oucheh wrote:I've only read The Plague.

Based on that book alone, a very solid NOT CRAP.

Which of his books should I start in on next?

-Jeremy

Check out The Fall, or maybe The Stranger (also known as The Outsider). A huge Not Crap.

Mama Clortho wrote:The Rebel - Crap WF7

Why is this? I haven't read it, but nothing else he has written even comes close to crap.
The Stranger is one of my all time favorite books. His short stories are great too.
Although his philosophy may not have been air tight, he was constantly re-evaluating it, and seemed like a stand up guy.
Not crap at all.

i went through a little existentialist phase right out of college, when i decided i needed to read camus and sartre because i was a 'college graduate' and fancied myself an intellectual, and hell, I'd be a hypocrite if I had never read camus or sartre. Oh, and Hesse was in the mix too, though I don't think he counts as 'existentialist'. Anyway, it was a package deal of self-imposed obligation.

So, with this contrived pretext of motivation, I got to it, and found that I actually enjoyed Camus, and couldn't really get into Sartre.

Never read The Fall, though!

simmo wrote:Camus v. Sartre? = Camus

I agree. Camus' novels are overall very good, L'Etranger being the best, in my opinion. His work helps make the world around you more clear, and do so in a simple way. He renders absurdity understandable and human.
Sartre's work is, in my opinion, very different in effect. He tends to complicate matters by his over-analysis and repetition, see Saint Genet. This is the most long-winded and repetitive hyperbole I have ever read. I love Genet's writing and whatever you say about him he is a very interesting character, except when at the hands of Sartre. Stylistically, it reads like a case study of Being and Nothingness. The Age of Reason contains my least favorite character of all time, Ivich. She is the kind of character I would imagine a high school girl to write.
Overall, Camus' humanity, clarity and understanding are much greater achievements than Sartre's verbosity and negativity.

rzs wrote:The Age of Reason contains my least favorite character of all time, Ivich. She is the kind of character I would imagine a high school girl to write.

funnily enough, I enjoyed this Sartre novel a lot, especially in comparison to Nausea. I'm not sure quite why - I think the idea of some vague group dynamic as opposed to the solipsism of Nausea made it more bearable - true, the characters were horrible, but somehow vagely sympathetic... maybe Sartre's desperate attempt to add some weight to their [his own] superficial and egocentric musings reminded me of myself and many others I know...

simmo wrote:

rzs wrote:The Age of Reason contains my least favorite character of all time, Ivich. She is the kind of character I would imagine a high school girl to write.

funnily enough, I enjoyed this Sartre novel a lot, especially in comparison to Nausea. I'm not sure quite why - I think the idea of some vague group dynamic as opposed to the solipsism of Nausea made it more bearable - true, the characters were horrible, but somehow vagely sympathetic... maybe Sartre's desperate attempt to add some weight to their [his own] superficial and egocentric musings reminded me of myself and many others I know...

I see what you're saying. I just felt so personally annoyed by Mathieu and Ivich's selfishness (especially her's) that I disliked that book more. But Sartre might say that is precisely the point he wanted to make for all I know. Nausea isn't much better though. I mean, the autodidact????? Come on.
Neither of those, however, is as bad as Being and Nothingness. I truly believe that anyone who suffers from insomnia could be cured if only they attempted to read this book. The trick is to concentrate heavily on it. If you can do this and not fall asleep, you are probably dead. In that case you wouldn't have to bother anyway.

Being and Nothingness is, indeed, a difficult read. I am used to reading philosophical treatises--I actually really enjoy reading them--but I couldn't make it through this beast. Sartre's play, No Exit, however, sticks with me as a terrific, eerie work.

Camus is good, as well. I've read L'Etranger et Le Peste, and thought both were interesting.

Not Crap.

NerblyBear wrote: Sartre's play, No Exit, however, sticks with me as a terrific, eerie work.

When I was at uni my friend Steve played the part of the butler / guide who shows the three guests into the chamber. He wasn't interested in acting, he just wanted to do it because it was Sartre and that play. By just being that, he was excellent.

Camus changed my life. As far from crap as is possible.

philosophers are not crap
people who dont do anything..dont think anything and say crap about a philosopher are crap
when you think more than you can explain yourself..it's really crap!
Im gonna learn more english soon..