The back of the book says “the nakedness of man faced with the absurd”. To me, Meursault’s situation isn’t so much absurd as it is a consequence of his actions—his inaction IS action—and poor choices. He shows no sympathy toward the struggling man who loved his mother at the care home when he falls behind. When he befriends a terrible man who casually admits domestic violence and worse thoughts, he doesn’t so much as flinch. In fact, he condones his violence against women and joins in by writing the letter. He strings his own girlfriend along and, etc, etc. I could make more points, but I’ll get on because you likely already know the book. He is a wet rag of a man, a candle in the wind, that at any point could have slammed the brakes on his destiny if he had any moral fibre. I didn’t find his situation absurd (maybe slightly), but mostly as consequential! For all that, I really liked the book. The prose was awesome. The story held my attention. But I think I was expecting something more philosophical than it was. I have know sympathy for him. I don’t think it’s absurd that that your spineless action and inaction have consequence. I enjoyed his writing enough to read another one of his books. Which do you recommended? … And am I the only one who thinks like this about The Stranger? submitted by /u/Gargoyle0ne [link] [comments]