I am undecided on my feelings for this book. I was looking for books that explore philosophical concepts and was recommended this book as a starting place for existentialism. After doing some research on the author I discovered he had refused the existential label. Published in 1942, The Stranger chronicles a young Algerian man as he goes through his aimless life and distanced emotions. He ends up killing a man and continues through a trial and sentencing. The book touches on themes of absurdity, freedom, justice, meaning, and atheism. I found the writing interesting and unique. The author uses a very simple and direct style. This use of simple and direct writing help to explore a character that only lives in the present and is very detached from feeling or meaning.
I wanted to like this book, to learn from it, to see deeper truths in it. I had a hard time because everything was meaningless and the main character viewed the world and acted like a mentally challenged five year old. I considered the scene of the murder to be anti-climatic and a cop out. I thought one of the core themes of an existential philosophy is having the freedom to choose any action, but also the responsibility for your freedom and chosen actions. So why does the character blame the sun? Why is he so confused by why the trial is going badly? Why is he so stupid? I’m fine with him being an atheist, but why do all the Christian characters behave like crusading wackos? I have tried to do some research into existentialism and compare the themes and motivations of the character to them. I have also tried to keep the review about the book and not existentialism as a philosophy. I probably wouldn’t recommend this book, but I would be willing to try another existential-type author.
