Nausea

I read half this book a few years back. I put it down for some reason but am thinking of reading it again. Is it like the stranger, where it has a profound philosophical message at the end that the book leads up to? Or is the second half more of the first half, just some guy walking around the town doing mundane things? Convince me to read it or not to without giving away the end.

>without giving away the end
Don't read it, this alone shows that it's not for you.

Would like to know too. I read it about ten years ago and all I remember was the main character having profound anxiety throughout. I always assumed it was meant to display the wild meaningless of life, found in a character experiencing a crisis which he could not understand. I always assumed I was wrong because that sounds incredibly simple.

Why? Who would want a book they're about to read to be spoiled? How would wanting this book to be spoiled enhance the reading experience?

It's an existentialist crisis.

Dude, it's 300 pages! Just finish the thing!

I'm not the OP. I finished the book a decade ago.

That even being a concern when reading a philosophical novel is ridiculous.

It's a concern with any novel. I'm not a pseudo intellectual who will read the wikipedia of novels before hand. You're supposed to experience a novel (even a philosophical novel) in the way the author intends, being fed information and led in different directions when the author decides you should be. Not by learning the ending through wikipedia before hand so you can pretend you figured out what the novel is about by yourself.

Yeah, asking random strangers about the worth of a novel without spoiling the plot on the internet is a far more profound and intellectual way of going about things than reading a Wikipedia page!