I read Nagel's piece, quite brilliant imho. Although I feel that his argument against absurdism was merely a more refined version of it, one step further back as he puts it. What really impressed me was how eloquently he presented the case for absurdism as he was tweaking it to suit his understanding. Granted, he sticks some logical daggers in Camus, but the real meat of the argument seems to me to be drawn from Camus.

Doesn't he essentially conclude by agreeing with everything Camus argued, but suggesting that we should face absurdity with a different attitude than that of Camus? I could be missing something, so please elaborate on your own views.

In any case, a very interesting and challenging read, thank you for pointing it out.

Also, I think you're being a bit narrow minded in saying that you found the existentialism movement flimsy...imo Nagel's conclusion is existentialism 2.0.