What is your favorite Camus and why?

Except that's wrong. It's pronounced albɛʁ kamy. The y is the ue sound from rue,s imilar to the ew in stew.

Me until last year tbh6

Only read The Plague by him but I want to read The Stranger soon. I hear a lot of good things and I like his writing style.

(Also I thought it was just pronounced "came-us"?)

Well, I guess it would have to be Albert, because I don't really know of anyone else with that surname.

I liked his four of his five novels (I have no read The First Man. A Happy Death was the weakest, although considering it is his first and unfinished novel that was partially cannibalised to write The Stranger, it's not very uprising.

I dislike all of his plays. I don't think they have any redeeming qualities. Utterly tiresome. His essays I find to be hit or miss, but none of them essential. The only philosophical work of his I have read is tMoS. A strange work in that it's in reality a work of pop philosophy but dresses itself up as a serious work thus alienating everyone. It's needlessly verbose and incredibly long winded, but considering how short it is and for someone who has some background in philosophy is a pretty straightforward read. I don't regret reading it only because it helps illuminate his other writings.

His writing style is very different in every book. I

...

I didn't really find the Myth of Sisyphus to be that verbose.

Illuminating his other writings is pretty much the purpose of it. It's not so much meant to be a standalone work of philosophy (in my opinion) as an epilogue to the Stranger that explains what Camus meant.

You haven't read L'homme Revolte yet? With The Plague it's his best imo.

Cameltus is a great place to start philosophy, even if he was a dirty Arab.

>I didn't really find the Myth of Sisyphus to be that verbose

It takes him just over 100 pages to posit what could have easily been done in 20: the language is just so typically French in its needless excesses of vocabulary far up and beyond what it needs as a philosophical work, the work starts with wholly unnecessary diatribes on Husserl, Kierkegaard and Shestov, and that the single most important part of the work-describing how we overcome the paradox of an imperative thou shalt in regards to the Absurd, when the Absurd itself is necessarily devoid of all imperatives-is filled with nothing more than literary obfuscation which only attempts to mask the fact that he never puts forward an argument for it.

The Plague (along with The Last Man if we consider it) are the only major works of his that I haven't read. My Camus phase is long since over and I have no desire to delve into The Rebel anytime soon. The primary question of the work, can one take another's life (or perhaps what are ones obligations to others), is so often the very same topic of his later works, that I don't feel that reading it which shed all that much light on his ideas towards the matter. If I am wrong on this last point it doesn't bother me. There is only so much time to read, and I feel I have given Camus my fair share.

>aimer camus
plèbes

Ṕlëbǣṥ.