I listen to audiobooks only. Stranger, east of eden and mans search for meaning(to some extent) went over my head. English isn’t my first language so maybe thats part of the problem for me, but i just stick to fantasy novels and enjoy my time, if i m too dumb to understand, there isn’t much i can do about it. Maybe i will try these again someday, see if it makes any difference

Don't be hard on yourself. You learnt something after you watched those YT videos after reading the book; something you wouldn't have otherwise. Some background knowledge on Camus, his other works and absurdism or existentialism, etc is definitely needed to read Camus, otherwise it will be like what happened to you. imo camus is a tough read for non-avid or non-philosophy readers. Camus's books like plague or stranger are not typical stories where you put yourself in point of view of the character or try to figure out what happens next. It just won't work if you try to do either of these 2 things. In "The stranger" itself, the character is technically a sociopath. You aren't supposed to relate to that. If you try to relate from his pov, you would really go crazy. If you view the story just from third person point of view about a character who takes absurdism or nihilism to the ultimate level; a person who simply doesn't care, then the story becomes very interesting.

Well, to be specific I don't believe absurdism is as much of a hot topic as it used to be. The book is fine, I'm just saying that it isn't a "must read", in my opinion.

Like, just throwing it out there - I think that Of Mice and Men is a better read. Personal opinion.

Meursault, like the universe, is absurd, in that he defies rational, logical order or comprehensible meaning. We (the readers) never know why he does what he does, thinks the way he thinks, etc. People (whether it is us, the readers, or the characters who encounter him) who attempt to "find" meaning in it/him are absurdists.

In the book, you see countless people "explain" Meursault and his behaviour to themselves in a way that fits with their pre-existing view of the world (the warden and caretaker at his mother's care home, his boss, Raymond, Marie, Salamano, the two lawyers at his trial, the chaplain) but none of these "explanations" are verifiable. All are possible, but none are definitively true.

He could be called many things. Camu intended that we see him how he is seen by society, as a stranger, but also be able to realise that each and every one of us could be a stranger on our own.

He simply had no fucks to give. He accepted whatever happened without question. It wasn't worth the effort for him to question things.

That was my take on his Strange behaviour.

How so? It's a book about someone who doesn't fit in because he doesn't follow the societal norms. Because he doesn't fit in, they assume he's an outsider and treat him with contempt.

I just read the book and it had an author's note. Camus stated that the main character simply didn't lie. He never lies in the book. People ask him how feels and he always tells them the truth, even if the truth makes him look emotionless or selfish.

In one sense the book was more appropriate for the time it was published, not as much now I think.

It’s about social expectations. He’s in this world where he’s judged harshly for not being sad enough when his mother died. While murdering an Algerian brought him to trial, murder isn’t what convicted him.

He’s not a sociopath. He just doesn’t conform to social expectations.

That is what I was asking myself whole time.

Why did Camus write such a story?

Why such absurdity?

Without analyzing symbolism or existentialism, I just wanted to keep reading the book to know how far this dude (Meursault) can keep his calmness. Because if I were him, I would go damn crazy.

Is he a sociopath? Was he trying/acting like a sociopath?
Why?

No. The bit that is lost without context is that a white man would never, ever have been convicted of killing an Algerian. The trial was just a matter of form, and yet the hero damned himself in court. Why? Is there a greater sin than failing to love your mother?

Absolutely not, nor are you "too stupid". The beauty of reading is in individual interpretation. In fact, I'd argue that the forced symbolism you get in English literature classes actually hinders individual exploration of it.

Why did you enjoy it?

Very few writers could pull off a novel where the main character puts on a pig costume and disappears from the rest of the story 3/4 of the way in.

It's a bizarre, sometimes frustrating read, but it's great fun and completely unique.

It’s good! Nice and short, so your brain doesn’t get taxed by this weird new way.

Definitely interesting to see which books were included in this iceberg. Maybe I am getting "subversive" mixed up with "disturbing" though, and I've read more from the bottom tiers than the tops. Of all Palahniuk's books, Snuff is most disturbing but I'd think Survivor and Fight Club are more subversive. Totally not meaning to rank books against each other, I'm just in a Readers' Advisory course and learning how to describe and suggest books for others.

Yes! I fully acknowledge that her books leave a lot to be desired plot-wise (especially ACOTAR), but they’re still enjoyable imo

I tried reading that book but couldn't get into it, too many characters and just confusing overall. Gonna give it a second go.

You’re not missing anything. Enjoy your stimulating book clubs.

[deleted]

One of my favorite books.

Can anyone actually find this quote in Winnie the Pooh #1?

I’ve heard that the quote “I’m not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost” is in the first Winnie the Pooh (A.A. Milne) published in 1926. I can’t find this quote in any ebook version online and looking if anyone knows exactly where in the book I can find it.

Out of interest which translation do you have?

[removed]