In November, we will be reading The Fall by Camus.
Please post your thoughts and questions in this thread.
Printable View
In November, we will be reading The Fall by Camus.
Please post your thoughts and questions in this thread.
The library does not have a copy at hand so I will have to wait till they get hold of one.
To the annoyance of everyone here, I will watch it with this refrain, but The Fall happens to be the only major Camus title not on the kindle. I have to go see my young lady internist tomorrow over the power chair :rolleyes: and my big old library is on the way; if I have the time (if my branch is even open Monday) I will renew my card and see if they have it, since someone mentioned it was short-- but I may have to sit this one out, to my regret.
You know the NT catch-all phrase "the spirit is willing".
I am spreading myself a bit thin...
It is the spirit that quickeneth, Jozanny, the flesh profiteth nothing! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
My library came good yesterday.
I got it on Thursday at the library and have been reading it on my lunch breaks, at a short 108 pages I should finish it tomorrow. I was glad to find that the library had one copy in English, it can be difficult to find French authors in English in a French city.
I'm waiting for the online copy.
I find the narration of this book to be quite interesting. While naturally, for the most part all first person narratives are meant to be speaking directly to the reader within The Fall there is actually what I feel to be an interactive quality to it. For the narrator, is not merely just telling a story, but engaged in an active conversation with this unnamed anonymous figure who he meets at a bar. I personally feel that said unknown person is intended to be the reader. Sort of like those card board cutouts and posters that have face cut out, so you can put your own face in the pose. In a way you are actually being placed inside the story, even if its only to pose.
The narrator I find to be quite comical in a way, but he also has this strange quality about him which is difficult to explain, on the one hand I do not generally dislike him, and yet on the other hand there is something about him that does not seem to be likable. Which does contradict itself I know but it is hard to describe. I suppose what it comes down to, is the fact that there is something about him that seems disingenuous, and yet intriguing at the same time.
Just picked up my copy. Tis a short read! Will start this eve.
Indeed, quite a facetious fellow is this Clamence (a pseudonym by his own blithe admission). His disingenuousness, in itself, is not entirely irredeemable for the simple fact that he openly admits to being, basically, a duplicitous bastard himself (with admirable perspicacity to boot), and while I’m not entirely sympathetic to some of the conclusions he draws from this self-knowledge (you’ll get there), it is at least the product of some heavy ratiocination on his part, and thus, a perspective considered enough to be, well…considered. :nod: Wouldn’t Socrates be proud? :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
I have to say, I agree with some of the things he says, I think he exposes some very bleak truths which most people are simply afraid to openly confront, but do linger within us, and is part of our nature. I could relate quite well to some of the assertions he makes.
I absolutely loved the statements he made regarding friendship, and use of friends, as well as the trouble with them. His statements that you cannot count upon them to call you when on the evening when you are contemplating suicide, but you can be sure they will call only when life is beautiful.
I also absolutely loved his thoughts regarding death, and it is those whom we have lost that we love the best, because of the need to feed off the tragedy, and the fact that once they are dead, their friendship becomes more convenient to us, and the fact that we are in love with the personal emotions and pain in which the death causes us.
While people like to speak of ideas of unconditional love, I would have to degree with his presumption that we cannot love without self-love.
Two-thirds along, I continue to find the first person narrative wearisome. I do agree that Clamence provides insight into our motives for acting, wiping away the veneer of integrity we all like to project.
Will this pattern simply continue to the end?
I can understand your feelings about the narration, I do on the one hand find it interesting, a unique way of approaching the story, but on the other hand, it is difficult to really get engaged in the story, as well there is not much of an actual "story" provided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
So like a person who talks way too long to get to the point when they are talking to you, and you just wish they would shut up already and get to the end, at times I can get a little bored of his rambling.
But no again he will say suddenly say something that I find quite brilliant.
As I am currently rather enjoying his discussion regarding relationships, and his deep truthful insight he offers upon that subject. I particularly enjoy his sentiments about his experiences with women and how each one expects she is suddenly going to be the one to change him and be able to accomplish what all others before her have failed to do.
Nearing the end, I'm learning of the phases in the life of Clamence, with something less than full clarity. The odd surprise sparkles through, and the Spartan honesty of Camus' philosophical ideas are clever.
But reading remains as laborious as ever; The Stranger was much easier. I'm hoping for a sting in the ending that often makes a painful read worthwhile.
I agree the story is not as engaging as that of The Stranger but I just came to another passage within, which just really struck me and that I absolutely loved. I thought his discussion about suicide was quite marvelous.
I absolutely loved that passage, and thought it was quite fabulous.Quote:
They always think one commits suicide for a reason. But it's quite possible to commit suicide for two reasons. No, that never occurs to them. So what's the good of dying intentionally, of sacrificing yourself to the idea you want people to have of you? Once you are dead, they will take advantage of it to attribute idiotic or vulgar motives to your action. Martyrs, cher ami,must choose between being forgotten, mocked, or made use of. As for being understood--never!
I think Camus is acutally inside my head. Though I am not sure which one of us ought to be more frightenged by that idea. But I just got to the portion which he speaks on the issue of personal responseblility and how no one truly wants to accept accountablility for thier actions or hear the real truth. And the things he says, it is like looking into some sort of mirror for my mind.
I just loved loved loved theses passages.
Quote:
Each of us insists on being innocent at all cost, even if he has to accuse the whole human race and heaven itself. You won't delight a man by complimenting him on his efforts by which he has become intelligent or generous. On the other hand, he will beam if you admire his natural generosity. Inversely, if you tell a criminal that his crime is not due to his nature or his character but to unfortunate circumstances, he will be extravagantly grateful to you.
Quote:
Yet there is no credit in being honest or intelligent at birth. Just as one is surely no more responsible for being a criminal by nature than for being a criminal by circumstance. But those rascals want grace, that is irresponsibility, and they shamelessly allege the justifications of nature or the excuses of circumstances, even they are contradictory. The essential thing is that they should be innocent, that their virtues, by grace of birth, should not be questioned and that their misdeeds, born of a momentary misfortune should never be more than provisional.
Quote:
This is true that we rarely confide in those who are better than we. Rather, we are more inclined to flee their society. Most often, on the other hand, we confess to those who are like us and who share our weaknesses. Hence we don't want to improve ourselves, or be bettered, for we should first have to be judged by default. We merely wish to be pitied and encouraged in the course we have chosen. In short, we should like, at the same time, to cease being guilty and yet not to make the effort of cleansing ourselves. Not enough cynicism and not enough virtue. We lack the energy of evil as well as the energy of good. Do you know Dante? Really? The devil you say! Then you know that Dante accepts the idea of neutral angels in the quarrel between God and Satan. And he puts them in Limbo, a sort of vestibule of his Hell. We are in the vestibule, che ami.
Quite different from The Stranger. It is quite good, and I don't think you need a background in philosophy to enjoy it. The language is quite different, but The Fall reminds me of Poe's The Fall of the House of Usher. Not only because of the word 'Fall' in both titles, but because there is virtually no dialogue in either story.
Reading this makes me feel the Nobel prize was justly awarded. The many personages acted by Jean-Baptiste: God, the Pope, and of course John the Baptist - make the novel interesting and convoluted. It certainly makes you think! This short book would have to be read several times to discern all Camus has to tell. So when you've finished it, just start on your second reading.
Aren't you, in fact, Clamence's silent acquaintance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
A limited knowledge of Kierkegaard sure does help!Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
about everything!
Camus' essay The Myth of Sisyphus would be more enlightening than Kierkegaard. He is responding to Existentialism by creating his own philosophy of Absurdism. Camus is a lot less positive than Kierkegaard, though his roots do go back to him.
http://dbanach.com/sisyphus.htm
I feel like I am! When reading the book, some of the things he says, I littlerally will yell out YES!!! to the bookQuote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
I'm very tempted to run like a bunny to the library, retrieve this book, read it in a hurry, and join in the conversation! But ah, the month has past it's half-way point.
It is not a very long book, and pretty easy to read through.
Having finished days ago, I am not warming to the story. Reading was a drudgery and most of Camus' ideas I'd heard from earlier writers - Kierkegaard, Ibsen, Dostoevsky, Joyce, Kafka and others - in more entertaining forms. Still, I did enjoy L’Étranger, last year.
Clamence's life journey and that he finally learns to have his tawdry but wounding amusement at our expense is, nevertheless, rather sharp.
Just finished The Fall tonight, and even though it was not as engaging or interesting as The Stranger, and did not have much of an actual story behind it, and the narrative style could be tedious at times, I still loved it!
There was just so much within the book that spoke to me personally, and I was right on page and on board with much of what Camus said. His perceptions and thoughts so similar reflected my own. So many of the passages just jumped out at me.
As for the actual story - Clamence's growing awareness - I'm less than clear what has happened. Here's my thoughts:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Clamence did good works for self actualisation, realised the intrinsic hypocrisy this entailed, and despairing, he becomes a debaucher, who preaches his realised truth to the ostensibly virtuous.
I have read only 1/4 of the story but I find the first person narrative very engaging. It is like listening to a smooth talker in action. Even though we know that he cannot be trusted entirely, we still cannot help finding him fascinating.
Yes! Exzactly that was some of my first thoughts about the narrator when I first started reading the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
You can sense there is something about him not to be liked, and yet you cannot resist being intrigued by him.
Couple of questions:
Why do you think the story is set in NL?
There is a mention of a picture being removed from the wall behind the bar (I think) and its place is visible now. Any significance to that?
I had to go back and refresh my memory on that part.
Intrestingly enough the painting was called "The Just Judges"
http://z.hubpages.com/u/955461_f520.jpg
and it was stolen from a pannle done as an altar peice called "The Adoration of the Lamb:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...amb.750pix.jpg
I think that there is some significance in the fact that it was the judges who were stolen considering the nature of the narrative which does heavily speak of ideas of judgement through man and mans attempts to try to absolve himself of judgement at all cost. As well the narrator referees to himself as the judge-penitent and in telling his story is exposing himself to being judged for his own conduct and actions.
Yet, ironically in the story concerning the painting he tries to absolve himself of any connection with the crime (perhaps proving his own point) for he says no harm is being done by his not returning it since none can tell the replica from the authentic piece.
I think the reason he has the panel removed from the bar to be stored within his own apartment is because he sees the judges as being in someway sacred and perhaps he feels the need to preserve them from a world that has become so corrupt. He explains one of the reasons why he did not return the authentic panel is because
"The Just Judges" have no business being enthroned within the bar to rule over and be snubbed by those sinners who frequent the bar, and I think that he feels some sort of kinship with the judges and I think he sees himself as being their keeper in a way. Protecting them from what the world has become, perhaps keeping them blind to the sins of man, whom refuse their judgement.Quote:
those judges are on their way to meet the Lamb, because there is no more lamb or innocence, and because the clever rascal who stole the panel was an instrument of the unknown justice that one ought not to thwart
The wiki on the book goes into detail about the setting in Amsterdam, and I have to say that it makes a lot of sense. If I remember correctly, Clamence in the story compares the canals to the circles of hell from Dante. The wiki says that the red-light district, where the bar is, is in the center ring. Thus, the story is in a way taking place in the last circle of hell from Dante's Inferno, where Satan is found. The fact that it takes place in a sort of symbolic hell on Earth sort of goes in with the theme of judgment. All these people are judging, and worrying about being judged, but ultimately they are already condemned and living out the worse punishment possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade