OK, Its been a long while since I read The Fall, but I was hoping somone could help me with something. If I remember correctly, one of the major premises in it is that one is rarely benevolent for the sake of being benevolent, but for another reason; be it selfishness through the pride they feel in helping, the desire to reach heaven, or other less noble things than being a good person. Anybody an expert on Camus that can remind me of how this is specically set up in the book?
-PSM
Hmm… I’m not an expert on Camus, but I am a fan. What exactly do you mean by “how this is specifically set up in the book”? My recollection is that the book is written as a narrative monologue from the main character (Clamence?) to a stranger in a bar. I think the story sets up how Clamence, who was generally considered a true humanitarian, virtuous and charitable, slowly came to realize that he himself was not motivated by a simple desire to be a humanitarian but, rather, by motives of power and recognition. Clamence’s realization is confirmed when he has the opportunity to save a drowning woman but decides not to do so. He then proceeds to make efforts to reveal his true nature to all those who had formerly admired him until he becomes considered to be tantamount to societal scum.
Is that what you’re looking for? Or were you looking for something else in terms of how the theme is set up in the book?
This is a truly wonderful book, and although I can’t quite answer your question at the moment, I’ll try to give some possible ideas. First, there’s one important thing to keep in mind. Clamence is not Camus, and often, Camus uses Clamence as a mouthpiece for views that are either held by other existentialists who Camus might have disagreed with, or as a parody of the public image of Camus himself.
At the same time, I think that Camus allowed himself the luxury of saying things through Clamence that he didn’t want to say directly, himself - even though he might philosophically have been against it. The novel gave him the chance to explore that ‘darker side’ of the existentialist philosophy (such as it was).
A prime example for me is an episode in which Clamence talks about the inmate in a concentration camp who goes to the guard and says that there must be some mistake - he is a special case, to which the reply is that there are no special cases. It’s one of the great triumphs of philosophical writing, IMHO, that Camus has his first person narrator tell a story trying to make one point (that nobody is a ‘special case’ to be saved), while the author himself is making the opposite point (that everyone is a special case). Camus’ views on the absolute sanctity of life, and both his writing about and acting against fascism show where he stood on this issue, and it’s with that background that he can create this ‘double irony’.
To come back to your question, I think that the novel sets up a character who appears righteous, but actually is not, but unlike your run of the mill hypocrite, he actually realises this about himself, and, like the marriner at the wedding reception, has to tell everybody who comes along his tale of woe. To Camus - an athiest who wanted people to become great as people, and not as gods - none of the ulterior motives that Clamence holds make sense. There’s no heaven to strive for, and social status and popularity do not make somebody happy. If one is to act benevolently, it is possible to do it for the right reasons, but that this is rare.
Of course, if you want a straightforward (and probably more correct answer), Realhoops has already given that 
Thanks guys, I was begining to question things when my post on the color of TP in France got more responses than this. Somone refrenced this part of the book the other day, and for the life of me i just kept blanking parts out. All cleared though, now.
-PSM