their political positions, especially regarding the Spanish War. Finally, it seems quite evident that Camus has had a profound influence on two major French authors of the next generation: J.M.G. Le Clézio, on the one hand, on the luminous, lyrical, and humanistic side; Michel Houellebecq, on the other hand, on the cynical, disillusioned, rather disgusted with life, even nihilistic slope. Dancer in the Dark by Lars von Trier (2000) could also be compared to Camus' novel.

It is no coincidence that this book is regarded as one of the most significant literary works of the past century. The story it tells is both captivating and profound, taking readers on a journey through a world filled with adventure, romance, and mystery.

Merso, on the other hand, has now become my new favorite fictional hero. His charm, courage, and intelligence make him an unforgettable character. As I read about his exploits, I find myself completely immersed in his world, rooting for him every step of the way.

Together, the book and its hero have left a lasting impression on me, and I look forward to exploring more of their adventures in the future.

This book truly gave me an existential crisis.

It had an incredibly profound message considering its small size. The question it poses - if we are all inevitably going to meet the same fate of death, then what significance does the way we live hold? - is both heavy and thought-provoking. I was truly shocked by the depth of this query, especially since the plot of the book was, to be honest, a little on the boring side. However, despite its unexciting storyline, the story manages to raise some very interesting points. It forces the reader to stop and think, to engage in self-reflection.

It makes us question our own lives, our choices, and our priorities. In a world where we are constantly bombarded with distractions, this book provides a much-needed moment of clarity. It reminds us that there is more to life than just the daily grind.

Overall, I would rate this book 3.5 stars. While it may not have been the most thrilling read, its message is one that will stay with me for a long time.

**"My Experience with Albert Camus' Works"**

I was amazed by the pen of the writer!

At first, I flash back to the date of "6 Esfand 1399" when, after reading the book "The Fall", which was the first book by "Albert Camus" that I was reading, I wrote a review that was a strong attack on the writer and part of it was as follows:

"The Fall, in my opinion, is a work of a writer with a sick mind, published by a stupid and crazy publisher, praised by some famous critics, and finally, behind its back, a flood of free ratings has been sent towards it by a group of intellectuals around the world.

It was the first and definitely the last book that I read by Albert Camus. Reading this book added nothing to me but nerves, mental stress, and severe pangs of conscience due to the fact that I wasted a lot of valuable time in my life on his nonsense. I do not recommend reading this book to anyone, let alone human beings."

Until yesterday, on the recommendation and promotion of my friend and colleague, who is considered one of the fans of Camus, I picked up "The Stranger", hoping that my thoughts about the writer might change for the better!

From my previous opinion about the pen of "Albert Camus" until today when I am writing this review of this book, 105 days have passed. As I have also written in the bio section of my profile, my opinions are only related to the day when I finished the book, of course, with the feeling that I have experienced by reading it. But today, I cannot say with certainty that in these 105 days, with the study of different books, my beliefs or thoughts have changed, or the writing style of the writer in this book is not comparable to my previous experience!

But whatever it was, I admit that from yesterday afternoon until today noon, I was a fan of a masterpiece, a masterpiece that not only accompanied my brain but also all the cells of my body, especially the second part of the book and the prison narratives that took me to his individual cell and brought back the memories of my cellmate from those days...

Really, with these two different experiences of Camus, the ability to describe him is no longer on my shoulders because, on the one hand, there is a really tiring and bad experience, and today, an infinitely enjoyable experience!!!

But with a 180-degree turn, I can say with certainty that this book will not be the last book that I will read by Camus, and also, I will recommend at least reading this one book by Camus to my friends.

Introduction to the Book

"The Stranger" is a book by the French writer "Albert Camus" that has been translated by different people in Iran. Fortunately, I read this book with the translation of Mr. "Khosayar Dihimi" which was published by "Mahy Publishing". I will write more completely about the translation later.

The story of the book is about a young man who, for reasons that we will read in the book, has taken his mother to a nursing home and she also dies there, and this incident is the beginning of the story.

After the burial and the return to daily life, through an incident that we will read in the book, and I have no intention of writing the events of the book at all because I believe that the book should be read, at the end of the first part of the book, he commits a murder, and in the second part of the book, we will read about his events in prison and the process of his trial...

Opinion on the Translator

I am glad that I read this book with the translation of Mr. "Khosayar Dihimi" because the translation was smooth and readable, and most importantly, I did not get tired while reading it.

While reading the book, I felt that I was completely in the story, and this was enough for me to understand the ability of the translator. Also, the afterword that he wrote for the end of the book really helped me a lot to understand better, and because of these things, I felt it necessary to thank the translator and also Mahy Publishing from this platform for translating and publishing this book.

Recommendation

Since I liked the writer's descriptions of people and also different places infinitely, I recommend reading this book to all my friends. Read "The Stranger" and also give it as a gift to your friends because "The Stranger" is a short novel that can be read even in one day, but inside it, it deals with the souls of people and philosophy with an interesting and exciting subject.

Quotes

"Man gets used to everything in the end."

"A man who has lived even one day can easily spend a hundred years in prison."

"Man loses time in prison."

"No one can imagine what the nights in prison are like."

Rating

Five stars and nothing else!

20th Khordad 1400

Editado

Today, March 21, 2025

I remember Meursault again, his desire for a gentle defeat, without hatred. To abandon the comedy and entrust his life and weakness to the usurping destiny.
------
A melancholic, kind, understanding, calm man who, in an instant, turns into a monster by firing a shot without meaning to, almost out of boredom, so to speak. Because he doesn't feel like going back, or even "because of the sun", as he will claim later in court.

An apathetic man, burdened with tedium and indifference that turns him into a clandestine, a stranger in his own life.

Who is this Meursault? Several men in one man? An idiot who doesn't know how to defend himself? A rebel? A weakling? An indecisive person? A man who decided to bet on the truth and die for it?

I don't know how to answer!

At the last moment, "ready to relive everything", he rediscovered himself happy, grateful, and reconciled with himself.

Meursault is a complex character. His actions and thoughts seem contradictory. On one hand, he shows a lack of emotion and detachment from the world. On the other hand, there are moments when he reveals a glimmer of something more profound. His shooting of the Arab may seem senseless, but perhaps it is a manifestation of his inner turmoil and frustration. His relationship with Marie is also ambiguous. He seems to care for her, but at the same time, he is not overly passionate. Overall, Meursault is a character that challenges our understanding of human nature and forces us to question our own values and beliefs.

The Strange

In recent years, I have been plagued by a strange reading complex. There is a sense of deficiency whenever a famous title passes before my eyes that I haven't read yet. From the collected works of Dostoyevsky, of which I have only read one book, to Kafka, Steinbeck, Chekhov, and others whom I have either read nothing or only one work. This is because my crucial reading period - in high school and university - was poor. The libraries in Riyadh at that time only displayed a few books in the 1990s and early 2000s. Also, I had no reading map back then. There was no library at home, no interested reader in the family to help me面对 the onslaught of titles, and not even the internet and professional websites to determine what I could acquire and what books I should avoid. Now, for the new and diverse generation, in their crucial period - before responsibility, work, and family - they can obtain the most important books, in the most beautiful editions, through the easiest ways and means, and read them in this formative stage of life. So that by the time they reach their mid-twenties, they have already read the most important and beautiful books, and have time to read new ones or fill in the simple gaps, or delve deeper into reading what they liked from the books.

Anyway, complaining is useless, and life is still ahead - if it lasts. So, I started to solve this problem by cataloging my books, evaluating their importance and literary and intellectual value, and then making lists of what I should read first, so that I have a hundred books, then another hundred, and so on. And each hundred is an independent reading plan that can be updated with new books over time, and with the mood - that is, those that match a certain mood. Of course, I don't expect myself to adhere to these plans strictly, due to the suggestions of friends in Jeddah, and for the small ideas that come with the days, and for the flow of the reading current that may lead you to books that you expected to be lost in the shelves without being read. All this will make the idea implemented over the years, perhaps more than five, but in the end, all this is part of the pleasure, experience, and the beautiful world that books create for us.

This preface has nothing to do with this book, except that it was one of the outstanding books, along with Camus' other book (The Plague), and both are from the list of the hundred novels that I am waiting for, and now the list has decreased by reading this one.

Camus is a famous French existentialist writer. He was born in the then-occupied Algeria by France in 1913. So, this novel takes place there, as does his other novel The Plague. Almost everyone who has read this novel has talked about two things: the first is absurdity, and the second is strangeness. The absurdity of what happens in the novel to the protagonist, and also the strangeness of the protagonist and the society's incomprehension of him.

In my opinion, these two observations lack a third observation that is no less important, and we can consider it a common denominator between absurdity and strangeness, namely the degree of influence and focus of the protagonist's physical existence on him and his thoughts and actions. And this, for me, is the essence of the novel, as this aspect is neglected by most novelists, as well as by everyone who tells a story. We focus on events, on words and actions, and we forget what Camus paid attention to in his novel.

I know that what I said earlier is obscure, and to clarify it, I will tell a personal story. Years ago, I attended a sad funeral. It was the first direct experience of death, the first funeral I attended where the deceased was someone I knew. Just the idea that a person was going and coming, moving, talking, eating, laughing, and getting angry, and then it ended. This amazing idea filled my heart with a new sadness, a sadness that I had never known or experienced before. And as I stood there in the bare cemetery, the wind blowing, the sun shining, the crowd pushing, and the voices of people around me drowning me, I felt a strange anxiety. The sadness inside me was transparent and celestial. I wanted to understand it, to anticipate it, but the chaos of people around me, the heat and thirst, made the sadness recede a little to make room for my existence, my hunger, thirst, and fatigue. That feeling was humiliating for me. How could this be?! Can't I get rid of these frivolous emotions in such moments? And since that day, whenever I attend a funeral or condolence, I suffer from this feeling. I don't understand how people can smile in the cemetery? How can they talk about other things while they are burying a loved one? And how can they go back to eat a delicious meal? The sadness that I understand is a solitary sadness that separates me from reality, from the body, even if only for a few hours. It is the simplest thing I have given to a person I loved, to let my soul and heart be in those hours when I remember him, and not be busy with myself or others.

Meursault in the novel was this man, the man who couldn't hide himself well, couldn't pretend to be solitary to live among people. He acts according to what he feels. So, his existence and his feeling are intense in the novel. He gets tired and thirsty, he needs coffee and cigarettes even at his mother's funeral, and he goes out with his friend to the beach. He is strange, and the society can't understand him. And because of that, he doesn't find any empathy from the society towards him. So, when he commits a murder, the society judges him not only for his crime but also for his strangeness. And in the face of the trial, the sentence, and its execution, and his life in prison, he remains the same. The fear of the last moments can't convince him, can't make him pretend to believe in something just to get some kind of salvation.

So, Meursault is different, strange. But what about absurdity? It is striking in the novel. The crime that Meursault committed could have been avoided. He killed a person who had nothing to do with him, for a person who had no strong connection with him. He helped a despised person without sufficient reasons, just because he asked him to! And the moment of Meursault's killing of the Arab youth, if we prepared for it, clearly expresses the idea that I pointed out. Under the intense heat, the sun shining on him, and the glint of the youth's knife that didn't really threaten him, Meursault fired the gun and killed the youth. So, when he was asked in court about the reason for his killing of the youth, his answer was true. It was the sun. The sun had already bothered him, had affected his decision-making. And we won't understand this without understanding the influence of a person's physical existence on his soul, actions, and thoughts.

Does this mean that we should empathize with Meursault? Of course not. He is a killer, and the shot he fired was followed by four other shots. In this novel, our feelings towards Meursault don't matter. What matters is our view of him. Is he different? Or is he a fraud? We can condemn all that Meursault did, and we can understand something from his actions, but the important thing is to realize that Meursault fell under our judgment, and that his difference and strangeness will make him pay a price. Perhaps he wouldn't have paid it if he wasn't different, if he was a copy of us.

I was informed that this book gets better with repeated readings, and I have a hunch that might be the case.

The book is divided into two sections. Part One takes place before the protagonist kills an Arab without any real justification. It is astonishingly slow and uninteresting, and I believe the translation doesn't enhance its appeal.

Nevertheless, Part Two is far more engaging, and the final few pages of the book are absolute perfection. It truly compels you to return and reread the first parts, armed with the knowledge you have gained.

Perhaps with each reread, new nuances and details will emerge, further enriching the reading experience. It's like uncovering hidden treasures within the pages of a book that initially seemed lackluster.

I look forward to seeing if my perception of the book changes as I continue to explore its depths through multiple readings.

‘It was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness.’ This powerful line sets the tone for Nobel Prize winning author Albert Camus’ The Stranger. Even in a world that seems devoid of meaning, our actions carry significant weight. The novel explores the ironies of imposing meaning in a void and the absurdities of our human existence as we all head towards the same cold, lifeless fate.

The story follows the narrator, Meursault, a man of few words and convictions. His choices, or lack thereof, lead to his downfall in this world and in the eyes of those who believe in a next world. Despite his indifference to most things, his actions have consequences that he cannot escape.

The novel is divided into two parts. Part One focuses on Meursault’s detachment from his mother’s funeral and his subsequent relationships with the living and the natural world. His courtship of Marie is full of excitement and sexual flair, yet there are underlying Oedipal impulses. Part Two begins with Meursault’s senseless murder and his subsequent trial, where he is judged not only for his actions but also for his character.

‘It is better to burn than to disappear.’ The Stranger is a profound and thought-provoking exploration of existence. It forces the reader to consider their own life and its place in the universe. The writing is crisp and engaging, and the story is both beautiful and tragic. It has rightfully earned its place in the literary canon and continues to resonate with readers today.

L'Étranger is truly an exemplary work of literary art. It presents a unique amalgam of apathy and humanity in a paradoxical yet profoundly fulfilling manner. This remarkable writing delves into the numerous possibilities of human life while also acknowledging its inherent absurdities.

Albert Camus masterfully introduces the indifference of the world towards its inhabitants through the title character, Meursault. Meursault withdraws from the surrounding society, devoid of ordinary sentiments. He finds himself on trial before a trial due to a bizarre murder. Naturally, the wrath of society descends upon him as he is either not inclined or simply incapable of showing remorse.

Meursault embodies Camus's philosophical notion of absurdity. His thoughts and actions lack a rational order and cannot be easily explained. However, society forces rational explanations upon Meursault's deeds and makes decisions about his life.

Our understanding of life is overshadowed by the inevitability of our eventual demise. Since death spares neither the fool nor the wise, individual lives seem to have no inherent meaning. As Meursault realizes that there is indeed no higher value to his or any human life and that happiness has nothing to do with this revelation, he rejects illusory hopes and decides to make the most of the days remaining to him.

"It was as if that great rush of anger had washed me clean, emptied me of hope, and, gazing up at the dark sky spangled with its signs and stars, for the first time, the first, I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe."

Starting the book "The Stranger", there is a character who didn't care about anything. Did his mother die? So what? Were they offering him a better job? He did the same thing. Did someone want to be his friend? He did the same. Did Marie want to marry him? Yes, he did the same. Did they want him to kill the Arab? He did the same whether he died or not! Would he have wanted a different life in the end? Well, he did the same!

The hero-antihero of Camus quickly becomes antipathetic (like the character in Kafka's "The Trial"), but in the end you feel that injustice "suffocates" you! Why are they sentencing him? Why aren't they sentencing him for his crime, but on the contrary, they are sentencing him because he is "unfeeling"? Because he didn't cry at his mother's funeral? Why must he be sentenced because he is a "stranger"? Because he didn't fake a behavior that society imposes? Because he never wanted to change his life? Because he liked his life as it was and didn't want to conform to the dreams of others? He liked his life as it was. And whether he had no friends, whether he no longer had his mother, whether he didn't have a better job in Paris, whether he didn't have a wife. At work he was honest, in his relationships he was honest and he tried to help all those who asked him. One way or another, he did the same!

And yet, they didn't like having a "different" person among them! Not to have feelings and dreams? This was something that scared them and he had to be sentenced to death! Not because he killed, but because he was himself! Even in court he didn't give the answers that "he should" because he didn't really believe them! He did and said what he believed! And for that he had to die!

And in the end, in the cell he felt "like in his own home"! Redemption was coming, he had come to terms and was happy about it! It didn't matter to him to receive grace at the end, it didn't matter to him the forgiveness from some "God", it didn't matter to him what the priest said who tried with tears in his eyes to convince him to change his way of thinking! No! Meursault said things as he believed they were! He said truths that hurt and were not tolerable by those around him!

This "stranger" is not something different, we all hide him inside us, but we fake it by choosing things that don't express us. How many things haven't we done because society "imposed" it? How many acquaintances, how many jobs, how many relationships? Why did we choose them even though deep down we hated them? Of course, so that those around us don't call us "strangers". We are afraid that they will alienate us and we don't feel part of the "whole".

This great hero was not afraid. He was huge! We are just very small in front of him...

"To stay or to go, it amounted to the same thing."

I'm going to apologize in advance. This isn't really a review. At this point, there is really no reason to review this book. It has been around for a long time, and pretty much everything that could be said about it has already been said. Just check the front page, and you'll see plenty of plot descriptions, analyses of deeper themes, and pretty much anything else you could hope to find.

Instead, I will offer a brief analysis of what makes this work fascinating to me personally.

"That evening Marie came by to see me and asked if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn't make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to. Then she wanted to know if I loved her. I answered the same way that I had last time, that it didn't mean anything but that I probably didn't love her."

Our narrator seems apathetic, to say the least. He sleeps a lot, is forgetful, often doesn't hear what people say, and doesn't display much emotion. But perhaps the greatest aspect of the book, at least to me, is how Camus plays with one's expectations of the classic nihilistic character. To him, life is meaningless since death is inevitable and nothing will remain, and so he thinks that nothing really matters, whether it's ambition, goals, morals, friendship, love, and ultimately even death itself. Unlike your usual nihilistic character, though, Meursault is shown not to mind meaninglessness. He takes joy in the moment (shown by his relationship with Marie and how he does seem to try to make others happy when given a choice to do so). While he may view all as pointless, it also shows that to him every life is equally valuable, even that of his neighbor Salamano's dog.

The book is split into two sections. The first is a rather dark look at an obviously sociopathic individual. The second is something of a dark comedy, where he comes under trial not so much for his crimes but for not being a good enough son. This also brings up a really interesting factor. While it's not the main theme of the novel, it presents a rather twisted way of showing the prejudices of the times. As our narrator's murder of an Arab man isn't considered that big of a deal (the trial takes a long time to start, people figure it will be ended within a day or two, and the press is only there because of a bigger trial after it). Due to their prejudice, it takes the jury learning unrelated facts about Meursault's personal life to get them to even care about the trial at all.

These touches are fascinating. It's such a short book (only 117 pages in my copy), and yet it is able to say so much about the times, about philosophy, and indeed about the author himself (apparently, the story about Meursault's father seeing an execution was actually a story about Camus' own father). It's a fascinating book. It's not the sort of read that will likely leave you feeling warm and fuzzy inside, but it is the sort of book that may make you at least consider some of the more absurd aspects of life in a different way.

A rare 5/5 stars.