What does Veeky Forums think about Albert Camus ?

What does Veeky Forums think about Albert Camus ?

Great short story writer.
Good essayist.
Mediocre novelist.
Not a philosopher.
Cool guy.

what about as a playwright?

Myth of wew is terrible, no substance
Stranger is awful
The fall is OK
He seemed a neat guy. But small

Not him but absolutely awful. The worst things he has written.

I think a lot about what he would have written if he had lived longer. I once heard it said he was moving from an obsession with Dostoevsky (whose influence can obviously be seen in his early work) and reading a great deal more Tolstoy. I don't know how true that was, but there is the stereotype of Dostoevsky being a "young man's" writer and that we move onto Tolstoy with time (a simplification, which nevertheless contains elements of truth).

As it stands I can't rank him as a great novelist, but for some reason, I get the feeling that, if he had lived longer, and really assimilated the messages of Tolstoy, using him as inspiration in same way he used Dosto, then he would have produced a truly great novel, one undeniably up there with the 20th century greats, and would have founded a stream of literature, which set itself apart by lacking the teenage elements of Dosto (the obsession with nihilism, the constant pervasive sense of drama(Dosto was the greatest playwright never to have written a play)), which plague his earlier work, and following instead the Tolstoyan model.

Instead, the 20th century became a Dostoyevskyan century, every work a lesser fragmentation of his Brothers Karamazov (Not that this is at all dismissive; it's a wonderful book), populated by exaggerated psychology, an unfounded distaste for naturalism, and a subtle conservatism (present even among the most left-wing writers of the modern and post-modern tradition) which reveals itself in the post-modern suspicion of "ideology" and "ideologues".

The death of Albert Camus came too early. As with Keats and Shelley, when we read his work, what is far more dominant than the actual work which stands before us is the tragic sense, which pervades his corpus, of what could have been.

>a truly great novel, one undeniably up there with the 20th century greats
La Peste et L'Étranger are great though

Might have to start reading "the fall". The stranger struck me as pretty lame, I mean it followed the concept, but it turned out to be boring and less engaging than I thought.

Reading The myth of "wew" at the moment, three chapters in and i'm still waiting for something more profound.

I fucking hating him, he justifies resignation and quitting on everything in life. I think it's harmful to people to write what he writes.

And I have personal hatred of him because I'm Algerian and every Algerian loves that a French guy wrote stories set in Algeria and is loved by the French, because they have a colonized complex.

>post-modern suspicion of "ideology" and "ideologues"
>post-modern

>he justifies resignation and quitting on everything in life.
Fucking dumb shitskin.

Yeah man, I love them (there are going to be a lot of contrarians in this thread trying to claim L'Etranger isn't a great book, when it clearly is). What I mean by a "truly great novel" has less to do with actual quality and more to do with magnitude and imposition. I think he would have produced a novel which, rather than being a perfect little island in and of itself (like The Stranger), would been a "powerful" novel, that, like Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow (or more relevantly War and Peace or A.K) would exert a massive outside influence and change the course of literature. I don't know if this makes sense, but that's what I mean by "great".

Dig?

>And I have personal hatred of him because I'm Algerian
He wasn't an OAS type of guy, he actually respected the arabs and the kabyles.

I don't know where you get that impression, to me he doesn't at all sound like, or extrapolate into, a big-novel kind of guy

Good point.
I'm far to be an expert in litterature, and 90% of the books I read were written by French authors. These novels (La Peste and L'Étranger) really impressed me.

I wouldn't really call any of Dostoyevsky's works outside of Demons essentially conservative (although there are clear elements of it in the other books) but really just anti-utopian. He was supremely disappointed in the revolutionaries' promises of a utopia and that's what he ultimately proved in his work. In a similar vein, it could be argued that Camus took this stance against Sartre's communist ideas

You didn't read the rest of my sentence.

I don't care that he was French and that the French colonized Algeria. I dislike the fact that he is liked by Algerians solely because his stories are set in Algeria and he is considered a classic in France, like they can get a piece of the prestige. It's humiliating.

Doesn't he?

You don't think a turn away from moralism and exposition of belief can be identified as part of post-modern literature? You need to read more user.

Of course, I'm not saying post-modern works aren't ideological. Clearly, Thomas Pynchon et al. (as well as philosophy like Foucault and Derrida) have opinions, which they disseminate through their literature, but they cloak their true intentions, because, for example, Ruggles felt that if he simply came out and portrayed the brutality and senselessness of war in an uncomplicated, straightforward manner, no one would take him seriously, because it had been done before. So he cloaks it. He's not just objecting to war; he's mocking it, satirizing it, because he feels it to be more effective (though this should be called into question). This is all part of their desire to seem unideological, to put themselves beyond criticism.

How often do you hear critiques of movies (or any artwork) that are moralistic in nature? Not often. We've been tarined to believe this is the "wrong" way to think about art. Remember that super-edgy movie that came out a few year back (A Serbian Film I think it was called). Remember how many critics, even though the film clearly offended and disgusted them in a very moral sense (regardless of whether their reaction was justified), were hesitant to condemn it using moral language, and instead cloak their true feelings by making aesthetic criticisms. "The director says it's allegorical, that somehow it's an allegory for Serbian family, Serbian politics. If this is so, then the allegory just gets lost amidst the increasingly stupid, uh, splatter." This is a review by Mark Kermode, the British film critic; I'm sure you could find many more in a similar vein. This in-authenticity is inherently post-modern, and I'm not sure how you could disagree.

It's not his fault though. Blame the Algerians, not Camus (that's what I meant)

You make a good point about Camus and Stalin. But, for me at least, anti-Utopianism is the root of conservatism, a striving to find a perfect model in the past, rather than the future. I don't deny we should be suspicious to some extent of Utopian ideas, but to disregard them entirely, as Dostoevsky and the writers of the 20th century do, leads to nihilism and the rejection of life on earth. This is something you don't find in Tolstoy, and I think his major appeal. He's a much more "earthly", immanent novelist than Dostoevsky. Which, broadly, is why I think it would have been interesting to have a major novelist in the last century who championed Tolstoy over Dostoevsky as an influence. this is all subjective obviously

Believe me, I'm far from an expert myself. And The Stranger is a deeply impressive novel. But its impressive in a certain way: because it's so self-contained and "perfect", if you know what I mean? For a long time it was my favourite novel. I need to revisit La Peste; I read it really quickly and in a way that wasn't conducive to really appreciating it.

I know what you mean. But that's an impression you get form the novels he wrote, not the imaginary novel he could have written that I'm shilling in this thread. I look at Dostoevsky as a kind of neutering or castrating influence on Camus. I think Camus had to force his ideas into smaller packages due to his influence. And I think, his relationship with Tolstoy would have been a great deal more fruitful, optimistic and affirmative, because of the amount they have in common (Camus' ethics, pseudo-anarchism, would have benefited more from exposure to Tolstoyan influence than they did from Dostoevsky). Again, this is all just an impression I get; don't take it too seriously. It's pretty subjective.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by anti-Utopianism
The way I used it was intended to mean that there can never be a utopia (on earth at least) but also that there never was one. There's a quote from dosto where he says quite explicitly that he believes that the only way for the injustices of the world to be righted was im the realm of God.
I've only read L'étranger and myth of sysiphus, but I get this vibe from Camus as well (I have a copy of the fall that im gonna read in the coming days)

I think I'm betraying my very surface-level awareness of Dostoyevsky in this thread t b h man

I think it's worth remembering that the whole "injustice righted in the realm of God" thing could be interpreted as a form of conservatism (the fall of grace of man and the garden of Eden is the ultimate in recognizing a lost paradise in the past). So, Dostoevsky's believe in this, could be interpreted as conservatism, because he believes that this paradise can never be made immanent on earth and is lost to the past (or the realm of god, but there is little difference).

I get a similar vibe from Camus as well, but also detect an uneasiness and in-authenticity about it. I think he believes more in his ideals than he lets on; he just fudges them, because of the artistic context in which he worked

I think you're kinda forcing it
I'm not saying Dostoyevsky wasn't a conservative (he most definitely was) but that the philosophy he outlined in his works isn't inherently conservative (especially as nationalism rises again on the right)

It's just a thought I've entertained. I don't take it all that seriously myself.

I'm interested in how you would distinguish Dostoevsky's philosophy from the man's political beliefs though. It seems to me if he was conservative, then his works would also promote a conservative ethic. So if you can elucidate that, I'd be very interested. (I don't use conservative as a criticism in and of itself; I just think that essentially conservative thinkers have influenced and stultified the "progressive" thinkers of the 20th century, and racked them with a cynicism that halts progress rather than encouraging it.)

>I fucking hating him, he justifies resignation and quitting on everything in life.
This is just an incorrect assessment of his philosophy.

>every Algerian loves that a French guy wrote stories set in Algeria and is loved by the French
There is a word for people who judge things by the way other people interact with them rather than by the merits of the subject in question. We call them hipsters.

I would argue that the philosophy outlined in his works pushes a more apathetic aesthetic than a conservative one. To me, it says that you can change society however you like but it will never get appreciably better (especially with respect to existential angst). This seems conservative but at least to me, most of the current right wing is at least as, if not more idealistic than the left. Both nationalists and conservatives have a past state in which everything was better but dosto's philosophy would say that that ideal society will never exist and it certainly won't alleviate your existential angst

This was quite a well-written post user, goodjob.

Unfortunately you seem to be under the false impression that the core ideas of camus have any merit or depth at all. His entire 'philosophy' just boils down to 'do what makes you happy'. No matter how long Camus had to ruminate on Tolstoy, his core ideas would still be trash..

If 'do what makes you happy' irritates you people enough that you have to take it to task on grounds of depth, hasn't it indirectly created its own depth

Just because a critique consisting of 'it grossed me out' would have been more authentic, would it really have been a better review. The purpose of a movie review is to give people who are trying to decide whether to see the movie some information. Movie reviews are not blogs and I couldn't care less what the movie reviewer felt, no matter how authentic, if their review doesn't give me a sense of the movie they're reviewing. I think you're taking Wallace's ideas and applying them to things that they don't apply to.

Mate, he wasn't a philosopher (nor did he claim to be), so there's no point dwelling on his philosophy. Neither was Tolstoy. They were novelists, both great novelists, and Camus could have learned a great deal from Tolstoy. Unless you think that the only thing matters in literature is "the core ideas" in a work, in which case, back to Veeky Forums...

Grumpy motherfucker.

not at all. I don't disagree with Camus at all, I just don't respect him as an author or intellectual for telling me to do something that I, and pretty much everyone else, is doing anyway(trying to be happy).

hack
>wants to live
>wont lie about believing in god and shit

>absurdism
>you cant kill yourself because you give in to the absurd
>rolls rock up hill endlessly
if he had said he was just too pussy to kill himself, i would be happy. but no, he comes up with self contradicting bs.

that being said, i dont kill myself because i know it would destroy my mom and she seems p happy right now

This is nicely written post, but pretty delusional, user. Vastly overstating the influence of Camus on the rest of 20th century lit. Many major writers disparaged him.

Original.
Philosophy and art as one.

Well, I've never read Wallace (apart from some of his essays), but I'm aware that I'm working in a cultural milieu which you could say is heavily influenced by his ideas. It's pretty astute of you to point that out; it's not a bias I would have ever considered.

What I'd question is whether the review dependent on aesthetic criticism is more legitimate than the one based on moral argument. If a review consisted of "it grossed me out" or "it offended me" we would rightfully dismiss it, but one consisting of aesthetic arguments might be making the same moral claim, but simply masking it by saying for example , "it bored me, because I have seen this sort of thing before" in order to avoid saying "I have seen films like this, and they offended or disgusted me, and so I was offended by this film". Neither are legitimate criticisms. The problem is privileging the one kind of argument above the other when, aesthetic arguments are often used to mask moralism, not to stand on their own. And this is a definite trend.

I'm not sure how my post overstates Camus' influence, when it focuses mostly on the influence he didn't have, and the influence he could have had if he hadn't died at the age he did.

out of interest, what major writers disparage him (I know Nabakov (and Sartre but he doesnt count), but who else)?

> His entire 'philosophy' just boils down to 'do what makes you happy'
It just doesn't. This is the kind of conclusion that people come to if they only read the first half of The Stranger and ignore his later novels and The Rebel. Any account of his life will also show how hallow such a claim is.

The user you're replying to might have been a little dismissive, but you have to admit the tendency to consider Camus a philosopher with a serious, systematic philosophy is a strange one, especially since the man himself made no such claim.

I agree with everything you said which is why I am so confused as to why you said it in response to my post.

Well, the point I was trying to make was that, by entering into an extended consideration of Camus as a philosopher, you're looking at him from the wrong angle. He's a writer, and a great writer at that, but his philosophy really doesn't stand on its own, to my mind. His answers are satisfying within the context of his work, but they can't really be applied to the reader's life the same way a real philosopher's ideas can.

Huh. Can anyone else back this up? I found a copy of Caligula / Le malentendu at a local bookstore for 3 bucks, was excited to read if only to practice reading more French.

Why do people say he isn't a TRUE philosopher? What standards are they applying that Sartre or Nietzsche meet?

Camus himself didn't consider himself a philosopher. He primarily concerned himself with studying the phenomenon of the absurd. He actually didn't give a shit about philosophy and that's basically what he's saying in the opening of Myth of Sisyphus, all that shit is secondary to the topic of the absurd.

Camus repudiates resignation and quitting. He acknowledges that the condition of looking for meaning juxtaposed against a pervasive inability to find it within the universe can cause a person to give up, but he considers it the ultimate goal of every being to continue on in spite of the lack of meaning. Embrace the punishment thrust upon all of us and find a happiness in it, make the punishment into a form of pleasure and spit into the wind. If you resign and quit you turn to suicide, the ultimate form of giving up and for Camus that just isn't an option.

Camus wasn't do what makes you happy, he was find the happiness within the pain. Camus viewed life as a great struggle for happiness. It's a shame he didn't live to see the revival of virtue ethics, because certain parts lend themselves to it quite well.