What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #628
Albert Camus: A Very Short Introduction
Few would question that Albert Camus (1913-1960), novelist, playwright, philosopher and journalist, is a major cultural icon. His widely quoted works have led to countless movie adaptions, graphic novels, pop songs, and even t-shirts.
In this Very Short Introduction, Oliver Gloag chronicles the inspiring story of Camus' life. From a poor fatherless settler in French-Algeria to the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, Gloag offers a comprehensive view of Camus' major works and interventions, including his notion of the absurd and revolt, as well as his highly original concept of pure happiness through unity with nature called "bonheur". This original introduction also addresses debates on coloniality, which have arisen around Camus' work.
Gloag presents Camus in all his complexity a staunch defender of many progressive causes, fiercely attached to his French-Algerian roots, a writer of enormous talent and social awareness plagued by self-doubt, and a crucially relevant author whose major works continue to significantly impact our views on contemporary issues and events.
ABOUT THE SERIES: The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
In this Very Short Introduction, Oliver Gloag chronicles the inspiring story of Camus' life. From a poor fatherless settler in French-Algeria to the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, Gloag offers a comprehensive view of Camus' major works and interventions, including his notion of the absurd and revolt, as well as his highly original concept of pure happiness through unity with nature called "bonheur". This original introduction also addresses debates on coloniality, which have arisen around Camus' work.
Gloag presents Camus in all his complexity a staunch defender of many progressive causes, fiercely attached to his French-Algerian roots, a writer of enormous talent and social awareness plagued by self-doubt, and a crucially relevant author whose major works continue to significantly impact our views on contemporary issues and events.
ABOUT THE SERIES: The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
112 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2020
38 people are currently reading
459 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 - 30 of 45 reviews
![Profile Image for s.penkevich [hiatus-will return-miss you all].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1735525095i%2F6431467._UX200_CR0%2C11%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
March 16, 2023
I’ve always found these Short Introduction series to be a mixed bag, though consistently strong enough to keep coming back to them as supplementary reading. Oliver Gloag’s work on Albert Camus here is commendable, blending analysis of Camus’ works with an overview of his life. Gloag, a professor of French studies at UNCA, has often witten on the topics of Camus and Sartre and there stances towards imperialism and colonialism (You can read his collection of articles on them for the magazine Jacobin here), which allows for some really interesting critical looks at Camus through this lens. Much of this book deals with Camus via the ways he interacted with the society and politics around him, starting with his youth in Algeria, his time under the occupation of Paris where worked as editor-in-chief for
Combat
as part of the French resistance, and moving through his relationship with Jean-Paul Sartre and their arguments over Marxism and the Algerian Revolution, to his untimely death in a car accident at the age of 46. Here's a brief overview of what Gloag has to say.
The usual biographical elements are here, with Gloag focusing a lot of Camus’ journalism and the interplay of his actions and philosophies. While I would have enjoyed more engagement with his novels and plays, they are still covered quite well as a general overview with some really interesting analysis on the pieces individually as well as a collective Camus oeuvre. This has me really eager to read his unfinished, final novel The First Man as Gloag analyzes it as being the most concise expression of Camus’ works and a key to understanding him. I enjoyed the was he threaded Camus’ thoughts on absurdity through his analysis of his works and there is a great deal devoted to Camus’ theories on resistance. Having just finished The Plague I was quite interested to read his takes on it, which Gloag seems fairly critical of (he argues that if it is an allegory it is not successful as such as it takes away the agency of those who committed evils) and transitions this well into a discussion of The Rebel.
Everyone has their own level of comfort with separating art from the artist, so do as you will, and Gloag does tend to tie the two pretty closely together. He focuses a lot of Camus’ journalism, which I found fascinating as I knew very little about it, and gets a lot into how Sartre and Camus sparred over topics like the USSR, an explanation on why Camus did not consider himself an existentialist, and his disagreements with other French philosophers on political issues. Reading any biography of people who tend to be idolized will always open up some disappointments, and I was not surprised but disappointed to read that Camus did not think highly of Simone de Beauvoir’s works (particularly The Second Sex, which he claimed embarrassed French men and Gloag writes that Camus was hostile to feminism in general). Gloag discusses Camus’ womanizing as well, writing that it was said the best way to reach Camus was to contact his wife, Francine, and ask her for the address of his current mistress (something printed in the press that embarrassed his wife though the two remained married until his death), asserting that this is likely why Camus wrote an essay in defense of Don Juan. He also sent his three mistresses each a letter with a different date of arrival for the journey during which he died in a car accident.
There is a lot spent at the end on Camus’ position on the Algerian Revolution, with Gloag stating that his works championing the spirit of rebellion did not extend to Algerian independence. He notes Camus either ignored or wrote vague, inaccurate lines in his articles about the mass killings of Algerians by French authorities stating ‘perhaps Camus was aware that widespread knowledge of these state-sponsered crimes would destroy credibility of France’s image as a benevolent and enlightened empire.’ Gloag writes about Camus and the revolution at length in this article, and Camus’ stance is still rather controversial (and understandably so). Camus would agree to a partially independent Algeria, one still reliant on France, but never full freedom, which is rather frustrating and Gloag points to his works to highlight Camus' stances as hypocritical. Gloag centers this as a major reason for his fallout with Sartre, along with Camus denouncing communism (Sartre’s own support of the Soviet Union remains controversial as well). Camus biographer Elizabeth Hawes would write that Camus maintains more of a mythic status in the US due to what she says is less engagement and understanding with Algerian and French politics, writing ‘There was a lot of the mythic to Camus. He was great looking, and he was heroic, and there was the resistance, he was the outsider.’
For those interested, The Meursault Investigation by Kamel Daoud offers a really interesting look at Camus and the legacy of The Stranger (it is written from the POV of the brother to the unnamed man killed by Meursault) as well as frustrations with the aftermath of the revolution.
All-in-all this is a fairly solid overview of Albert Camus that examines the many complexities of the man. It is critical, but fairly so, and while it spends more time on his social and political engagement than on his books, this is to be expected. I do enjoy these short introductions as a general overview, but then always wish they were more in depth despite knowing they won’t be going in, but this does point you in the direction of topic of interest that have certainly been covered elsewhere.
The usual biographical elements are here, with Gloag focusing a lot of Camus’ journalism and the interplay of his actions and philosophies. While I would have enjoyed more engagement with his novels and plays, they are still covered quite well as a general overview with some really interesting analysis on the pieces individually as well as a collective Camus oeuvre. This has me really eager to read his unfinished, final novel The First Man as Gloag analyzes it as being the most concise expression of Camus’ works and a key to understanding him. I enjoyed the was he threaded Camus’ thoughts on absurdity through his analysis of his works and there is a great deal devoted to Camus’ theories on resistance. Having just finished The Plague I was quite interested to read his takes on it, which Gloag seems fairly critical of (he argues that if it is an allegory it is not successful as such as it takes away the agency of those who committed evils) and transitions this well into a discussion of The Rebel.
Everyone has their own level of comfort with separating art from the artist, so do as you will, and Gloag does tend to tie the two pretty closely together. He focuses a lot of Camus’ journalism, which I found fascinating as I knew very little about it, and gets a lot into how Sartre and Camus sparred over topics like the USSR, an explanation on why Camus did not consider himself an existentialist, and his disagreements with other French philosophers on political issues. Reading any biography of people who tend to be idolized will always open up some disappointments, and I was not surprised but disappointed to read that Camus did not think highly of Simone de Beauvoir’s works (particularly The Second Sex, which he claimed embarrassed French men and Gloag writes that Camus was hostile to feminism in general). Gloag discusses Camus’ womanizing as well, writing that it was said the best way to reach Camus was to contact his wife, Francine, and ask her for the address of his current mistress (something printed in the press that embarrassed his wife though the two remained married until his death), asserting that this is likely why Camus wrote an essay in defense of Don Juan. He also sent his three mistresses each a letter with a different date of arrival for the journey during which he died in a car accident.
There is a lot spent at the end on Camus’ position on the Algerian Revolution, with Gloag stating that his works championing the spirit of rebellion did not extend to Algerian independence. He notes Camus either ignored or wrote vague, inaccurate lines in his articles about the mass killings of Algerians by French authorities stating ‘perhaps Camus was aware that widespread knowledge of these state-sponsered crimes would destroy credibility of France’s image as a benevolent and enlightened empire.’ Gloag writes about Camus and the revolution at length in this article, and Camus’ stance is still rather controversial (and understandably so). Camus would agree to a partially independent Algeria, one still reliant on France, but never full freedom, which is rather frustrating and Gloag points to his works to highlight Camus' stances as hypocritical. Gloag centers this as a major reason for his fallout with Sartre, along with Camus denouncing communism (Sartre’s own support of the Soviet Union remains controversial as well). Camus biographer Elizabeth Hawes would write that Camus maintains more of a mythic status in the US due to what she says is less engagement and understanding with Algerian and French politics, writing ‘There was a lot of the mythic to Camus. He was great looking, and he was heroic, and there was the resistance, he was the outsider.’
For those interested, The Meursault Investigation by Kamel Daoud offers a really interesting look at Camus and the legacy of The Stranger (it is written from the POV of the brother to the unnamed man killed by Meursault) as well as frustrations with the aftermath of the revolution.
All-in-all this is a fairly solid overview of Albert Camus that examines the many complexities of the man. It is critical, but fairly so, and while it spends more time on his social and political engagement than on his books, this is to be expected. I do enjoy these short introductions as a general overview, but then always wish they were more in depth despite knowing they won’t be going in, but this does point you in the direction of topic of interest that have certainly been covered elsewhere.
March 10, 2023
I always feel obligated to write reviews of book I give low ratings. I know it takes a lot of time and effort to write a book like this and it seems disrespectful of the author not to explain why I did not like the book.
This book was actually an easy read and provided lots of interesting tidbits about Camus and his life. The problem is the author is a professor deep in the academic cult of “Critical theory” and it’s simple minded view of the world. In particular this author is obsessed with colonialism and a page doesn’t pass (I exaggerate a bit, sometimes it’s two pages) where the author doesn’t remind us that Camus is guilty of the sin of being pro colonialism. For that alone the book loses two stars. Books that morally hector are boring and annoying. I’ve written about this in other reviews so I won’t go on about it.
The other two stars I remove because the author is unfairly judging the complexity of Camus thought and making it one dimensional. In fact, the author’s critique is one dimensional. The problem starts with the use of the word “colonialism” in this academic dogma. In fact it is used ahistorically (something the author accuses Camus of being). “Colonialism” is narrowly defined as European colonialism which is seen as the root of all evil in the modern world.
In the real world, North Africa has been colonized for thousands of years, the penultimate of the colonizers being the Arabs who brutally imposed their language, culture and religion on the region. The French were just one more brutal regime in a long chain. The anti-French “revolutionaries” didn’t bring justice and democracy to Algeria. They brought an even more brutal regime that rules to this day.
Camus was strongly opposed to French brutality. But he also understood that “revolution” does not bring liberation and freedom. Quite the opposite. This was the reason Camus was also anti-communist, unlike French intellectuals (like Sartre) who were apologists for one of the world’s most brutal dictatorship and yet another imperial power (read Tony Judt’s Postwar for more on the shameful behavior of Sartre Et al, which this author minimizes. The author also tries to argue that Marxism is anti-colonial. Perhaps in theory, but in practice most Marxist regimes engage in imperial conquest).
In the dogmatic world of academic Critical Theory, Camus is “problematic” (how I hate that word. If I could gives this book zero stars, I would remove another one for the authors overuse of that ridiculous term). For the author, he is a racist colonialist. In the real world, it was precisely Camus’ humanism that prevented him from being a supporter of the FLN.
This book was actually an easy read and provided lots of interesting tidbits about Camus and his life. The problem is the author is a professor deep in the academic cult of “Critical theory” and it’s simple minded view of the world. In particular this author is obsessed with colonialism and a page doesn’t pass (I exaggerate a bit, sometimes it’s two pages) where the author doesn’t remind us that Camus is guilty of the sin of being pro colonialism. For that alone the book loses two stars. Books that morally hector are boring and annoying. I’ve written about this in other reviews so I won’t go on about it.
The other two stars I remove because the author is unfairly judging the complexity of Camus thought and making it one dimensional. In fact, the author’s critique is one dimensional. The problem starts with the use of the word “colonialism” in this academic dogma. In fact it is used ahistorically (something the author accuses Camus of being). “Colonialism” is narrowly defined as European colonialism which is seen as the root of all evil in the modern world.
In the real world, North Africa has been colonized for thousands of years, the penultimate of the colonizers being the Arabs who brutally imposed their language, culture and religion on the region. The French were just one more brutal regime in a long chain. The anti-French “revolutionaries” didn’t bring justice and democracy to Algeria. They brought an even more brutal regime that rules to this day.
Camus was strongly opposed to French brutality. But he also understood that “revolution” does not bring liberation and freedom. Quite the opposite. This was the reason Camus was also anti-communist, unlike French intellectuals (like Sartre) who were apologists for one of the world’s most brutal dictatorship and yet another imperial power (read Tony Judt’s Postwar for more on the shameful behavior of Sartre Et al, which this author minimizes. The author also tries to argue that Marxism is anti-colonial. Perhaps in theory, but in practice most Marxist regimes engage in imperial conquest).
In the dogmatic world of academic Critical Theory, Camus is “problematic” (how I hate that word. If I could gives this book zero stars, I would remove another one for the authors overuse of that ridiculous term). For the author, he is a racist colonialist. In the real world, it was precisely Camus’ humanism that prevented him from being a supporter of the FLN.
March 8, 2023
The most important thing I learned from this little book was that Camus was very committed to the French colonial presence in Algeria. The most interesting thing I learned from this book was that before Camus died in a car crash on the way to Paris he sent letters to his three mistresses announcing three different arrival dates. Like Rousseau, who abandoned his children, or Althusser, who stabbed his beloved, Camus was a brilliant philosopher.
May 24, 2022
Overall I thought this was an excellent introduction to Camus and his work. With so short a space the author concisely captured the essence of Camus' works with clarity and interest. The biographical details always felt relevant and helped to clarify and interpret the content of Camus' thought.
I noticed that other commentators lamented the author's decision to center Camus' politics, particularly his relation to Algeria and colonialism. I however found this approach extremely enlightening and worthwhile. Having only read Camus' work in isolation from his life and historical context I had a very limited perspective of how the work is a product of and force within Camus' world. Gloag does a great job of presenting Camus' views fairly while still providing an evaluation of said views. For instance, Gloag doesnt shy away from calling Camus' defense of French colonialism problematic and pointing to specific aspects of his work which obscure/repress/marginalize the harm of French colonialism (such as the main murder in The Stranger or Camus positive framing of settlers in The First Man) but he also calls Camus' humanism sincere and clearly presents the positive work Camus did for the Arab population of Algeria.
Similarly, Gloags discussion of Camus relationship with Sartre and Beauvior did a great job of relaying the important biographical details and clarifying the central elements of their feud. In particular, I thought the short discussion of Camus' anti feminist response to Beauvior was an important point to be made since I have already read about the falling out with Sartre over the USSR and colonialism.
These discussions are extremely important and they are not the function of some woke sentimentality that reduces everything to good versus evil. Everything is political, if you say something is not it is only because you are already pressupposing a form of politics that allows some individuals to live as if they weren't political (i.e to benefit from politics, government and social contract while pretending they are free and autonomous individuals). Gloag successfully captures the central tensions of Camus' life and the ambiguity of his politics. Camus is not "cancelled" or framed as some evil colonialist but he is also not let off the hook for his defense of French empire. Not commentating on Camus' relation to colonialism would be to ignore one of the central aspects of his life/work and would be a marginalization of the moral significance of colonialism for our world today. It's not about good or evil, it's about looking the work straight in the face and not shying away from its political and ethical implications. History of philosophy must situate the work of an author within their context even if the author lays claim to abstract universal values.
Further, I think the sections at the end of the introduction about Camus' legacy and impact today are incredible. The discussion of how and why Camus is claimed today by diametrically opposite political movements is extremely captivating and rings true. The vagueness and ambiguity of Camus' absurdism and it's related politics of revolt clearly lends itself to misreadings that frame Camus as anti-colonialist or right wing. I thought Gloags argument that Camus is a kind of poster boy for the neo colonial world is also well argued (i.e independent countries that are still dependent on French economy and military).
My only critique of the introduction is that it does not provide enough explicit citations or footnotes. This book clearly involves a lot of interpretation and it would have been nice to have citations to specific pages or passages that relate to the argument at hand. So when Gloag argues that some part of Camus' work defends colonialism or is anti-historical there should be a citation that points to specific pages so readers can see those passages and evaluate Gloags interpretation.
On the whole this is an excellent introduction that expanded and deepened my view of Camus' work and its place in past and present. I am now even more excited to read Caligula and The First Man. It has also reignited my desire to reflect upon my own metaphysical beliefs and their implications for my existence as a colonialist in Canada. I highly recommend this introduction.
I noticed that other commentators lamented the author's decision to center Camus' politics, particularly his relation to Algeria and colonialism. I however found this approach extremely enlightening and worthwhile. Having only read Camus' work in isolation from his life and historical context I had a very limited perspective of how the work is a product of and force within Camus' world. Gloag does a great job of presenting Camus' views fairly while still providing an evaluation of said views. For instance, Gloag doesnt shy away from calling Camus' defense of French colonialism problematic and pointing to specific aspects of his work which obscure/repress/marginalize the harm of French colonialism (such as the main murder in The Stranger or Camus positive framing of settlers in The First Man) but he also calls Camus' humanism sincere and clearly presents the positive work Camus did for the Arab population of Algeria.
Similarly, Gloags discussion of Camus relationship with Sartre and Beauvior did a great job of relaying the important biographical details and clarifying the central elements of their feud. In particular, I thought the short discussion of Camus' anti feminist response to Beauvior was an important point to be made since I have already read about the falling out with Sartre over the USSR and colonialism.
These discussions are extremely important and they are not the function of some woke sentimentality that reduces everything to good versus evil. Everything is political, if you say something is not it is only because you are already pressupposing a form of politics that allows some individuals to live as if they weren't political (i.e to benefit from politics, government and social contract while pretending they are free and autonomous individuals). Gloag successfully captures the central tensions of Camus' life and the ambiguity of his politics. Camus is not "cancelled" or framed as some evil colonialist but he is also not let off the hook for his defense of French empire. Not commentating on Camus' relation to colonialism would be to ignore one of the central aspects of his life/work and would be a marginalization of the moral significance of colonialism for our world today. It's not about good or evil, it's about looking the work straight in the face and not shying away from its political and ethical implications. History of philosophy must situate the work of an author within their context even if the author lays claim to abstract universal values.
Further, I think the sections at the end of the introduction about Camus' legacy and impact today are incredible. The discussion of how and why Camus is claimed today by diametrically opposite political movements is extremely captivating and rings true. The vagueness and ambiguity of Camus' absurdism and it's related politics of revolt clearly lends itself to misreadings that frame Camus as anti-colonialist or right wing. I thought Gloags argument that Camus is a kind of poster boy for the neo colonial world is also well argued (i.e independent countries that are still dependent on French economy and military).
My only critique of the introduction is that it does not provide enough explicit citations or footnotes. This book clearly involves a lot of interpretation and it would have been nice to have citations to specific pages or passages that relate to the argument at hand. So when Gloag argues that some part of Camus' work defends colonialism or is anti-historical there should be a citation that points to specific pages so readers can see those passages and evaluate Gloags interpretation.
On the whole this is an excellent introduction that expanded and deepened my view of Camus' work and its place in past and present. I am now even more excited to read Caligula and The First Man. It has also reignited my desire to reflect upon my own metaphysical beliefs and their implications for my existence as a colonialist in Canada. I highly recommend this introduction.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 3, 2020
I read this short introduction as a audiobook, read quite well by Graham Halstead. I had begun listening a couple of times before, and not finished for some reason or another. This last reading, I am grateful for this volume for all it reveals about Albert Camus’ philosophy, political views, details of his origins and a clear through-line of identity that Oliver Gloag has identified in his careful reading of Camus’ work and significant research into the life and times of the subject author.
I have gotten used to the disappointments that come from an honest, well-researched biography of a much-loved figure. I wanted to see Camus as more of a great humanist, and I discover that he embraced French colonialism more than I can admire. I am forced to confront my own hypocrisy here, of course, living in Cincinnati. We were colonists here once, weren’t we? Would I support an uprising of native people in Cincinnati, were there enough remaining alive here to have such an uprising?
I love Camus. I continue to love his writing and something of his spirit. Nothing in this volume diminishes that joy and appreciation. I know him much better after these four hours of biographical material spoken to me in the audiobook. I have more questions about Albert Camus’ life and writing now.
I first read “The Stranger” when I was at Downer Junior High School in Richmond, California. I have read it again a few times. I will have to read it again along with “The Fall,” “Exile and the Kingdom,” “The Plague,” and his theatrical works and the essays. His prose continues to provoke me and inspire me to live. I know him much better now. He was always an enormously warm and lovely enigma. So he remains, though more so.
I have gotten used to the disappointments that come from an honest, well-researched biography of a much-loved figure. I wanted to see Camus as more of a great humanist, and I discover that he embraced French colonialism more than I can admire. I am forced to confront my own hypocrisy here, of course, living in Cincinnati. We were colonists here once, weren’t we? Would I support an uprising of native people in Cincinnati, were there enough remaining alive here to have such an uprising?
I love Camus. I continue to love his writing and something of his spirit. Nothing in this volume diminishes that joy and appreciation. I know him much better after these four hours of biographical material spoken to me in the audiobook. I have more questions about Albert Camus’ life and writing now.
I first read “The Stranger” when I was at Downer Junior High School in Richmond, California. I have read it again a few times. I will have to read it again along with “The Fall,” “Exile and the Kingdom,” “The Plague,” and his theatrical works and the essays. His prose continues to provoke me and inspire me to live. I know him much better now. He was always an enormously warm and lovely enigma. So he remains, though more so.
April 9, 2021
Prior to reading this I had only read The Stranger, skimmed through The Plague and roughly interpreted various sections of The Myth of Sisyphus for my own benefit in various essays. I thought Camus was a personal hero. In many ways I believe I was wrong.
Camus approached the world and its various interpretations as fundamentally insincere yet paradoxically found solace in his own reductionist pacifism. Tangled up in his creation of the absurd, any radical suggestions of human progress and understanding were dismissed. He was fundamentally a reformist and sympathiser for the status quo; afraid of the future awaiting him.
Camus approached the world and its various interpretations as fundamentally insincere yet paradoxically found solace in his own reductionist pacifism. Tangled up in his creation of the absurd, any radical suggestions of human progress and understanding were dismissed. He was fundamentally a reformist and sympathiser for the status quo; afraid of the future awaiting him.
July 6, 2023
This is a great summary of his life and works. His position as a colonist whose sympathies but not allegiance lie with the indigenous peoples is interesting to learn about. The pseudo intellectual way people use his ideas and quotes is exactly what you'd think it is, posturing.
December 27, 2021
البير كامو فيلسوف وروائي فرنسي عاش طفولته وشبابه في الجزائر خلال فترة الاستعمار الفرنسي. وقد عايش تلك الفترة المظلمة من التاريخ الاستعماري حيث كانت فرنسا تنادي بخطاب إنساني حر ولكن دون أن تطبق ذلك على الجزائريين وغيرهم من أبناء الأمم المستعمرة. كان الأدب وسيلة لهروب كامو من ظروف حياته الصعبة، كوفاة والده في الحرب في سن مبكرة، وعمل والدته كخادمة، وقسوة جدته عليه. وقد نجح في مواصلة دراسته الثانوية والجامعية بدعم من معلمه الفيلسوف لو جيرمان، وعمل في أعمال حكومية مختلفة وكذلك كمعلم ثانوي ولكن الدولة استغنت عن خدماته نظرا لظروفه الصحية السيئة ومعاناته من السل. فاتجه للصحافة والتأليف وعارض كامو قانون الاستعمار الخاص وعارض قمع الجيش الفرنسي لمنطقة القبائل الجزائرية ولكنه في الوقت نفسه لم يكن مؤيدا لاستقلال الجزائر. فلسفة كامو تركز على فكرة العبثية في الحياة، وشعور الانسان بالانزعاج والقلق من الضياع. الأمر المؤكد لدى الإنسان من وجهة نظر كامو هو الموت. فلا معنى للحياة ومن الصعب فهم هدفها لأنها تنتهي دائما بالموت. لمواجهة هذه العبثية لا سبيل للإنسان سوى قبول حتمية الموت وتقبل اللامعنى في الحياة. يتناول الكتاب كذلك مقتطفات من روايات كامو مثل رواية الغريب، الطاعون، اسطورة سيزيف، وكاليغيليا.
March 23, 2022
Its a short book off course and was wonderfully written!
If you haven’t read Camus’s all works or some works than skip the chapters on which deals with those works its off course pure spoilers.
I like how Oliver emphasised the point of contradictions in Camus personality. Exactly like his stance on human condition, accept and reject both at the same parallel times.
Camus highly controversial political stances are also consciously talked about. The Algiers question and whole perspective on colonialism.
I highly agree with Camus or anyones view that colonialism isn’t and wasn’t always wrong. Some nations leapfrogged through it never in history would have been able to had it not been colonialism.
But again, colonialists have the darkest history. The most barbaric and progressive were found within their psychs.
Great intro book on Camus but please skip the chapters on his works that you haven’t read.
If you haven’t read Camus’s all works or some works than skip the chapters on which deals with those works its off course pure spoilers.
I like how Oliver emphasised the point of contradictions in Camus personality. Exactly like his stance on human condition, accept and reject both at the same parallel times.
Camus highly controversial political stances are also consciously talked about. The Algiers question and whole perspective on colonialism.
I highly agree with Camus or anyones view that colonialism isn’t and wasn’t always wrong. Some nations leapfrogged through it never in history would have been able to had it not been colonialism.
But again, colonialists have the darkest history. The most barbaric and progressive were found within their psychs.
Great intro book on Camus but please skip the chapters on his works that you haven’t read.
September 30, 2023
«ألبير كامو» هو أحدُ أشهر فلاسفة القرن العشرين وأكثر كُتابه رواجًا وانتشارًا، وفي هذا الكتاب، يُقدِّمه لنا المؤلِّفُ، في سياق ظروفه الصعبة والمضطربة، ويُحلِّل الشعبية الراسخة لأهم أعماله الفلسفية والأدبية في إطار عددٍ من القضايا السياسية، والاجتماعية، والثقافية المعاصرة. في ثنايا الكتاب، نرى «ألبير كامو» — بكل ما يُحيط به من غموضٍ — مُدافعًا قويًّا عن الكثير من القضايا التقدُّمية، ومُتمسِّكًا بشدةٍ بجذوره الفرنسية الجزائرية، وكاتبًا يتمتع بموهبةٍ فَذَّة ووعيٍ اجتماعيٍّ حاضر، وإنسانًا يُعاني الشكوك الذاتية. كذلك يُقدِّمه لنا الكتابُ بوصفه واحدًا من أهم المؤلِّفين الذين لا تزال أعمالهم تُؤثِّر على نحوٍ ملحوظ في وجهات نظرنا بشأن الأحداث والقضايا المعاصرة.
«أوليفر جلوج» وُلد في مدينة نيويورك، وعاشَ في فرنسا وتربَّى بها. تقع أعماله عند نقطة التقاء التاريخ، والأدب، والسياسة، ويُركِّز فيها على علاقات فرنسا المشحونة مع ماضيها الاستعماري.
نادية أحمد
كتاب الكتروني
«أوليفر جلوج» وُلد في مدينة نيويورك، وعاشَ في فرنسا وتربَّى بها. تقع أعماله عند نقطة التقاء التاريخ، والأدب، والسياسة، ويُركِّز فيها على علاقات فرنسا المشحونة مع ماضيها الاستعماري.
نادية أحمد
كتاب الكتروني
June 25, 2021
Camus is not being misunderstood so much as he is being claimed. The author too does both in very short order, framing Camus's life-work as pro-colonialist "humanism that is long on grand declarations, but short on details." The 'just the facts' details is what I was looking for, when I picked this up en route to 'The First Man'. The 'Introduction' began typically enough, with biographical details and an interesting dialectical idea of framing his initial work in two 'cycles' of absurdism and revolt. But it soon devolved into an ad-hominem takedown of Camus... I'm always up for contrarian perspectives, but the author repeatedly fails to back up his (limited, single-issue) hypothesis here. He cherry-picks details from a complex cosmopolitan life, offers biased summaries of his writing and most frustratingly, conflates Camus' fictional characters as proof of his own. Much of it reads like a mediocre college essay (a special WTF shout-out for the pithy photo captions like 'Camus, anguished'). Next time I'll just stick to the Wikipedia entry.
April 11, 2023
I think Gloag takes Camus to task, which is a necessity that is often goes overlooked.
As an actual introduction to his work, I don’t think this works very well. It is written from a perspective that is clearly knowledgeable about it but more or less unconcerned with the philosophy.
It is not an intro to Absurdism though, but Camus himself. If you are already familiar to some degree with his work, and are looking to understand him as he relates to it I think this is a great read. I think it is especially good because there is not quite as much mainstream contemporary criticism of him even though he is in a pretty big resurgence and there are more than a couple issues with him.
I took off one star because there is a sustained effort to dismantle the culture that people have created around Camus. That by itself is great, and breaking him down like this can be very productive for people who at one time or another idealized him (me). In the last chapter Gloag even goes into detail on the way different people and groups identify with and try to co-opt him.
My issue with that is that this is an introduction to him and I think this assumes and at least cursory knowledge of him and the way “Camus bros” perceive him without setting it up beforehand. It is an introduction and I think some might be a little in the dark about why their is this voice, or maybe up until the last section at least.
As an actual introduction to his work, I don’t think this works very well. It is written from a perspective that is clearly knowledgeable about it but more or less unconcerned with the philosophy.
It is not an intro to Absurdism though, but Camus himself. If you are already familiar to some degree with his work, and are looking to understand him as he relates to it I think this is a great read. I think it is especially good because there is not quite as much mainstream contemporary criticism of him even though he is in a pretty big resurgence and there are more than a couple issues with him.
I took off one star because there is a sustained effort to dismantle the culture that people have created around Camus. That by itself is great, and breaking him down like this can be very productive for people who at one time or another idealized him (me). In the last chapter Gloag even goes into detail on the way different people and groups identify with and try to co-opt him.
My issue with that is that this is an introduction to him and I think this assumes and at least cursory knowledge of him and the way “Camus bros” perceive him without setting it up beforehand. It is an introduction and I think some might be a little in the dark about why their is this voice, or maybe up until the last section at least.
February 17, 2024
Albert Camus: A Very Short Introduction comprises - as one might expect - a biography of Camus together with a summary and interpretation of his primary works and ideas. Quite unexpected yet much appreciated is the level of historical detail that the book goes to around France's troubled colonial past with Algeria. The information is contained in logically sound chapters that flow.
The author seems highly knowledgeable of the subject; the reader is in safe hands. Lots of ground is covered very quickly.
Albert Camus: A Very Short Introduction is also a very good introduction.
The author seems highly knowledgeable of the subject; the reader is in safe hands. Lots of ground is covered very quickly.
Albert Camus: A Very Short Introduction is also a very good introduction.
July 31, 2024
3,5 stars; the author does an admirable job in describing the man and where appropriate, his works and philosophy, but the main gist is autobiographical; adequate discussion of the relationship and quarrels with his fellow existentialists Sartre Jean Paul and BEAUVOIR Simone de -; be sure to check out some of Camus' classics; The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays, The Fall and of course; The Plague and The Stranger.
October 31, 2021
Preface: Aron is a fascist, ignore their settler-apologist review. In fact, a lot of these reviewers should look themselves in the mirror.
Oxford Very Short Introductions are a mixed bag as far as I can tell. For one, the VSIs on Marx and Hegel are by Peter Singer, a man whose writing should be thrown in the garbage bin where it belongs. But this one on Camus is a really good one, check out his interview on Jacobin for a condensed version of this already fairly concise book. It’s a good antidote to white dudes parading themselves as “absurdists,” if empirical experience isn’t enough. Anyways:
“My job is to write my books and to fight when the freedom of my family and my people is threatened. Nothing else.”
You can read this sentence in the classic American fascist sense, where you have a grass-chewing frontiersman caressing his extremely precious guns. But this is actually Albert Camus, beloved French author and national icon (for both the liberal left and the far right, although it’s hard to tell the difference between Macron and Le Pen these days). Oliver Gloag’s thesis is that Camus was a pathetic fence-sitter, torn between the extreme domination of the French-Algerian settler-colonial regime and his deep love for French-Algeria as a pied-noir born from a modest background. While Camus had sympathy for the oppressed indigenous population (as long as they didn’t, like, try to fight for self-determination or anything obviously), his ultimate hope was compromise: the assimilation of a few Algerians into the French-Algerian republic as comprador elites and a few meager rights for the masses (“he wanted to reform, to modify colonialism, but he never challenged France’s authority over Algerian land nor was he ever in favour of Algerian independence”).
Camus in essence was an apologist for the French empire, even in its post-war death throes. After a tumultuous defeat for France in the Anti-French Resistance War in 1954, Camus’ poor traumatized soul compared Vietnamese revolutionaries to the Germans.
Gloag’s ruthlessness is great, there are no punches being pulled here. The crux of the matter is that Camus’ literature, philosophy, and pitiful politics (however reluctant he was to committing to them, but this is only even more illustrative of his racist fears) all danced around a central void in his psychic register: his racist settlerism. Absurdism allowed Camus to reject history, to repress his fear and knowledge that the masses do indeed “make history” and to sidestep addressing colonialism at all. His concept of “bonheur” let him remove French Algeria from the movement of history, and to imagine an Algeria with no rebellious indigenous population at all. When the German occupation forced Camus to “enter history,” Camus’s postwar writings articulated absurdism as a starting point for “revolt,” but for Camus, revolt isn’t revolution, and neither is it for non-European peoples.
It’s only after his break from Sartre and de Beauvoir (over Algeria) and the self-determination of Algeria that Camus breaks from repression and bares his settlerism for all to see. Ultimately, Camus was staunchly against Algerian independence, including his proposed resolution for Algerian quasi-autonomy (with the French administrating economic and military affairs) as independence became ever closer. Gloag notes that: “Although Camus underestimated the balance of power between the French and Algerian sides, what he proposed for Algeria was a compromise similar in many ways to the current situation of many former French African colonies, which, though sovereign, share a currency controlled by Paris, and are the locus for substantial French economic interests as well as French military bases. This parallel between Camus’s proposition for Algeria and what has emerged in most French-speaking African countries today explains in part why he has become the intellectual legitimization for today’s neo-colonial reality, and why so many present-day Western political and cultural figures claim him as one of their own.”
TL; DR: Who knows about Albert Camus but not Fernand Iveton?
Oxford Very Short Introductions are a mixed bag as far as I can tell. For one, the VSIs on Marx and Hegel are by Peter Singer, a man whose writing should be thrown in the garbage bin where it belongs. But this one on Camus is a really good one, check out his interview on Jacobin for a condensed version of this already fairly concise book. It’s a good antidote to white dudes parading themselves as “absurdists,” if empirical experience isn’t enough. Anyways:
“My job is to write my books and to fight when the freedom of my family and my people is threatened. Nothing else.”
You can read this sentence in the classic American fascist sense, where you have a grass-chewing frontiersman caressing his extremely precious guns. But this is actually Albert Camus, beloved French author and national icon (for both the liberal left and the far right, although it’s hard to tell the difference between Macron and Le Pen these days). Oliver Gloag’s thesis is that Camus was a pathetic fence-sitter, torn between the extreme domination of the French-Algerian settler-colonial regime and his deep love for French-Algeria as a pied-noir born from a modest background. While Camus had sympathy for the oppressed indigenous population (as long as they didn’t, like, try to fight for self-determination or anything obviously), his ultimate hope was compromise: the assimilation of a few Algerians into the French-Algerian republic as comprador elites and a few meager rights for the masses (“he wanted to reform, to modify colonialism, but he never challenged France’s authority over Algerian land nor was he ever in favour of Algerian independence”).
Camus in essence was an apologist for the French empire, even in its post-war death throes. After a tumultuous defeat for France in the Anti-French Resistance War in 1954, Camus’ poor traumatized soul compared Vietnamese revolutionaries to the Germans.
Gloag’s ruthlessness is great, there are no punches being pulled here. The crux of the matter is that Camus’ literature, philosophy, and pitiful politics (however reluctant he was to committing to them, but this is only even more illustrative of his racist fears) all danced around a central void in his psychic register: his racist settlerism. Absurdism allowed Camus to reject history, to repress his fear and knowledge that the masses do indeed “make history” and to sidestep addressing colonialism at all. His concept of “bonheur” let him remove French Algeria from the movement of history, and to imagine an Algeria with no rebellious indigenous population at all. When the German occupation forced Camus to “enter history,” Camus’s postwar writings articulated absurdism as a starting point for “revolt,” but for Camus, revolt isn’t revolution, and neither is it for non-European peoples.
It’s only after his break from Sartre and de Beauvoir (over Algeria) and the self-determination of Algeria that Camus breaks from repression and bares his settlerism for all to see. Ultimately, Camus was staunchly against Algerian independence, including his proposed resolution for Algerian quasi-autonomy (with the French administrating economic and military affairs) as independence became ever closer. Gloag notes that: “Although Camus underestimated the balance of power between the French and Algerian sides, what he proposed for Algeria was a compromise similar in many ways to the current situation of many former French African colonies, which, though sovereign, share a currency controlled by Paris, and are the locus for substantial French economic interests as well as French military bases. This parallel between Camus’s proposition for Algeria and what has emerged in most French-speaking African countries today explains in part why he has become the intellectual legitimization for today’s neo-colonial reality, and why so many present-day Western political and cultural figures claim him as one of their own.”
TL; DR: Who knows about Albert Camus but not Fernand Iveton?
February 7, 2022
Albert Camus : A Very Short Introduction (2020) by Oliver Gloag looks at the life of the writer and philosopher Albert Camus. Gloag is a professor of francophone literature and he specialises in postcolonial literature.
Camus is still an often read philosopher and novelist because his works are very readable. His ideas on the absurd are some of the last readable serious philosophy. Many people, including myself, read Camus as a teenager or a young adult and deeply appreciate him.
Camus was born in Algeria and was a pied-noir, or black foot, that is he was a French descended Algerian. Gloag, as a postcolonial scholar, makes a lot of this and the book describes Camus’ relationship to the Algerian independence movement and Frances colonial policies in Algeria.
Camus’s had a tough upbringing as his father was killed in the First World War. He also had Tuberculosis which must have had a huge impact on him. It stopped him from working for the French public services which lead to him becoming a journalist. He then in turn wrote for the resistance paper Combat in occupied France.
Camus’ philosophy of the absurd, which he says is different from existentialism. Camus’ absurd is the confrontation of man’s need for reason against the indifference of the universe. Gloag points out that in Camus’ writing there is often a moment where a central character appreciates nature and thus the absurd and the world.
Camus’ relationship with Jean Paul Satre and Simone de Beauvoir is also described. They were clearly all good friends. Satre and his set came from highly elite French schools while Camus had working class roots. Satre’s embrace of Marxism and his apologies for its atrocities while being fiercely anti-colonial contrasted with Camus’s rejection of Marxism but his rejection of anti-colonialism was clearly part of their split.
The book is good for anyone who has read Camus and wants to learn more about his life.
Camus is still an often read philosopher and novelist because his works are very readable. His ideas on the absurd are some of the last readable serious philosophy. Many people, including myself, read Camus as a teenager or a young adult and deeply appreciate him.
Camus was born in Algeria and was a pied-noir, or black foot, that is he was a French descended Algerian. Gloag, as a postcolonial scholar, makes a lot of this and the book describes Camus’ relationship to the Algerian independence movement and Frances colonial policies in Algeria.
Camus’s had a tough upbringing as his father was killed in the First World War. He also had Tuberculosis which must have had a huge impact on him. It stopped him from working for the French public services which lead to him becoming a journalist. He then in turn wrote for the resistance paper Combat in occupied France.
Camus’ philosophy of the absurd, which he says is different from existentialism. Camus’ absurd is the confrontation of man’s need for reason against the indifference of the universe. Gloag points out that in Camus’ writing there is often a moment where a central character appreciates nature and thus the absurd and the world.
Camus’ relationship with Jean Paul Satre and Simone de Beauvoir is also described. They were clearly all good friends. Satre and his set came from highly elite French schools while Camus had working class roots. Satre’s embrace of Marxism and his apologies for its atrocities while being fiercely anti-colonial contrasted with Camus’s rejection of Marxism but his rejection of anti-colonialism was clearly part of their split.
The book is good for anyone who has read Camus and wants to learn more about his life.
October 6, 2021
Excellent analysis of Camus' life and work in spite of its brevity. Gloag reviews the unsavory attitudes and views of Camus in his later works that most biographers and many of his admirers do not want to discuss. Camus, although always insisting that he was never a follower of any ideology, was at the end of his life firmly in the camp of Algeria remaining a colony of France today, tomorrow and forever. In one of his novels he glamorized French colonists (pied noirs) who utter racist epithets and describe the Algerians as contemptible animals. To the end he described the French as having an inalienable right to their holdings in Algeria. You do not get exposed to this poison by reading The Stranger, The Myth of Sisyphus or The Plague, books which I loved as a teen. But in his later works, especially The Last Man, the full extent of his lack of humanity is exposed.
In the end, Camus was a magnificent writer of poetic prose and gorgeous essays. His lyricism was in many cases, without peer. But as a human being, he failed miserably to consider the plight of anyone other than himself and his beloved settler/invader class. Just like Mersault in The Stranger, he imagined that the nameless others, the original inhabitants of Algeria, could be disregarded and erased from history with a few pulls of the trigger.
In the end, Camus was a magnificent writer of poetic prose and gorgeous essays. His lyricism was in many cases, without peer. But as a human being, he failed miserably to consider the plight of anyone other than himself and his beloved settler/invader class. Just like Mersault in The Stranger, he imagined that the nameless others, the original inhabitants of Algeria, could be disregarded and erased from history with a few pulls of the trigger.
April 21, 2021
I read this book to get a general understanding of the way Camus' absurdism works and got MUCH more information than i ever expected. Oliver Gloag writes in such a way that every sentence is a treasure of information. Every aspect of Camus' background and oeuvre is explained in context and his works are critically analysed one by one . The structure of the book is also very practical and every chapter is equally worth reading. Some fans of Camus won't appreciate the way Gloag dives into the faults and contradictions of the person Albert Camus.
One thing is certain: after reading this book, there's no aspect of Camus you will know nothing about.
I would certainly recommend this book to anyone, be it for academic or leisure purposes.
One thing is certain: after reading this book, there's no aspect of Camus you will know nothing about.
I would certainly recommend this book to anyone, be it for academic or leisure purposes.
February 5, 2021
Welp turns out Camus was a whiny, misogynistic, racist, anti-intellectual, pro-colonial narcissist with delusions of being a don juan (which may have led his wife to attempt suicide) and whose philosophical ideas are so malleable they've been embraced by people and movements on the opposite ends of the political and moral spectrums.
A good intro! I don't think I need to read any more Camus though.
A good intro! I don't think I need to read any more Camus though.
January 29, 2021
A very insightful book on a fascinating man. It really helped me better understand Camus, and his writings. Great perspective.
February 18, 2023
Overall really good and helpful, but seemed to tease topics such as Camus' relationship with feminism and Simone De Beauvoir and never returned to it which was disappointing.
May 1, 2025
I'm working on rereading books that I read in my high school classes, and one of those books is The Stranger by Albert Camus so I decided to read this book to try to get perhaps a better background before I reread The Stranger.
if I wasn't already committed to reading The Stranger, this book would have convinced me not to bother. The author gives a pretty comprehensive review of both Camus' life and literary works. What I learned from this book is that Camus was a despicable human being. He was a rank opportunist and a reprehensible hypocrite.
Camus was born in French Algeria, a French colony, and the author of this book interjects that fact into everything he talks about. The author is a scholar whose focus is on Camus and colonialism, but he takes it way too far by injecting it in places where it just doesn't seem to belong.
In his late teens, Camus was diagnosed with a serious health problem and came face to face with his mortality. This prompted him to decide that nothing in life had any meaning, and he lived up to that philosophy, living a life completely deprived of any morals.
Camus joined the Communist party simply to further his literary ambitions and left it soon after. He supported Nazi appeasement before France was invaded. He joined the French resistance as a writer during World War II in January 1944, nearly four years after France was invaded and barely 6 months before D-day. Inexplicably, he was feted as a hero of the resistance, probably because after the war he helped to create and propagate the myth that most of the French people resisted the German occupation. Being part of the resistance was a direct contradiction to his stated philosophy, so he revised it, but he was mostly angry at the Germans for forcing him into that. He opposed Communism and the Soviet Union only because they supported revolution in Algeria. He died in a car crash on the way to Paris after writing letters to his three mistresses, giving each of them a different date for when he would be arriving. The author doesn't tell us whether he even bothered to tell his wife that he was returning to Paris, but does tell us that Camus' friends when traveling to Paris would call his wife and have the gall to ask her for the phone number for his current mistress because that's where they could be sure to find him. His wife attempted suicide in part due to his constant philandering.
These days, Camus is claimed by people across every spectrum. Arabs, French people, left-wing, right wing, even communists. This is because he never took a stand on anything, except to oppose revolution or liberty in Algeria and so it is easy for these people to appropriate what he said for their own designs.
Contemporaries of Camus remarked that he was sloppy as a writer, and liked to quote others without actually reading what they said. He and they were surprised that he won the Nobel prize, and my impression is that he probably shouldn't have. He probably wouldn't be celebrated like he is today without that prize.
It will be interesting to reread The Stranger and see if I feel like he has any talent as a writer, because that is mostly independent from who he was. I do remember that I didn't like his writing style when I was in high school and from this book I'm pretty sure I won't agree with Camus' themes.
if I wasn't already committed to reading The Stranger, this book would have convinced me not to bother. The author gives a pretty comprehensive review of both Camus' life and literary works. What I learned from this book is that Camus was a despicable human being. He was a rank opportunist and a reprehensible hypocrite.
Camus was born in French Algeria, a French colony, and the author of this book interjects that fact into everything he talks about. The author is a scholar whose focus is on Camus and colonialism, but he takes it way too far by injecting it in places where it just doesn't seem to belong.
In his late teens, Camus was diagnosed with a serious health problem and came face to face with his mortality. This prompted him to decide that nothing in life had any meaning, and he lived up to that philosophy, living a life completely deprived of any morals.
Camus joined the Communist party simply to further his literary ambitions and left it soon after. He supported Nazi appeasement before France was invaded. He joined the French resistance as a writer during World War II in January 1944, nearly four years after France was invaded and barely 6 months before D-day. Inexplicably, he was feted as a hero of the resistance, probably because after the war he helped to create and propagate the myth that most of the French people resisted the German occupation. Being part of the resistance was a direct contradiction to his stated philosophy, so he revised it, but he was mostly angry at the Germans for forcing him into that. He opposed Communism and the Soviet Union only because they supported revolution in Algeria. He died in a car crash on the way to Paris after writing letters to his three mistresses, giving each of them a different date for when he would be arriving. The author doesn't tell us whether he even bothered to tell his wife that he was returning to Paris, but does tell us that Camus' friends when traveling to Paris would call his wife and have the gall to ask her for the phone number for his current mistress because that's where they could be sure to find him. His wife attempted suicide in part due to his constant philandering.
These days, Camus is claimed by people across every spectrum. Arabs, French people, left-wing, right wing, even communists. This is because he never took a stand on anything, except to oppose revolution or liberty in Algeria and so it is easy for these people to appropriate what he said for their own designs.
Contemporaries of Camus remarked that he was sloppy as a writer, and liked to quote others without actually reading what they said. He and they were surprised that he won the Nobel prize, and my impression is that he probably shouldn't have. He probably wouldn't be celebrated like he is today without that prize.
It will be interesting to reread The Stranger and see if I feel like he has any talent as a writer, because that is mostly independent from who he was. I do remember that I didn't like his writing style when I was in high school and from this book I'm pretty sure I won't agree with Camus' themes.
July 29, 2023
هذا الكتاب الجميل هو عبارة عن سيرة غيرية، للروائي والمناضل الإستعماري الشهير آلبير كامو، يقرب من خلاله المؤلف هذه الشخصية الجدلية من القارئ، فمن نشأته وصباه إلى صراعه الفكري مع سارتر فبزوغ نجمه وحصوله على نوبل للآداب.
في الفصل الأول، يتحدث الكاتب عن مولد كامو، الذي كان في الجزائر الخاضة لاستعمار فرنسا عام 1913. في الربع الأول من القرن العشرين كانت وضعية الجزائريين في بلادهم صعبة جدا، وكانت حروب الإستعمار لاخضاع البلاد ووأد محاولات الثورة لا تزال قائمة، فنشأ كاتبنا في هذا الصراع؛ ثم توفي والده وهو طفل صغير، وعاش في حضن ثلاثة آباء، أمه الحقيقية، المجازيين جدته القاسية وعمه بائع البراميل. بعد تيتمه تكفلة الدولة الفرنسية بنفقاته وكذا تدريسه.
أصيب بالسل عام 1930 وتدهورة صحته بسببه بشكل فظيع، ومنذ هذا الوقت وعى كامو بحتمية الموت وآمن بعبثية الحياة، وألف أول كتاب له في السنة الأخيرة في المدرسة الثانوية، وبعد ذلك عمل صحفيا في جريدة تنتقد الإستعمار.
في الفصل الثاني، يبرز الكاتب أفكار وآراء كامو السياسية، حيث يرى المؤلف أنه لم يكن ضد الإستعمار وإنما أراد نسخة منه أكثر إنسانية، وكان يريد استمرار الوجود الفرنسي في الجزائر. في المقابل كان كامو ضد الحرب مع ألمانيا، ففضل المفاوضات مع هتلر والحلول السلمية للأزمة. في الواقع أعلنت فرنسا الحرب على ألمانيا عام 1939 وهزمت هزيمة نكراء.
في الفصل الثالث، كان كامو يؤمن بحتمية الموت واستتباعا عبثية الحياة، وكان يرى في الديانات والفلسفات عالما فكريا يحتضر؛ لكن عبثيته امتزجت باطر أخلاقية وتسامت عن كونها عدمية خالصة.
في الفصل الرابع، يناقش الكاتب عبثية كامو من خلال رواياته الشهيرة "الغريب" و "الطاعون". انتقل ألبير كامو من موقف اللامكترث الى التمرد كرد فعل لاحتلال المانيا لفرنسا.
في الفصل الخامس يطر الكتاب الصراع الفكري الذي دار بين كامو وسارتر، وذلك بعد نقد هذا الأخير روايتي "الغريب" و "أسطورة سيزيف" بشكل مفصل وأكاديمي، وهاجم كامو بشكل لاذع وكذلك فعلت سيمون دي بوفوار لاحقا. لكن عندما التقى الكاتبان لأول مرة قامت بينهما علاقة صداقة، وسرعان ما بدءا يلتقيان في المقاهي ويتبادلان الأفكار والآراء.
هناك فرق بين واضح بين فلسفة سارتر الوجودية وكامو العبثية، فالأولى ترتكز على شؤون البشر ومسؤليتهم في هذا العالم، في حين عبثية كامو انفصال عن شؤون الانسان ورفض لكل النظم.
أيضا يعرفنا الكتاب على جزء آخر من فكر كامو، وهو رفضه للتيار النسوي واحتقاره له، وذلك بين من خلال تعليقه على كتاب "الجنس الآخر" لسيمون. أما في ما يخص الإستعمار الفرنسي للجزائر، فسارتر رافض لفكرة الإستعمار جملة وتفصيلا، حيث أيد المعارضين، في حين أن كامو كان ينحاز للتسوية مع استمرار الوجود الفرنسي.
في الفصل السادس، بعد الحرب وبعد مذابح سطيف بدأ موقف كامو يتغير، حيث بدأ يدعم حصول الجزائريين على مزيد من الحقوق، لكنه وفي المقابل كان يبرر عنصرية الأقدام السوداء "كناية عن المقيمين الأجانب الفرنسيين خاصة".
بعد اندلاع حروب استقلال الجزائر أصيب كامو بالصدمة واعتبر أن أرضه قد فقدت منه للأبد.
في الفصل السابع، يطرح الكاتب إرث كامو الذي خلفه من بعده، فقد حصل هذا الاخير على جائزة نوبل - ليهديها الى استاذه - التي أذاعت صيته، إضافة إلى انتشار أفكار وكثرة الاقتباس منه، كذلك استشهاد بعض القادة السياسيين الفرنسيين بأقواله وأفكاره، ثم تدريس فرنسا لمؤلفاته في مدارسها.
كتاب رائع، يقرب بالفعل القارئ من هذه الشخصية ويعرفه بأبرز أفكارها وكذلك يميط الغموض عن بعض أرائه وجوانب حياته. أنصح بقراءته
في الفصل الأول، يتحدث الكاتب عن مولد كامو، الذي كان في الجزائر الخاضة لاستعمار فرنسا عام 1913. في الربع الأول من القرن العشرين كانت وضعية الجزائريين في بلادهم صعبة جدا، وكانت حروب الإستعمار لاخضاع البلاد ووأد محاولات الثورة لا تزال قائمة، فنشأ كاتبنا في هذا الصراع؛ ثم توفي والده وهو طفل صغير، وعاش في حضن ثلاثة آباء، أمه الحقيقية، المجازيين جدته القاسية وعمه بائع البراميل. بعد تيتمه تكفلة الدولة الفرنسية بنفقاته وكذا تدريسه.
أصيب بالسل عام 1930 وتدهورة صحته بسببه بشكل فظيع، ومنذ هذا الوقت وعى كامو بحتمية الموت وآمن بعبثية الحياة، وألف أول كتاب له في السنة الأخيرة في المدرسة الثانوية، وبعد ذلك عمل صحفيا في جريدة تنتقد الإستعمار.
في الفصل الثاني، يبرز الكاتب أفكار وآراء كامو السياسية، حيث يرى المؤلف أنه لم يكن ضد الإستعمار وإنما أراد نسخة منه أكثر إنسانية، وكان يريد استمرار الوجود الفرنسي في الجزائر. في المقابل كان كامو ضد الحرب مع ألمانيا، ففضل المفاوضات مع هتلر والحلول السلمية للأزمة. في الواقع أعلنت فرنسا الحرب على ألمانيا عام 1939 وهزمت هزيمة نكراء.
في الفصل الثالث، كان كامو يؤمن بحتمية الموت واستتباعا عبثية الحياة، وكان يرى في الديانات والفلسفات عالما فكريا يحتضر؛ لكن عبثيته امتزجت باطر أخلاقية وتسامت عن كونها عدمية خالصة.
في الفصل الرابع، يناقش الكاتب عبثية كامو من خلال رواياته الشهيرة "الغريب" و "الطاعون". انتقل ألبير كامو من موقف اللامكترث الى التمرد كرد فعل لاحتلال المانيا لفرنسا.
في الفصل الخامس يطر الكتاب الصراع الفكري الذي دار بين كامو وسارتر، وذلك بعد نقد هذا الأخير روايتي "الغريب" و "أسطورة سيزيف" بشكل مفصل وأكاديمي، وهاجم كامو بشكل لاذع وكذلك فعلت سيمون دي بوفوار لاحقا. لكن عندما التقى الكاتبان لأول مرة قامت بينهما علاقة صداقة، وسرعان ما بدءا يلتقيان في المقاهي ويتبادلان الأفكار والآراء.
هناك فرق بين واضح بين فلسفة سارتر الوجودية وكامو العبثية، فالأولى ترتكز على شؤون البشر ومسؤليتهم في هذا العالم، في حين عبثية كامو انفصال عن شؤون الانسان ورفض لكل النظم.
أيضا يعرفنا الكتاب على جزء آخر من فكر كامو، وهو رفضه للتيار النسوي واحتقاره له، وذلك بين من خلال تعليقه على كتاب "الجنس الآخر" لسيمون. أما في ما يخص الإستعمار الفرنسي للجزائر، فسارتر رافض لفكرة الإستعمار جملة وتفصيلا، حيث أيد المعارضين، في حين أن كامو كان ينحاز للتسوية مع استمرار الوجود الفرنسي.
في الفصل السادس، بعد الحرب وبعد مذابح سطيف بدأ موقف كامو يتغير، حيث بدأ يدعم حصول الجزائريين على مزيد من الحقوق، لكنه وفي المقابل كان يبرر عنصرية الأقدام السوداء "كناية عن المقيمين الأجانب الفرنسيين خاصة".
بعد اندلاع حروب استقلال الجزائر أصيب كامو بالصدمة واعتبر أن أرضه قد فقدت منه للأبد.
في الفصل السابع، يطرح الكاتب إرث كامو الذي خلفه من بعده، فقد حصل هذا الاخير على جائزة نوبل - ليهديها الى استاذه - التي أذاعت صيته، إضافة إلى انتشار أفكار وكثرة الاقتباس منه، كذلك استشهاد بعض القادة السياسيين الفرنسيين بأقواله وأفكاره، ثم تدريس فرنسا لمؤلفاته في مدارسها.
كتاب رائع، يقرب بالفعل القارئ من هذه الشخصية ويعرفه بأبرز أفكارها وكذلك يميط الغموض عن بعض أرائه وجوانب حياته. أنصح بقراءته
June 28, 2023
يتحدث الكاتب حول البيئة التي ولد بها كامو و التاثيرات التي طرت عليه و غيرته جعلت منه فيلسوفا و اراءه حول الحرب العالمية و احتلال الجزائر الى موته و ما بعده من تاثيراته على الحياة و خاصة الفرنسية التي جعلت منهم مهتمين نحو الطبيعة
بعض النقاشات
- الجزائر و فرنسا -
كامو لم يكن ضد الاحتلال بل كان يريد ان تستمر الاحتلال و لكن بتحسين المعاملة مع الجزائري حيث انه يجب أن يتساوى الفرنسي و الجزائري في الحقوق و الواجبات و لكن هناك مشاكل في تفكيره و هو عندما حدثت مجزرة قسطيلة راح قال لا الجزائري عدواني و فرنسا ليست عدوانية !!!!!!!! و عندما كانو الجزائري يريدون التحرير رفض ذالك ، من هو لكي يرفض انت مجرد محتل انساني و لا تتيح لك الانسانية انك تحدد مصير شعب بس لاجل استمرار الاحتلال و أيضا لانك محتل لا يجب أن تتكلم عندما يتحدثون اهل الأرض
- العبثية -
الي فهمته هو اننا يجب أن لا نفكر في المستقبل و ان نتحرر من القيود الاجتماعية و نعيش اللحظة الراهنه و نعترف ان كل شي عبث لا معنى له إطلاقاً و ان نعيش با خلاقية و نرءف بالانسان كا الالهة
بعض النقاشات
- الجزائر و فرنسا -
كامو لم يكن ضد الاحتلال بل كان يريد ان تستمر الاحتلال و لكن بتحسين المعاملة مع الجزائري حيث انه يجب أن يتساوى الفرنسي و الجزائري في الحقوق و الواجبات و لكن هناك مشاكل في تفكيره و هو عندما حدثت مجزرة قسطيلة راح قال لا الجزائري عدواني و فرنسا ليست عدوانية !!!!!!!! و عندما كانو الجزائري يريدون التحرير رفض ذالك ، من هو لكي يرفض انت مجرد محتل انساني و لا تتيح لك الانسانية انك تحدد مصير شعب بس لاجل استمرار الاحتلال و أيضا لانك محتل لا يجب أن تتكلم عندما يتحدثون اهل الأرض
- العبثية -
الي فهمته هو اننا يجب أن لا نفكر في المستقبل و ان نتحرر من القيود الاجتماعية و نعيش اللحظة الراهنه و نعترف ان كل شي عبث لا معنى له إطلاقاً و ان نعيش با خلاقية و نرءف بالانسان كا الالهة
January 8, 2024
Don't let the "very short introduction" subtitle fool you - this is an excellent, detailed biography of Camus. It traces his life from impoverished and tragic upbringing, through his experiences in the war, to his untimely death.
The author does an excellent job of not falling into the hero worship that many who write about Camus succumb to. He critically displays many of Camus' political and social positions - his support for colonialism most of all, but also his opposition to feminism - by examining the context in which Camus lived and linking the themes in his writings to his public and private statements on matters.
This is a masterful short biography which gives an honest, fair, and open picture of a philosopher who too often is surrounded by romantic intrigue.
The author does an excellent job of not falling into the hero worship that many who write about Camus succumb to. He critically displays many of Camus' political and social positions - his support for colonialism most of all, but also his opposition to feminism - by examining the context in which Camus lived and linking the themes in his writings to his public and private statements on matters.
This is a masterful short biography which gives an honest, fair, and open picture of a philosopher who too often is surrounded by romantic intrigue.
December 9, 2024
A nice objective overview of the life, the philosophy of this immense author as well as his relationship with Algeria and France. The book without excessive praise nor unnecessary malice shows the colonialism supporter Camus has always been while advocating the improvement of the slavery conditions for Algerians for the sake of avoiding rebellion.
Camus seems to have always been under the allusion of West supremacy. He has not been intellectually honest m adjusting his philosophy and principles to suit the liberation of France from Nazi Germany but not Algeria from the barbarism of France. If you think that such a hypocrisy is absurd that’s because it’s true. Camus was the apostle of the absurd.
Camus seems to have always been under the allusion of West supremacy. He has not been intellectually honest m adjusting his philosophy and principles to suit the liberation of France from Nazi Germany but not Algeria from the barbarism of France. If you think that such a hypocrisy is absurd that’s because it’s true. Camus was the apostle of the absurd.
May 22, 2024
Not to fault the book, but I’d find this introduction to be more rewarding after having read some of Camus’ work.
Read The Stranger and/or other of his works and then read the introduction to make sense of them individually and as a whole. Using this as a jumping point could deter some from drawing their own conclusions especially when it will spoil the plot of most of his works.
3.5/5 because it focuses perhaps a bit too much on the historical context when I’d have preferred more focus on Camus’ work and life.
Read The Stranger and/or other of his works and then read the introduction to make sense of them individually and as a whole. Using this as a jumping point could deter some from drawing their own conclusions especially when it will spoil the plot of most of his works.
3.5/5 because it focuses perhaps a bit too much on the historical context when I’d have preferred more focus on Camus’ work and life.
April 9, 2025
..kad man reiz jautāja par vienu Kamī darbu, teicu, ka no viņa neko neesmu lasījis. un tā ir joprojām, jo Svešinieks ir tikai iesākts un arī Piezīmju grāmatiņas mazliet palasītas, bet nekas vairāk. taču tas ir jāmaina. un ne tāpēc, ka noklausījos šo grāmatu. šī bija tikai īsa saprašana, kas ir Kamī, ko pasaulei nozīmē viņa darbi utt. liela daļa grāmatas bija politiska un par Alžīrijas vēsturi.
March 24, 2023
الكاتب عمل مجهود جميل بجمع مقالات كامو ومن ثم سنقراها معه قراءة نقدية
وكذالك كان التعرض لأعمال كامو جميل ووضح ان كل عمل مرتبط بالحالة السياسية والاجتماعية التي يراها كامو للولوج في عالم كامو أعتقد قراءة هذا الكتاب مهمة.
وكذالك كان التعرض لأعمال كامو جميل ووضح ان كل عمل مرتبط بالحالة السياسية والاجتماعية التي يراها كامو للولوج في عالم كامو أعتقد قراءة هذا الكتاب مهمة.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews