Reader discussion: The Stranger

Public reader discussion about The Stranger in the WeRead Catalog by Gordon R. Dickson.

Thoughts on The Stranger by Albert Camus.

By paper_volume

Just finished this for the first time and my head is kind of all over the place. I’m looking for a clearer way to pin down what I *think* I got out of it, because I feel like I missed something and then also maybe I didn’t? Anyway. First off: the writing was great. Those choppy, blunt sentences totally feel like someone just reporting their own life as it happens. In the first half he’s basically just drifting along, like life is going past him and he’s not really trying to catch up. But around Part 2 it changes a bit—he starts noticing stuff more instead of only narrating. And the very end is the first time he seems truly “there,” like he makes a real conscious choice that actually swings things. At the start I had a hard time getting into it. It’s short so I didn’t stop, but still—my patience was limited. I’m also a sucker for male characters who feel kind of out on the edges of society, and I love Dostoevsky for those kinds of guys, so I think that helped me stick with it. By the end, I felt like it almost didn’t matter who the protagonist “was” as a person. Like it’s less about him specifically and more like you’re meant to see a point being made through his eyes. A bunch of questions though: What is it *actually* about? Like what’s the core theme? I keep landing on morality—choosing to be good, not just coasting through life. And then it feels very existential too: the whole absurdity/complexity of existence, told through an amoral protagonist who doesn’t really show empathy. Also, do religious people generally like this? I didn’t get the vibe that it’s directly attacking religion, but the whole rejection of religion/salvation is definitely a big deal in it. And then the courtroom stuff: when he agrees to vouch for the pimp regarding his mistress cheating—what’s that about? Did he agree because he thought Raymond was right to beat her, or was it more like he just didn’t care and went along? People keep trying to read motives into it, but I’m wondering if the book is more like, “maybe people are random and don’t have a deep explanation”? For the killing—does it seem like self-defense or not? It’s hard to tell. He could’ve walked away, but then he sees the knife and gets all heated and sweaty, so was he getting pushed into it emotionally, or is it more that he just didn’t value life enough to stop himself? And why didn’t self-defense really come up at trial? Also, is the “appeal” at the end supposed to work in a way that most readers accept, or is it meant to be left more subjective? I’m also curious: how did it get available in Nazi-occupied France when it first came out, and did it somehow become a statement against the Nazis? Or is it more about things like taking control of your own fate, making active choices even when injustice is around? I’ve got more questions but I don’t want to spoil anything or break rules.

Just finished Albert Camus' The Stranger and wonder is it really about a guy that doesn't care about anything?

By annotationDuck6

I keep hearing people say it’s basically about a guy who doesn’t care about anything—like he’s dead inside or emotionally numb. I didn’t really get it that way though. He still cared about his mom, even though he ended up sending her away and didn’t really show it the way you’d expect. He also cared about his girlfriend and at least seemed excited to spend time with her, even if he wasn’t super into the whole marriage thing. And he definitely wasn’t oblivious—he noticed his neighbor’s issues and actually sat down with the ex-dog owner and listened. Plus he wrote that letter for his friend instead of just blowing it off to do his own stuff. He even pushed back pretty hard against the religious stuff he was getting. So if he truly didn’t care at all, it feels like he would’ve found ways to dodge all those interactions, like how he showed he wasn’t having it with the chaplain.

I read Harlan Coben's The Stranger today and I need to talk about it

By CrimsonPencil

Quick heads up: I listened to this on Audible while driving today and somehow finished the whole thing in one go. It ended up being pretty doable since it’s only around 5 hours (at normal speed). I don’t want to spoil anything, but basically a guy shows up to a school meeting for his wife, and a total stranger hits him with some secret that could wreck their marriage. After that, it’s just him trying to figure out what’s really going on and how bad it gets—one gut-punch after another. My wife was sitting right next to me, and she kept asking what was wrong because I kept flinching at different twists. It was that weird feeling where you’re basically sitting there with the character, and when the awful stuff starts happening you don’t just “watch” it—you kind of feel the guilt and heartbreak like it’s happening to you too. That was nonstop for me. I really liked it, and I’d recommend it if you’re into stories where you end up feeling the pain right along with the protagonist. I’m just curious though—what other books have you read where you related so hard you could still feel their emotions even after you were done? Edit: The unabridged Audible version is closer to 10 hours, but I had it on 2x speed.

The Paradox of Freedom and Absurdism in The Stranger by Albert Camus

By shoreyoung7571

Just finished *The Stranger* by Albert Camus and I can’t shake this weird empty feeling afterward. I don’t even know if I “get” it the right way, but it made me think a lot, and I want to hear how other people saw it too. A lot of what bothered me was this idea that Meursault acts like he’s free just because he goes along with his own way of thinking. But once his freedom is really taken, he doesn’t seem to fight back at all. So was he actually ever free, or was that just something he told himself? And then there’s the whole “philosophy vs reality” thing. He comes off almost like Stoic, but it doesn’t feel like he’s choosing action based on what he can control—he kind of just… lets stuff happen. Does that mean his “philosophy” was really just an excuse to do nothing? Like, can a belief system end up being harmful if it leads to surrender instead of resilience? Also, the absurd part: life has no built-in meaning, and Meursault sort of lives like that’s true. He doesn’t really go looking for purpose, doesn’t react the way you’d expect, and then his death is accepted with this flat indifference. But if nothing means anything anyway, why not still try? And does accepting absurdity automatically turn into inaction? One more thing I kept noticing was how he enjoys life in some moments—food, the beach, Marie—then the second it requires effort, he drops it. If he truly valued life, wouldn’t he push harder for it? Or is refusing to act selfish, even toward himself? And I keep running into this question about meaning. People say meaning only shows up when you make it through your actions. If that’s true, then maybe Meursault’s downfall wasn’t “the system” so much as him refusing to struggle in the first place. If he had figured that out earlier, would it have changed anything? Or can you only call something meaningless after you’ve actually tried and failed?

What is up with Camus' The Stranger??

By ion

I’ve been working through this for a few days now, and I’m a slow reader, but honestly I also totally procrastinated it. I’m just really struggling because it’s SO boring. I’ve been reading it alongside Dostoevsky’s *The Idiot*, and I’d honestly rather slog through 200 pages of random “who’s Nastacia going to end up with” than deal with that annoying man-child from *The Stranger*. This one feels like Camus is trying to build this kind of sociopath-ish character, but instead it’s mostly him going on about all the stuff he “doesn’t care about,” and then there are these super weird descriptions of his girlfriend’s breasts—why is that even in there? I usually love naturalist/realist stuff and the introspective, kind of cold characters you get in *Crime and Punishment* or *Madame Bovary*, so I’m not even opposed to a selfish jerk (affectionate). But here it feels like it might be a parody of that whole vibe. I’ve read *L’homme révolté* and I really liked it, so I don’t get why this fiction is getting so much praise everywhere. I’m not trying to be a snob, I just feel like I might be missing something. Is this supposed to be a parody or a critique or is it ironic? Was it revolutionary when it first came out? Please tell me—I really want to like it.

The Meursault Investigation – Retelling Camus’s The Outsider through Arab eyes

By PencilHorse

Meursault is basically just on a beach in Algiers and ends up killing an Arab because the glare from the sun is bothering him. I’ve always felt like people read it as some kind of big, deep absurdist thing, but I don’t really buy that. It feels more like an easy label than a real insight, and I seem to remember Camus didn’t love being boxed in that way. When it gets to the killing, there’s already all this other stuff going on around him—hanging out with someone who’s clearly got awful views and keeps pushing that vibe onto Meursault. And right before they even go to the beach, Meursault sees some kind of attack on an Arab and then he spends time in this paranoid headspace, like he’s convinced Arabs are after him. He shoots because he’s worked up and can’t think straight, and the heat doesn’t help. To me, it always came off as more of a comment on what colonial Algeria was like. Yes, everything turns into this grim mess and he ends up paying for it, but the actual situation doesn’t strike me as “absurd” on its own.

Is there a book that resonates with you and your life so much that it scares you?

By wonderSwan

Not many books mess with me the way Osamu Dazai’s *No Longer Human* does. It doesn’t feel like it’s just telling a story—it kind of drags everything ugly and raw underneath life up to the surface. The first time I read about Oba Yozo and how he just keeps falling apart, getting more disconnected and miserable, it honestly felt like I was staring into some warped, way-too-familiar mirror. It was one of those reads that left me genuinely unsettled. What gets me is how it deals with loneliness, shame, and self-destruction in a way that feels universal, but also way too personal. Yozo tries so hard to fit in—using jokes, putting on different faces—and I swear it brought up times when I’ve felt like I’m faking my way through relationships. And the scariest part wasn’t even his pain by itself. It was realizing some of the thoughts he has are thoughts I’ve had too. That’s what made it terrifying for me. It makes you ask stuff you don’t really want to think about, like how much of what you show people is just a front, and what’s even left once you strip that away. Reading it felt like my emotions were coming apart, not in a “fun” way. It hits this nerve about how fragile identity is. For me it’s both a warning and… weirdly, a comfort. Like, yeah, isolation is awful, but I’m not the only one who’s felt suffocated by it. Talking about it almost feels like poking at a sore spot, but it also feels like some kind of release. Does it resonate with me? Yeah, definitely. Does that make me nervous? Unfortunately, also yeah. Have you ever read something that basically showed you your own worst fears or messed-up parts so clearly that it freaked you out? What do you think makes that kind of connection hit so hard—why is it both compelling and scary?

Looking for history of the "stranger comes to town and messes things up" story.

By martenreader56

I feel like this is something you see a lot in Westerns—like with *Shane* (both the book and the movie)—and also in detective stuff, like *Red Harvest* and that whole Great American Novel vibe. I just can’t come up with much earlier than that, though. Sure, there are travel stories, but it doesn’t really seem like the “stranger” angle. Am I overlooking older examples, or is it possible this type of story just wasn’t really a thing yet?

Read “The Stranger” this past weekend.

By meadowFinds350

I really loved it. The part that stuck with me the most was that guy who was so mean to his dog, but then he breaks down when it disappears. I don’t know, “human” is the only word I can think of. What did everyone else think?

Am I misunderstanding The Stranger by Albert Camus?

By nova_bee

I finished the book feeling pretty lost. Part of me feels like Meursault is basically living out absurdist ideas, and that he’s kind of the way Camus gets across his own views. But then I can’t shake the question—am I really meant to just excuse him and feel bad for him even though he commits all those immoral acts? Like, where does morality even fit in here? Am I supposed to be fine with the murders and with what he does for Raymond? Maybe I’m missing something, because it honestly feels like the book is giving immorality a pass, just wrapped up in nihilism. It reads like Camus is implying that since life has no meaning, then moral rules don’t matter either. Also, this is my first time posting here and I’m honestly pretty shocked by how many replies I got. I read a bunch of them and they actually made me like the book more. I’ll probably reread it soon. Thanks, everyone.

What’s your best “Stranger than Fiction” non fiction book?

By Epilogue825

I’m gonna be real—I’m not sure if “Starvation Heights” is the right title, but that’s the one that stuck with me. Also, wow at these replies. Lots of books I’d never even heard of before. The story itself sounds pretty wild: in 1911, two wealthy British sisters, Claire and Dora Williamson, go to this sanatorium in the Pacific Northwest for that “fasting treatment” run by Dr. Linda Burfield Hazzard. It was supposed to be some kind of getaway, but it sounds like things went horribly wrong fast—like by a month in, they’re basically emaciated and just waiting to die. And it doesn’t sound like it was an isolated thing either, since Hazzard is described as someone who’d do anything for money, even murder. Supposedly their jewelry vanishes and forged bank drafts start moving their money into her accounts, and Dora finally manages to send a desperate message to a friend in Australia to try to get help.

A review of ‘The Stranger’ by Camus

By quantumPath3

I read *The Stranger* last year and it felt like one of the shorter ones—like a little over 100 pages, I think. But somehow it still has a ton going on, especially the whole absurdism thing and how ridiculous it is that society decides what kind of person you are based on tiny clues. You start off with the main guy at his mom’s funeral. I didn’t really feel like he was grieving the way you’d expect, more like he was just worn out. That kind of vibe matters a lot later too—like it turns into a real turning point in the story. After that, it’s mostly him living a pretty normal routine: dating a coworker, hanging out with his neighbor-friend, all that. Then in the middle of the book something pretty awful happens and it basically derails his whole life. For me, there were two big takeaways. One is how fast people judge a “stranger” (or anyone who doesn’t fit the expected reactions). If you don’t act the way you’re “supposed” to—here, at a funeral—then suddenly you’re treated like you’re suspicious and capable of horrible stuff. I get that part. People really do jump to conclusions about who you are based on a few things, and it’s usually not accurate. The other part didn’t sit as well with me: this idea that nothing matters, like in the bigger picture nobody really matters. I can see why you’d find that helpful if you’re taking yourself too seriously, but the book pushes it way past where I was comfortable. Like when his partner asks if he actually loves her, he just doesn’t really get why it even matters. He still agrees to marry her without thinking much about it. Same with helping a friend do something shady—he’s not in on anything, he’s just like… why does it matter? And when he’s accused later, he doesn’t fight it much either, because again, what’s the point. To me, that whole “nothing matters” angle feels kind of lazy, and honestly maybe even risky, because it makes it seem like actions don’t have moral weight and intentions don’t matter either. Absurdism might be interesting on paper, but living like that felt wrong to me. That said, the book does a really good job making the main character feel real and consistent in how he thinks and acts. So even though I didn’t fully buy into the philosophy, I still think it’s a strong novella and worth reading if you want something short but actually dense and thought-provoking.

Started reading Albert Camus' The Stranger.. It's a damn boring read.

By BookishReads

I’ve been trying to do one book a week this year, and this week I grabbed The Stranger by Camus since it’s such a classic and also pretty short (I really like small books). I’m in Part II now, and honestly, Part I felt kind of soulless to me—just random stuff happening here and there, with characters that didn’t really get any depth. The narration also feels pretty flat. I think it might be the first book in ages where I got halfway through without finding even one quote I wanted to highlight.

[Spoilers] I loved The Stranger by Albert Camus up until the ending, and I just don't get it. Can someone explain?

By inkmidnight41

It feels like his whole vibe is basically this, based on what I’ve heard: Like, life has no real meaning, so whatever you’re dealing with now doesn’t really matter, since things could’ve turned out differently and it still wouldn’t change anything. But then he’s like, “don’t take that as an excuse,” because it’d mess up society. And then the next part seems to be: okay, maybe the universe doesn’t give you a meaning, but can’t we just invent our own? And his answer is basically no, because that’s too subjective. Idk, it just comes off a little disappointing to me, since nihilism has been a thing forever. His ideas feel like the big nihilism arguments, just with this “wait—don’t misunderstand it” added at the end. I’m probably just missing something about philosophy, but I still really love the book. Can someone break it down for me?

The Stranger by Albert Camus

By comfortCreek

Just wrapped up The Stranger and I’m honestly staring at the page with my mouth open. The very last chapter, especially the whole run-in with the priest, was wild. I’ve got a take that I haven’t seen talked about much: I feel like Meursault has to be dealing with something like an autism spectrum thing, or maybe—less likely—antisocial personality disorder. Throughout the book he never really connects to other people the way you’d expect. He doesn’t seem to feel emotions or form attachments the same way, and he just sort of does what seems rational to him. He even keeps saying he’s overwhelmed by sensory stuff and can’t really “check in with himself.” And then the whole thing with killing the Arab “because of the sun” — to me it felt like Salomono was basically trying to get the jury to understand they weren’t seeing the real person. Like he wasn’t out to be evil, he was just acting exactly like himself. And it makes the whole absurd vibe hit in a couple different ways: (1) it’s kind of insane that someone would be put to death for murder when, for the jury and readers, it’s not even coming from the same kind of premeditated thinking they’re assuming—because they can’t follow his logic or relate to how he experiences people. (2) then you get these moments where he’s basically dropping really deep philosophical stuff about existence and being human, but he also feels super unreliable at times, like more robotic than human. So… are we meant to take his “insights” seriously or treat them like something else? Does that even make the whole thing more absurd? Curious what other people think—especially about his relationship with the world, or anything else I brought up.

I just finish reading The Stranger from Camus

By BookmarkBalance1999

I didn’t really like it. I’m honestly confused about why it’s considered a French classic. The setting is right before WWII and I get that things are different now, but I couldn’t stand the main character—he felt weak and just annoying. The book kept pushing his apathy the whole way, and it honestly made me frustrated, especially since I’ve dealt with a bunch of apathetic people before. Now I’m wondering if I missed the point because it feels like I wasted my time reading it. What did everyone else see in it?

If you could only recommend one book to a stranger, what would it be?

By FootnoteCat

It’s not always your “favorite,” but the one book that actually messes with how you look at things, makes you feel something real, or stays with you forever after you finish it. I’m still hunting for that kind of book—the one that lingers. What’s your top pick, and why does it matter to you?

I'm too stupid to understand/analyze "The Stranger" by Camus

By hidden_wren

Just finished it. It was definitely good, but I’m not gonna lie—I didn’t really love it. Also, this is kinda embarrassing, but I don’t read much at all. Like, the last time I actually finished a book was months ago, and it was *Kafka*—*Metamorphosis*. I tried to “catch up” after, mostly by watching YouTube videos about it, and now I feel like I totally missed a bunch of what Camus was going for. Do I really need to study philosophy/existentialism to get it properly?

I recently read “The Stranger“ by Albert Camus. It really struck me so I immediately read it again. Now I have been listening to lectures and reading about existential philosophy. Does anyone want to talk about this book!?

By silverkettle

I know a bunch of people read this in high school, but I definitely didn’t. I’m 34 and I only picked it up for the first time last week. A lot of the ideas felt familiar, but I’ve never really put words to them or talked about them with anyone. I really liked how plain the narrator’s language is—no fluff, just kind of blunt and honest about how he sees things. Did this hit anyone else hard? And what other books would you recommend if I liked this one? Thanks!

I found _The Stranger_ by Albert Camus stunning, here is my personal analysis of the book

By reads_apron8286

This was my first time writing something like this, but I’ve been really wanting to share my thoughts since I finished reading **“The Stranger”**. I’m not a native English speaker, so sorry if there are mistakes, but I’m honestly open to any critique. I started the book about **two weeks ago**, and I couldn’t stop thinking about it for days. It made me write my own analysis of the way the story is told and of the characters. What stuck with me most is how **Part 1** feels mostly focused on Mersault himself—his actions, his inner way of thinking, and what’s going on in his head. Then **Part 2** shifts and suddenly it’s more about how other people judge him, like society is looking from the outside and deciding what he “is.” The book begins with his mom dying, and even the way it’s presented is kind of shocking. The funeral details feel almost boring on purpose, because you can feel how annoyed he is with the whole ritual. I kept thinking at first that maybe he was “protecting himself” emotionally, but it doesn’t feel like that. It’s more like he just doesn’t care about social rules, even when it’s his mom. Then there’s **Salamano**, his neighbor, who’s with his old dog and ends up fighting with it all the time. It’s weird, like he “hates” the dog but also clearly can’t live normally without it. When the dog disappears, he’s desperate, and he even comes back to Mersault for help. After that, he treats Mersault like a friend, mostly because Mersault helped him find the dog. And then **Raymond** is where you really see how people react badly to Mersault. Helping Salamano is seen as good, but what happens with Raymond is seen as immoral, and I get why. Mersault basically agrees with Raymond without really questioning if it’s right. It feels more like he just goes along with whatever the other person wants, because the person seems to like it. To me, his reasoning is very “grounded,” very passive, like he doesn’t build morality from his own emotions—he just follows the situation. (Not sure if that’s the right way to describe it, but that’s what it felt like.) He also starts something with **Marie** right after, at the mother’s funeral, which is already crazy to me. Marie feels like the strongest attachment to life he has. He likes being with her and having sex, but when it comes to social expectations, he shuts down again. When she asks about marriage, he says “I don’t know,” and later it’s clear he says yes more to please her than because he actually wants it. Again, it’s like his feelings and his “social behavior” don’t match the way other people expect. In the story, everything leads to his arrest and the trial. What really bothers me is the gap between what Mersault feels inside and what the jury decides outside. People judge by actions only, but is that enough to understand someone? I don’t think so. Still, it’s not like Mersault gives them anything else to work with, so it becomes one-sided. It makes me feel like the trial is looking for something that “makes sense” to everyone, not necessarily the truth. And in the end, I still feel like if I were on that jury, I’d probably judge him as a criminal too. That part is depressing, because I see both sides but I’m not sure anyone can really communicate. The incommunicability part reminded me of **Neon Genesis Evangelion** (the whole idea that people can’t really reach each other’s inner thoughts). I know that’s a comparison, but the feeling is the same: even if you watch someone, you still can’t truly know what they meant or felt. Then there’s the part with the judge and God. The judge likes Mersault at first, and Mersault stays calm and kind of lets things happen. But when the judge pushes him to actually believe, Mersault says no, and suddenly the relationship changes. If he wanted, he could probably escape by lying—but he doesn’t do that. He stays “realistic,” even if it costs him. During the process, everything he did is judged negatively, like the jury focuses on the “wrong” parts (how he acted at the funeral, the fact that he dated Marie the next day) more than the crime itself. It really feels like he’s treated like a dangerous kind of person because he doesn’t follow society’s rules and doesn’t show empathy the way they expect. And because of that, they sentence him to death. Before dying, the priest tries to talk to him and convert him, but Mersault refuses again and again. I thought it was intense how he gets angry at one point because the priest’s words don’t mean anything to him. Then eventually he reaches this kind of peace—not because he has hope, but because he stops expecting to be saved. That scene really got to me. It describes an acceptance that feels impossible until you’re right there at the edge. On the last night, he thinks about his mom again. I liked that the story makes it feel like his mom’s final state was also about accepting something she couldn’t change—like she was freed to live in her own way. And toward the end, the book connects his mom’s final state to Nietzsche’s ideas, like the “three metamorphoses” (camel → lion → child). I get what it’s trying to say: dropping burdens, destroying old rules, and then starting again—kind of like innocence. Overall, I don’t know how to feel about it, but it left me with a strong mix of confusion and recognition. Like, the story makes you question if justice can ever really understand someone who doesn’t think or act the way society wants.