Personally, I am not sure this book even needs to be reviewed. It has been analyzed and re-analyzed for more than 50 years, and Camus has become a staple of atheistic existentialism. But his book The Stranger, does present this worldview very clearly, at least if one follows what is happening in the seemingly unrelated events.

The main character is a man named Meursault, a citizen of French-Algiers. The book starts off with the death of Maman, Meursault’s mother. The main character seems indifferent to this event, and is almost more concerned with the heat and his own dizziness than he is of his mother’s death.

From there we follow the character through a mix of random events: work at his office, playing at the beach, a woman he sleeps with, eating blood-sausage. Throughout this entire section of the book the reader is asking “Where is this going? Does this even have a point?” But we eventually come to the inciting incident of the book towards its last third: Meursault shoots an Arab on the beach, an Arab he had seen earlier, but would have no reason to kill. The chief cause seemed to be the heat and the dizziness that Meursault was experiencing on the beach that day.

It is at the end of the book that Camus worldview begins to take shape. The character Meursault is convinced of his own inevitable death, he says “‘Well, so I’m going to die.’ Sooner than other people will, obviously. But everybody knows life isn’t worth living. Deep down I knew perfectly well that it doesn’t much matter whether you die at thirty or at seventy, since in either case men and women will naturally go on living—and for thousands of years. In fact, nothing could be clearer. Whether it was now or twenty years from now, I would still be the one dying.” This shows Camus’ pessimism towards life, everyone is going to die, it is inevitable. However, Meursault is still hopeful that he will be pardoned and have an extra 20 years to live. He knows he is going to die, but he still would like to live those extra twenty years.

The book comes to its climax right at the end, Meursault is in his cell awaiting the verdict of his appeal when the chaplain comes to see him. The chaplain talks about God, life after death and forgiveness, but Meursault doesn’t care. He believes there is nothing after life, it just ends. And in contrast to the Chaplain’s divine words of seeing a “holy face” in the walls of the cell, Meursault can only think of Marie’s face, the woman he had slept with.

This is existentialism at its clearest: the seemingly meaningless events of this man’s life have lead him down a path to eventual death. And now, faced with his own death the things that fill his mind are the randomness of life and the pleasures he enjoyed in it. There is nothing afterwards and every person will eventually die; however, it is better to live longer than to die sooner.

I was challenged by many things he said. On top of that, I am still unclear on some of the points he was making. He has been known for his ambiguity, but with that said, there is much that is certain in this book: that life itself is random and ambiguous, and that death is irrepressible and final.

—Matt

Ender’s Game is considered by many to be the best Science Fiction Novel. It has attracted a cult following since it was published in 1977 and tops many of the science fiction best novel lists.

In the book readers follow a young, gifted child named Ender. That is not his actual name; instead he is the last of three children. Due to current population laws, having a third child must be authorized by the government, who frown upon it. Thus, the name Ender, even used by the child to refer to himself, is a derogatory label.

Ender is trained as a commander eventually to fight the buggers, aliens that have twice tried to invade human colonies. He is put through numerous training exercises to this purpose. And the climax of the books hangs on whether or not Ender will be the one to defeat the buggers. This book is fundamentally Naturalistic in outlook. The struggle between humans and buggers is seen as a survival of the fittest, the best species will continue to live on and multiply, while the other one will die, as is necessary in the natural course of things. The naturalistic outlook can also be seen in the fact that humans have advanced enough to colonize other worlds, and star-travel is easily possible. Much in the book is based upon science and logic, from basic fighting maneuvers to deep-space travel.

There is significant talk of evolution in the book, the buggers having evolved from insects, and still maintaining much of the insect mentality which is seen in the structure of their entire race: a queen with drones. But they have also progressed, shedding their exoskeletons in favor of internal support, and developing a multi-queen society instead of a single matriarch.

Furthermore, humans themselves have evolved from their basic amphibian ancestors to the pinnacle of their time: the child-geniuses such as Ender, and his two older siblings Valentine and Peter. Furthermore Ender himself is in a survival of the fittest situation: he must beat his peers to become the best that humanity has to offer. Each challenge is about gaining advantage over those he is training against, although sometimes defeating them or even killing them is not the best method, sometimes turning them into allies is a much better means of survival of the fittest.

In the end, Card has written an excellent Sci-fi book, one of the best. The overall viewpoint of this book would be that of naturalism.

—Matt

By Suzanne Collins New York: Scholastic ©2010

NOTE: This review may have spoilers for those who have not yet read the books.

Imagine the following: North America has been destroyed and in its place is a new nation called Panem. With 13 Districts and a tyrannical Capitol, all the people can do is try to survive while the Capitol resides in luxury. As this goes on, District 13 decides to mount an uprising. The Capitol strikes a deal with them, destroys their buildings as they seek refuge underground, and tells the other Districts that they have been nuked. All this is in an effort to keep control, to maintain luxury. With the uprising stopped, Panem seeks a constant reminder to the Districts of what they’ve done, and why they are weak. They call it the Hunger Games. Every year, each of the 12 Districts send two tributes, one boy and one girl–some volunteers, some just unfortunate souls–into an arena to fight to the death; the last child standing wins.

This is the world of The Hunger Games. The trilogy, penned by Suzanne Collins, takes place in Panem, through the eyes of a teenager named Katniss Everdeen, 74th female Tribute from District 12. The books have a complete mish-mash of beliefs, though none seem to approach anything resembling any sort of theism. Overall, there is a pessimistic feeling to Panem, but each of the main characters seems to find some hope to cling to. It is this, and really only this, that separates Collins’ characters from nihilism. Rather, we find them in a sort of self-defining life, seeking to find each other and live out the rest of their naturalistic days.

Katniss and Peeta–the 74th year tributes, live to the end. In an odd twist of the Games’ rules, two Tributes are allowed to live, provided they’re from the same District. So after a few weeks living in the Capitol, being trained, paraded around in ridiculous costumes for the public to adore them, and basically auditioning for sponsors (people who send supplies to them in the Games), they enter the Games. With weapons such as spears, nets, and bows, 24 children are told to kill or be killed. It is televised. The winner is never a winner. Every “Champion” of the Games leads a fairly terrible life afterwards. There is no escape from the Games or what it does to you.

Katniss, as the narrator, gives us the best idea of what it’s like. She begins to feel isolated and cut off from everyone she’s ever known, as they’ve never seen what she’s seen. Peeta feels the same, but they manage to find comfort in each other. After the first book (and with it the 74th Annual Hunger Games), the lives of all the main characters take a turn. Katniss & Peeta are forced to compete in an “All Stars” edition of the Games. Rescued from the arena, the third book focuses on the destruction of the Capitol.

The second book, Catching Fire, focuses on a love triangle, the effects of the Games on its supposed Champions, and indirectly raises questions of what one will do to survive. The last book, Mockingjay, questions authority left and right as the Districts seek once more to bring down the Capitol; it is only natural. Everyone has their values questioned, some driven insane, others recovering from insanity. As the characters spiral into a more and more surreal life, they can only try to hold on until the Capitol is defeated.

Now, as for what world story the Trilogy tells, that is different altogether. We must look to the individual characters. Katniss expresses an extremely pessimistic naturalism. She believes in people, but can’t seem to remember the last time she met one worth believing in. Peeta has a bright eyed fatalism, a seeming happy existentialism. He enters the Games expecting to die, content only that he will do so in rescuing Katniss, the one that he loves, helping her to win.

Prim, Katniss’ sister, shares Peeta’s optimism, but rather joins it to a naturalistic view. She seems to understand the harsh state of the world, but does what she can to see the good in things. Haymitch, the man responsible for coaching District 12 Tributes, is almost too much of a drunk to express a distinct world story, though tending toward nihilism. Two weeks after he won the Games everyone he loved was dead, joy stolen from him by the Capitol. His humor is blackened by this, and at times you wonder why he continues to bother to live. Gale, Katniss’ best friend, is about as happy as Prim. Though he despises the Capitol, he doesn’t simply stew in it. Rather, he looks for a way to rebel, and fights alongside District 13 in the final days of the Capitol.

The end of Mockingjay is what really brings the books together as a view. Katniss has served as a sort of mascot for the rebellion, pending several conditions. One of them is that she is given the chance to kill the president of Panem. Standing on the stage with Snow (the old president), Coin (the new president), and a bow in hand, Katniss draws back her arrow. At the last second she turns, and puts an arrow through Coin instead of Snow, killing the new (though the former died in an ensuing riot). So what does this say? It seems to push an existential loneliness on the reader, that even the new is wrong. There is no one fit to lead, at least not presented in the book. Collins tells her story masterfully, and it is a rather thrilling book series for young adults (it is, in fact, aimed at teens). However, the incredibly dark material just seems to have an aura of existentialism on all sides.

—Alex

©1983 Harcourt Eng. Trans. from ©1980 Il Nome della Rosa

The Name of the Rose is the first novel by this acclaimed Italian literary critic. And because Eco is a well read literary critic, he makes many references and allusions to other books, which can make it difficult for a reader to follow if they do not know the other works. The story is set in the 1300's in Europe with the focus on two monks, one, the narrator, is a Benedictine monk named Adso; the other is his teacher, William, who is a Franciscan friar.

William and Adso are brought to an Abby in order to facilitate a meeting between men representing the pope in Italy, and men representing the pope in Avignon, France. However, upon arriving at the Abby, William and Adso discover that something is awry: someone has been murdered at the Abby. Thus, they set out to solve this murder before the popes' men arrive, and the meeting is hampered.

Through this initial murder, William and Adso are drawn into a string of murders, deceptions, mysteries and lies, all of which center around the mysterious library in the center of the Abby.

Throughout the course of the story, the reader discovers that no one is good. Each faction of monks, or pope's men, or friars all has its faults or deep sins. And each group offers an appearance of being “holy,” but this merely masks their underlying faults and biases. Thus, Eco portrays a negative view of the Catholic Church in general. This is also supported by the fact that the protagonists, William and Adso, champion reason over against the Church’s traditions.

In the end of the book, readers discover that many of the murders revolve around a homosexual love-triangle within the Abby. However, this is only a pseudo-motivation for the murders; in fact, one of the oldest monks in the Abby is murdering people to keep a secret safe. The secret is that he has acquired a book by Aristotle on comedy. The book champions laughter as something good, while the older monk sees it is frivolity at best and a sin at worst. The older monk could not bring himself to destroy Aristotle's work, since it is the only one, but he does not want to bring it to the public eye, because Aristotle's reasoning contradicts the Church’s tradition.

Thus, The Name of the Rose reflects a critical pessimism towards the church and anything religious. Followers are either hypocrites or they are blind. The only characters that seem somewhat sane are those who champion reason and intellect. And eventually the murders and the mystery are solved by William’s superior reason. Finally, Eco uses a plethora of symbols and signs throughout the book. This allows the reader to interpret them as they will which lines up with Eco's theory of reader-centered interpretation.

—Matt R.

Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged in 1957. You may ask why I have decided to review a book over fifty years after its publication. Outside of the Bible, Atlas Shrugged has been the single greatest influence in shaping my worldview, which is ironic because the Objectivism that it embodies sets it staunchly against Christianity in almost every critical area. Atlas Shrugged is composed of heroes who hold to a vantage that is thoroughly modernistic, atheistic naturalism vantage point. This comes to light in both their speech and actions, and is praised throughout the book by Rand’s plot advancements.

For half a century now this novel has been key in shaping the thinkers of America. Rand coined her own philosophy Objectivism, which has been both subtly and overtly influencing peoples’ reasoning and values. Among other things, objectivism purports, “It is true that freedom, rights, and capitalism are selfish. It is also true that selfishness, properly defined, is the good,” according to the Ayn Rand Institute.

Commenting on the book, Rand herself states:
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.

I was drawn in by the storyline—a very successful woman, Dagny Taggart, must battle an American society determined to leech off her efforts. She, her former lover, and his cohort John Galt recognize that society in its current state must be killed in order to gain a free society. She comes to the gripping realization that her over-optimism and over-confidence are prolonging the incurable problem in American society.

Craftily embedded within an intriguing storyline is the thought-provoking reasoning of the philosophers found therein. These well-developed arguments echo in the reader’s mind long after the closing lines have been read. I found myself listening to the characters in Atlas Shrugged as I thought through some of my own views on social action.

But there is something even more troubling—when Rand presents assumptions and opinions stated as fact. The many incremental logical steps, taken individually, may never raise a flag in the reader’s mind. But after 1100 pages, he or she can be lulled into being convinced of the credibility of the entire philosophy, despite having never consciously making such a choice. (My father pointed out one such inconsistency after hearing my impassioned parroting of a normative view found in Atlas Shrugged.)

In terms of literary style and persuasive narrative, I would take this lengthy and meaty story over the hackneyed fluff-writing of most Christian authors. Contrasted with most of the religious fiction genre, Atlas Shrugged is a story of which I could not grasp in all its nuances on a first or even second reading. The writing is superbly crafted and the topics discussed are as relevant today as they were fifty-plus years ago when Rand set down to write this tale. Whether or not the reader agrees with Rand’s philosophy, this is a story worth reading and probably reading again.

--Joi