What do you think?
Rate this book
The Boxer and the Goalkeeper: Sartre vs Camus
Jean-Paul Sartre is the author of possibly the most notorious one-liner of twentieth-century philosophy: 'Hell is other people'. Albert Camus was The Outsider. The two men first came together in Occupied Paris in the middle of the Second World War, and quickly became friends, comrades, and mutual admirers. But the intellectual honeymoon was short-lived. In 1943, with Nazis patrolling the streets, Sartre and Camus sat in a café on the boulevard Saint-Germain with Simone de Beauvoir and began a discussion about life and love and literature that would pull them all together and finally tear them apart. They ended up on opposite sides in a war of words over just about everything: women, philosophy, politics. Their fraught, fractured friendship culminated in a bitter and very public feud that was described as 'the end of a love-affair' but which never really finished.
Sartre was a boxer and a drug-addict; Camus was a goalkeeper who subscribed to a degree-zero approach to style and ecstasy. Sartre, obsessed with his own ugliness, took up the challenge of accumulating women; Camus, part-Bogart, part-Samurai, was also a self-confessed Don Juan who aspired to chastity. Sartre and Camus play out an epic struggle between the symbolic and the savage. But what if the friction between these two unique individuals is also the source of our own inevitable conflicts?
The Boxer and the Goalkeeper: Sartre vs Camus reconstructs the intense and antagonistic relationship that was (in Sartre's terms) 'doomed to failure'. Weaving together the lives and ideas and writings of Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, Andy Martin relives the existential drama that still binds them inseparably together and remixes a philosophical dialogue that speaks to us now.
Sartre was a boxer and a drug-addict; Camus was a goalkeeper who subscribed to a degree-zero approach to style and ecstasy. Sartre, obsessed with his own ugliness, took up the challenge of accumulating women; Camus, part-Bogart, part-Samurai, was also a self-confessed Don Juan who aspired to chastity. Sartre and Camus play out an epic struggle between the symbolic and the savage. But what if the friction between these two unique individuals is also the source of our own inevitable conflicts?
The Boxer and the Goalkeeper: Sartre vs Camus reconstructs the intense and antagonistic relationship that was (in Sartre's terms) 'doomed to failure'. Weaving together the lives and ideas and writings of Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, Andy Martin relives the existential drama that still binds them inseparably together and remixes a philosophical dialogue that speaks to us now.
352 pages, Paperback
First published May 24, 2012
14 people are currently reading
157 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
May 12, 2018
This book is basically a biography of Camus and Sartre’s relationship, and I’m giving this a two starts because whilst I flew through it I also want to critique a few parts of this text. It really depends on what you want from this book to determine whether it’s actually worth reading.
I liked that it was very accessible and you could read it as a light bedtime read because it wasn’t really bogging you down with a lot of heavy philosophy. It really stayed true to just examining the two men’s lives without forcing you to wrap your head around any huge themes. But that’s also a bad point, because it didn’t really explain what existentialism was or define any of its key terms. It talked a lot about Sartre and Camus’s clashes, but didn’t fully explain them in terms of the philosophy.
There were also really long sections dedicated to Martin imagining play-script-like what Camus and Sartre would have said to each other, which I found really pointless and self-satisfying. They did nothing for the book, so I skipped them. Why a fictional conversation would be useful for a reader I do not know.
Overall, this book is pretty much fine for anyone like me who’s interested in the two figures and wants to know more about their lives and relationship. But it didn’t tell me anything I already knew, apart from a few insignificant pieces of trivia, so wouldn’t really say it’s made an impact on my knowledge of them. I would recommend Bakewell’s At the Existentialist Cafe instead - an absolutely amazing book, which looks at the theories of existentialism, the history and the key figures and traces it through time. The Boxer and the Goalkeeper was a poor man’s version of this.
I liked that it was very accessible and you could read it as a light bedtime read because it wasn’t really bogging you down with a lot of heavy philosophy. It really stayed true to just examining the two men’s lives without forcing you to wrap your head around any huge themes. But that’s also a bad point, because it didn’t really explain what existentialism was or define any of its key terms. It talked a lot about Sartre and Camus’s clashes, but didn’t fully explain them in terms of the philosophy.
There were also really long sections dedicated to Martin imagining play-script-like what Camus and Sartre would have said to each other, which I found really pointless and self-satisfying. They did nothing for the book, so I skipped them. Why a fictional conversation would be useful for a reader I do not know.
Overall, this book is pretty much fine for anyone like me who’s interested in the two figures and wants to know more about their lives and relationship. But it didn’t tell me anything I already knew, apart from a few insignificant pieces of trivia, so wouldn’t really say it’s made an impact on my knowledge of them. I would recommend Bakewell’s At the Existentialist Cafe instead - an absolutely amazing book, which looks at the theories of existentialism, the history and the key figures and traces it through time. The Boxer and the Goalkeeper was a poor man’s version of this.
February 20, 2016
"Sartre vs Camus: The Boxer and the Goalkeeper" looks at mainly the fallout between the two famous philosophers.
The clash of egos between the two men becomes the focus-point of the book, detailing their characters rather than their works.
Sartre and Camus first became friends in Occupied Paris in the middle of the Second World War.
Along with Simone de Beauvoir they became the most important voices of the 20th century on existentialism and socialist revolt.
Both saw the human condition as contradictory but that life should have meaning.
They were mutual admirers of each other's work until they ended up on opposite sides in a war of words over everything: women,philosophy and politics. Their friendship ended in a bitter public feud that was described as the "end of the love affair".
Andy Martin sees Sartre as the boxer and Camus the goal keeper. (Sartre practised boxing at a younger age; Camus, football. The boxer - a heavy hitter and the the form of all human struggle and the goalkeeper - The Outsider- not quite part of the team. )
The book is easy to read, light-hearted, witty and humourous.
I felt that the writer sometimes focused too much on their physical appearances rather than their works but presents a fresh view on the philosophical dialogue that still speaks to us today.
What I got out of it was a clearer understanding of the similarities and differences between the two men and their philosophy.
Quotable: "...for Camus it became clear that the idea of Sartrean existentialism as a form of rugged individualism, the lonely anomic soul wandering through a solipsistic universe was radically wrong. It was almost the opposite : everyone was tightly locked into everyone else like the instruments of an orchestra..."
The clash of egos between the two men becomes the focus-point of the book, detailing their characters rather than their works.
Sartre and Camus first became friends in Occupied Paris in the middle of the Second World War.
Along with Simone de Beauvoir they became the most important voices of the 20th century on existentialism and socialist revolt.
Both saw the human condition as contradictory but that life should have meaning.
They were mutual admirers of each other's work until they ended up on opposite sides in a war of words over everything: women,philosophy and politics. Their friendship ended in a bitter public feud that was described as the "end of the love affair".
Andy Martin sees Sartre as the boxer and Camus the goal keeper. (Sartre practised boxing at a younger age; Camus, football. The boxer - a heavy hitter and the the form of all human struggle and the goalkeeper - The Outsider- not quite part of the team. )
The book is easy to read, light-hearted, witty and humourous.
I felt that the writer sometimes focused too much on their physical appearances rather than their works but presents a fresh view on the philosophical dialogue that still speaks to us today.
What I got out of it was a clearer understanding of the similarities and differences between the two men and their philosophy.
Quotable: "...for Camus it became clear that the idea of Sartrean existentialism as a form of rugged individualism, the lonely anomic soul wandering through a solipsistic universe was radically wrong. It was almost the opposite : everyone was tightly locked into everyone else like the instruments of an orchestra..."
July 21, 2014
This is the worst book I've read this year by a quite comfortable margin.
Picked it up as I'm interested in both writers and I was looking for a general background on their relationship - but should have flicked through it in the bookshop before paying for it. Turns out that it's the author's creative writing attempt at how he thinks conversations between Camus and Satre panned out (including an unsubstantiated love triangle with de Beauvoir).
Despite not being what I was hoping for, it started out as vaguely engaging but then descended into utter tedium at a rapid pace of knots.
Picked it up as I'm interested in both writers and I was looking for a general background on their relationship - but should have flicked through it in the bookshop before paying for it. Turns out that it's the author's creative writing attempt at how he thinks conversations between Camus and Satre panned out (including an unsubstantiated love triangle with de Beauvoir).
Despite not being what I was hoping for, it started out as vaguely engaging but then descended into utter tedium at a rapid pace of knots.
April 20, 2023
Read as history or philosophy, I think this is bound to disappoint. Martin keeps the spotlight trained tightly on the title-card pair, leading to a myopic view of a dyad that was in fact immersed in a broad network of other thinkers and actors. There's not much technical explication of the two men's works, nor any real effort to situate them among other thinkers. Hell, Beauvoir is depicted mostly as an observer and occasional hype-man here. You might come away thinking Merleau-Ponty is Sartre's secretary or something. In that regard, this book is clearly inferior to Sarah Bakewell's At the Existentialist Café, which offers a much richer view of the midcentury French intellectual milieu. In comparison, this is like a TMZ-ified focus on the catfights of the queens of the scene.
However, I'd venture that that's the wrong way to read this text. Martin isn't really doing "history" or academic "philosophy" but rather is using these figures to think through ways of being in the world. He sets up a polarity between Sartre and Camus across essentially all dimensions, turning each into an exemplar of opposed styles of living. He doesn't ever reference Girard, but that other Frenchman would nod approvingly at Martin's inhabited descriptions of mimetic rivalry. And he writes that battle as a frenetic report from the frontlines, more impassioned than reasoned. The closest analogue I can think of is some Benzedrine-fueled Beatnik rap: falling all over yourself to motormouth the insights arriving too fast to spit out. Not all of it holds up in the morning, but that's not the point. The value is in the experience. In that sense, Martin honors the core of existentialism. This book is the record of the fireworks that went off in his head when he learned about Sartre and Camus, and he's not gonna let a little thing like the factual record get in the way of that.
That's why good chunks of this are devoted to artificial dialogues between the two. It's frustrating if you're coming at this from the fact-based community, because it's nigh-impossible to tell what the actual historical figures said vs. what Martin cut from whole cloth. There's little effort to delineate passages from primary texts, and only scanty endnotes gesturing vaguely to their sources. Closed-door scenarios are presented in vivid detail, and Martin often seems to have unfettered access to the players' interiority when he wants to. Better to see these failures of objectivity as the uncontrolled spread of Martin's efforts to breathe fire into the equations of history. Who cares if it's "this really happened" true, when it's true for me? Martin's goal here, as the kids say, is a vibe.
And honestly, that vibe comes through in spades. There's a kind of joyful recklessness in this text crashing through history to find the same search for passion and identity that every thoughtful teenager undergoes. Sure it's kinda simplistic, sure it's not always internally consistent, but it matters, maaaan! This is chattering with your friends at the all-night diner, not the next morning at the library.
And that approach has its place. I don't feel like I really learned much about Sartre or Camus as objects of study, but I definitely got flashes of them as subjects. Martin should be commended for using the tools of trash culture to illuminate the human stakes of philosophy. While it cannot replace the bookshelves of discourse on these thinkers, it can have real value if you choose to surrender to its flow. If nothing else, Martin has proven his own existentialist bona fides. That said, I don't think Martin knows what "quantum" means, which adjective is definitely overused here.
This book was recommended to me by a friend with impeccable taste. His record remains unblemished.
However, I'd venture that that's the wrong way to read this text. Martin isn't really doing "history" or academic "philosophy" but rather is using these figures to think through ways of being in the world. He sets up a polarity between Sartre and Camus across essentially all dimensions, turning each into an exemplar of opposed styles of living. He doesn't ever reference Girard, but that other Frenchman would nod approvingly at Martin's inhabited descriptions of mimetic rivalry. And he writes that battle as a frenetic report from the frontlines, more impassioned than reasoned. The closest analogue I can think of is some Benzedrine-fueled Beatnik rap: falling all over yourself to motormouth the insights arriving too fast to spit out. Not all of it holds up in the morning, but that's not the point. The value is in the experience. In that sense, Martin honors the core of existentialism. This book is the record of the fireworks that went off in his head when he learned about Sartre and Camus, and he's not gonna let a little thing like the factual record get in the way of that.
That's why good chunks of this are devoted to artificial dialogues between the two. It's frustrating if you're coming at this from the fact-based community, because it's nigh-impossible to tell what the actual historical figures said vs. what Martin cut from whole cloth. There's little effort to delineate passages from primary texts, and only scanty endnotes gesturing vaguely to their sources. Closed-door scenarios are presented in vivid detail, and Martin often seems to have unfettered access to the players' interiority when he wants to. Better to see these failures of objectivity as the uncontrolled spread of Martin's efforts to breathe fire into the equations of history. Who cares if it's "this really happened" true, when it's true for me? Martin's goal here, as the kids say, is a vibe.
And honestly, that vibe comes through in spades. There's a kind of joyful recklessness in this text crashing through history to find the same search for passion and identity that every thoughtful teenager undergoes. Sure it's kinda simplistic, sure it's not always internally consistent, but it matters, maaaan! This is chattering with your friends at the all-night diner, not the next morning at the library.
And that approach has its place. I don't feel like I really learned much about Sartre or Camus as objects of study, but I definitely got flashes of them as subjects. Martin should be commended for using the tools of trash culture to illuminate the human stakes of philosophy. While it cannot replace the bookshelves of discourse on these thinkers, it can have real value if you choose to surrender to its flow. If nothing else, Martin has proven his own existentialist bona fides. That said, I don't think Martin knows what "quantum" means, which adjective is definitely overused here.
This book was recommended to me by a friend with impeccable taste. His record remains unblemished.
March 26, 2014
Not bad. If you know something about Sartre and Camus already you may not learn much, but it was a brief, breezy read. It is always obvious that Martin favours Camus over Sartre and is perhaps biased in his assesment of them, but I share his biase so I didn't mind. It would have been nice to learn a little more about De Beauvoir's stance.
November 7, 2024
Andy Martin's enthusiasm for his subjects is obvious. He tries to immerse us in the fiery relationship between Camus and Sartre, even to the point of inventing conversations. A lot of it is almost stream of consciousness, where the author riffs across tenuous allusions, affinities, analogies, and metaphors. Unfortunately, we don't get a lot of detail about actual philosophy. Instead we get attempts to "explain" positions in terms of psychological neuroses, jealousies, petty feuds, and egotism. It cheapens the philosophy, turns it into gossip. It's like those histories where the Battle of Waterloo is "explained" by Napoleon's hemorrhoids. This would make for good background for a historical novel set in the intellectual maelstrom of Paris cafés, but as an analysis of existentialism, it fails.
Or maybe it doesn't. Perhaps, at root, Existentialism isn't at all like Analytic Philosophy. Maybe it is just another form of artistic expression, no different from Surrealism or the works of Cocteau. Maybe there's nothing to it but an expression of the particular philosopher's idiosyncratic approach to the mundane vicissitudes of his everyday experience. If so, then maybe Martin's work mines all there ever was in the philosophy. That would be so sad.
Or maybe it doesn't. Perhaps, at root, Existentialism isn't at all like Analytic Philosophy. Maybe it is just another form of artistic expression, no different from Surrealism or the works of Cocteau. Maybe there's nothing to it but an expression of the particular philosopher's idiosyncratic approach to the mundane vicissitudes of his everyday experience. If so, then maybe Martin's work mines all there ever was in the philosophy. That would be so sad.
November 22, 2021
Not as good as it could have been.
One particular gripe I have is with the author's habit of presenting meetings between people in the form of a narrative - the level of detail he goes into is clearly speculation on his part and really would be better left out. This is non-fiction after all.
Another gripe is with his treatment of de Beauvoir - he never gives her the respect I think she deserves. He presents her variously as being either some sort of sexual saboteur or a passive sounding board for Sartre. The book says little of the influence she had over Sartre; their relationship flowed both ways. She was Sartre's equal in many ways and I think this should have been acknowledged.
I know this isn't an academic book but it's superficial - if you're already familiar with Sartre and Camus you'll be unlikely to get much out of this.
One particular gripe I have is with the author's habit of presenting meetings between people in the form of a narrative - the level of detail he goes into is clearly speculation on his part and really would be better left out. This is non-fiction after all.
Another gripe is with his treatment of de Beauvoir - he never gives her the respect I think she deserves. He presents her variously as being either some sort of sexual saboteur or a passive sounding board for Sartre. The book says little of the influence she had over Sartre; their relationship flowed both ways. She was Sartre's equal in many ways and I think this should have been acknowledged.
I know this isn't an academic book but it's superficial - if you're already familiar with Sartre and Camus you'll be unlikely to get much out of this.
December 21, 2022
Earlier this year I read a 1000 page biography of Camus and came away feeling like I knew a lot of details about him, but didn't have much understanding of the man. This book is very different. I feel like I now have a really good sense of what both men are like, even if I'm a little worried about Martin's proclivity to just make up scenes and dialog to fit his view. However, the conflict at the heart of this double biography is blown up and silly, and I frequently rolled my eyes at the way Martin was trying to jack up the tension and conflict, it was often like watching an American soap opera.
So the book was pretty successful, just not in the way I expected
So the book was pretty successful, just not in the way I expected
March 19, 2022
Assumes some knowledge of these two philosophers that I did not possess, so was lost at times. Still, I learned quite a bit about the relationship between these two heavy hitters of the 20th Century.
February 10, 2021
A quick but adequate tour of both writers lives together. Not a high-end academic biography but a solid read if you want a good account of the two together.
April 2, 2021
Really enjoyed this.
May 26, 2016
Disappointing for me. I hoped to understand more about Sartre and Camus. But instead I learned stuff like which sports they liked to do and how this linked to the author's impression of their characters. Stop reading after the first chapter; that was fun to read, but everything after misses any relevance, if you, like me, are more interested in their points of view than a rather personal view on their traits.
April 6, 2016
Much more about the writings and philosophies of these two than straight biographies. The rivalry and falling out give it a certain narrative thrust but, to get the most out of it, you really have to be familiar with both men's writings. And so, I struggled a bit having not read anything by them for quite a few years.
June 11, 2014
If I never hear anything about totalisation, degree-zero, binary whatsit of whatsit, the savage and the symbolic or Camus's obsession with smoke going through a window, again in my whole life it will be too soon. The repetition of these phrases was nauseating.
Started well but soon became fantastically tedious.
Started well but soon became fantastically tedious.
August 25, 2012
This is a good book for anyone who is interested in the dynamic between these two would be well served by this book. If one the other hand you have a decent understanding of their relationship this book offers little insight.
May 17, 2015
This is a playful, impressionistic take on the rift between sartre and camus. On the whole it's quite a fun read. If you're looking for a serious discussion of the ideas behind existentialism, the absurd and other areas of their work, you'll be disappointed.
March 28, 2015
Brilliant! :-)
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews