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?

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?

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?

That is what I was asking myself whole time.

Why did Camus write such a story?

Why such absurdity?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

You can't act like a sociopath if you're not one. But I would guess Meursault is a psychopath, not a sociopath. While both are antisocial, there has been some talk of prosocial or maybe neutrally social psychopaths who still don't feel things but also don't go out of their way to hurt people. They generally just want to leave people alone and be left alone in turn. But as you see in the novel, that's really not an option in our very social world.

To be honest I think rather than studying philosophy you might want to try just reading lighter books. If you're not particularly drawn to reading, it suggests you're not that interested in the books you're picking up. Why not try some popular fiction? You develop your critical reading skills with everything you read, not just the big serious heavy books, and after a while you might find you come back to something like The Stranger with a new perspective.

You can just not find it meaningful?

It doesn't mean it is a bad book or that you are a bad reader, but nobody has a "perfect" understanding of literally any book ever. Not even the author themselves.

Just read more and these things come easier, but don't expect to be a literary critic and philosopher right off the gate.

I think it would absolutely help to learn a bit about Camus' philosophy first. To me, reading it through this lens, the stranger is an exercise in absurdism. And without this absurdist background, this would just be a book about a sociopath. But it's not.

Mersault is simply fully aware of the meaninglessness of life and the complete and utter indifference of the universe towards him. So he lives indifferent to it. He's not excited about a job in Paris, because that doesn't matter to him. This is also why he isn't sad about his mother's death. He seems to be perpetually living in the now, focusing on the tangible world around him rather than emotions. At least, that's what I get from it.

Philosophy graduate here, I've read the book, and I don't think anyone is too stupid to understand the book, it just requires you to think in a different frame of reference. It's been a long time since I read the book, and a proper analysis would probably run to novel length, but I'll try to summarise if I can.

Meursault is a character very much operating on his own wavelength. He simply doesn't see the merit or meaning of the kind of social and interpersonal structures that other people take so much for granted that it's hard to see past them.

The trial at the end is a really good example of all of this. At first instance, Meursault is French and his victim is Algerian. Politically this means he really does have every possible opportunity to make something up and people will convince themselves that his story is the truth and then he will be set free. He doesn't do this, because it would be inauthentic to do so. He spends his trial concerned with the fact that he's too hot, the possibility that he might be imprisoned, executed even, is nothing he worries about.

The key point here is authenticity. At every point, Meursault is exactly who he is, expresses exactly what he is thinking and feeling, and often that is apposite to the customs (like drinking coffee during the vigil) and social mores of his time (like not protecting himself in the trial even when people are expecting him to do so). When he tells his casual sexual partner that he "probably doesn't" love her, he's being authentic, but it's to his detriment.

What this means is that his immediate concerns are way more important to him than conceptual ones. When he shoots the Algerian, he does so simply because he wants to get some water because it's hot. He doesn't have any higher motive than that. When he's in the prison cell, he manages to be quite happy, remarking that you can get used to anything, because his experience of life expands and contracts with his circumstances without his intervention.

What Meursault is missing is a psychological conception of the future. When we plan, or consider things, we make strategic decisions about how and what we choose to do. We construct rational arguments for why we might do this or that thing, and then use those reasoned constructs to inform behaviour. The problem is that this can be conflicting with our feelings, and to existentialists like Camus or Sartre this was inauthentic because it didn't reflect the reality of what the person was thinking or feeling.

I see this in two ways. Meursault is completely authentic in every way, he never lies, or hides anything from anyone even when it would be to his advantage. He refuses to feel differently, or pretend to feel differently, for the comfort or benefit of anyone else. In this way he is wholly himself in a way other people are not. He is univocal, straightforward, and unsentimental.

On the other hand, he is willfully ignorant of the feelings of his fellow men and women, to the point where he simply is unable to understand why they would need to inform their impression of his character by tertiary sources. He fails completely to grasp the social shorthand of interpersonal interactions, and doesn't use them to his benefit even when it would be moral and sensible to do so.

Wasn’t East of Eden a Cain and Abel story? I read it so long ago I don’t remember anything except it being about two brothers.

It's an overrated /r/im14andthisisdeep book with a poorly presented message. Authors like Kafka and Gogol did existentialism better. Its only saving grace is the iconic first line.

(By the way, why is this man always writing about Arabs?)

I haven't read it in a long time, but the impression I was left with is that Meursalt is existential in philosophy. But he takes it to a place of nothing matters so I'll just swim through life and what happens happens. (As opposed to a more positive form of existential philosophy - nothing matters and therefor I get to create my own meaning)

I think this book is more of a must read than ever in todays society.

That's fine! After you read it, you came away with what exactly? If I may ask you to provide a sentence or two

Great post and sums it up well

Well— I read it in University. Prime years of development for a kids disposition in the world. My take away was this: Most of our social interactions are based on our need to fit in, and if one was to turn off that part of your brain— which people do— I think they would be heavily punished for it just as the main character was in this novel.

And to my point earlier— we do everything we can to try and socialize humans nowadays. But I don’t think that’s what created writers like Camus—guitarist like Hendrix—thinkers like— poets like Thomas etc etc etc. We do lose sincerity as we try to fit in with others, and when we lose sincerity, we also lose a natural ability to think differently with imagination. And to me— we’re living through times that reflect that problem.

For some reason I don’t think he’s a sociopath at all. I know the shoe fits and all, but there’s something much more relatable to his lack of feeling. And I think that’s half the point of the book. Anyways. Thanks for the post. I love this book so much.

Can only hope you're trolling

I think it’s personal interpretation/background. I “understood” The stranger and Crime and Punishment, but I did not The Little Prince.
Quotes because Dostoyevsky can’t be understood IMO, just felt.
My point, it’s up to every individual. If the book made you think outside your box, it worked

I do think that it’s harder to get ‘meaning’ from some texts through audiobooks, unless you are in the habit of constantly pausing and rewinding. With printed books, it’s easier and more natural to pause and dwell on something you just read, re-read the previous sentence or paragraph, flip back a few pages, make a note or too. This kind of ‘active’ reading is often helpful for understanding some books.

I am not saying it’s impossible to ‘actively’ listen to an audiobook, I think it is just less convenient (especially since many people put them on while doing other things). Likewise, not all printed book reading is ‘active,’ or even the default way of reading.

Don’t be afraid to try again but also don’t be too tough on yourself :)

You are right. I am a truck driver so I listen to audiobooks to pass time. But every now and then something comes up on the road and i then i press rewind couple times to listen that portion again. Thats why i only listen fantasy/scifi books now and i plan to actually read the philosophical texts from now on