The Fall (Vintage International)
NOBEL PRIZE-WINNING AUTHOR • One of the most widely read novels of all time—from one of the best-known writers of all time—about a lawyer from Paris who brilliantly illuminates the human condition.
Elegantly styled, Camus' profoundly disturbing novel of a Parisian lawyer's confessions is a searing study of modern amorality.
BUY THE BOOK
Community Reviews
re-read this for the first time since high school. I cannot imagine what I would have made of it then - still a few things in it I didn't quite know what to make of despite having been exposed to way more of Camus, philosophy, life, etc.
It did feel fairly relevant - especially in America, there are always plenty of Christians running around judging everyone while using personal relationships with the divine to excuse their own inconsistencies, infidelities, inhumanity, etc. Although I feel like the most prominent strain of right wing fanatics are achieving heights of cognitive dissonance Camus never dreamt of.
It also made me think of the way that revelations from the psychologist's couch get mobilized to excuse inaction, the need for special treatment, etc. For example, because of my trauma, I shouldn't have to read this novel in class. Only doing half (or even less) of the work of therapy. It's supposed to help you live life, not give you a reason to shelter from it.
Similarly, we too often use judgment to escape the need to account for and work with others. I want to say that I am as guilty of that as anyone, but obviously M. Clamence would laugh at my concession.
As for the experience of reading the book itself though, I felt like the last two chapters got a little two rambling, and the anecdotal rhetoric of earlier chapters was a stronger method for making his point(s). I like the Plague and Sisyphus the most because, as opposed to this and the Stranger, they seem to make more positive statements, things you can work with.
It did feel fairly relevant - especially in America, there are always plenty of Christians running around judging everyone while using personal relationships with the divine to excuse their own inconsistencies, infidelities, inhumanity, etc. Although I feel like the most prominent strain of right wing fanatics are achieving heights of cognitive dissonance Camus never dreamt of.
It also made me think of the way that revelations from the psychologist's couch get mobilized to excuse inaction, the need for special treatment, etc. For example, because of my trauma, I shouldn't have to read this novel in class. Only doing half (or even less) of the work of therapy. It's supposed to help you live life, not give you a reason to shelter from it.
Similarly, we too often use judgment to escape the need to account for and work with others. I want to say that I am as guilty of that as anyone, but obviously M. Clamence would laugh at my concession.
As for the experience of reading the book itself though, I felt like the last two chapters got a little two rambling, and the anecdotal rhetoric of earlier chapters was a stronger method for making his point(s). I like the Plague and Sisyphus the most because, as opposed to this and the Stranger, they seem to make more positive statements, things you can work with.
Well, at the very least it made me think. There were a few moments where I was really intrigued by a thought or something said made me go down another road of thinking.
But.
This feels very much in the category of self-important writing by ennui-filled white men. I..just... don't care. And at the end of the book? It was all about "dominating" and "feeling superior" and maybe that's just him thinking it and really it's about how his fall means none of this is true but in any case it left me with objectionable mouthfeel.
Am I glad I read it? Sure, three hours on audiobook and it was interesting, at the very least. Will I recommend it to anyone? Nah.
But.
This feels very much in the category of self-important writing by ennui-filled white men. I..just... don't care. And at the end of the book? It was all about "dominating" and "feeling superior" and maybe that's just him thinking it and really it's about how his fall means none of this is true but in any case it left me with objectionable mouthfeel.
Am I glad I read it? Sure, three hours on audiobook and it was interesting, at the very least. Will I recommend it to anyone? Nah.
I'm fundamentally not down with existentialism, specifically because I reject moral relativism. For me, and admittedly this is a bit imprecise, right and wrong come from our inner sense of God- regardless of whether or not you believe in God or gods. Of course, not everyone has a robust sense of right and wrong, and if you're of the might-makes-right camp then you're Godless no matter what you profess. So a novel full of such guilty-conscience suffering strikes me as belying it's own existentialist thesis.
See why thousands of readers are using Bookclubs to stay connected.