This book has been widely discussed from a philosophical point of view, being Camus a key exponent of existencialism. But beyond any philosophical analysis, this seems to be a book about feelings - or maybe for that matter, about not feeling, about how life is lived or just passed by, about how the world keeps moving despite the protagonist apparent lack of interest and respect for that movement.
We would love to hear how did it make you feel this first part in which the protagonist is introduced and his crime takes place. What do you think about him? What about the people that surrounds him? How do they react to his general apathy? Do they even realize?
I have been positively surprised by this book. I didn't doubt it was a good, worth-reading book, but I did not expect to enjoy it's reading that much.
ReplyDeleteRegardless wether I am getting or not all its existencialism dimension, I find very interesting the characters description as well as how they interact with one another in what it seems to be an average, inertia-driven life.
The protagonist's lack of empathy and interest on making judgments made me feel uneasy sometimes and annoyed at others. It seems that he lives his life without making any moral judgements that might affect his decisions beyond what makes him feel ok or annoyed.
It makes sense to read that he seems to have no closer relationship with anybody. That's why it is surprising the relationship that develops with Marie. Once she gets to know him better, or better said, once she gets to spend more time with him, doesn't she realize how strange he is? How hollowed?
His cold, casual attitude when killing the Arab is scary.
I look forward to reading the second part!
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteSorry for my late participation! One of the reasons for my delay, amongst others, is my initial lack of interest in this book (sorry Jorge!). I couldn’t make up my mind to grab it and start reading.
But now, I have to admit I find it quite interesting. I never read before anything described as existentialist and I admit that I find this style fascinating. Probably appropriate for a short novel, as reading such a feelingless approach probably gets boring after a while.
I wonder if this lack of feelings and empathy can be real. You kill people because you are hot and uncomfortable? You are not sorry for your mother’s death because you feel sleepy? The narrative is so simple but so deep at the same time. It is an apparent sequence of straight forward facts with profound implications.
As Macarena points out, the interaction with other characters is extremely surreal. The characters themselves are strange. Raimundo? The neighbour with the dog? Human relationships are so awckward and complex sometimes.
Like Almudena... I look forward to reading part two!