This is my second try reading Camus, and I didn’t like this one either.
The book seeks to explore Camus’ philosophy of absurdism through the lens of a man who participates in a non-sensical murder for non-sensical reasons, and endures a non-sensical trial. But the problem is that the characters’ actions could only be seen as absurdist through the lens of Camus’ time. At first, I hated the writing style of Part 1 - so much so that (despite the short page amount) this book was a slog. But by the end, I realized that this book is just a unempathetic look of someone with neurodivergence.

Despite the lack of clinical diagnosis at the time, the MC very much comes across as someone with neurodivergence. He’s very autism coded, and other people have difficulty understanding his perspective. When he commits the murder, despite Camus saying the reason was “the sun”, it reminded me of an episode of overstimulation.

When read from the idea that the book is about a neurodivergent man facing prejudice in the court room, it becomes slightly more interesting. However, without a conscientious decision to write this book as such, it comes across as inauthentic and improperly executed. It was impossible to care about or root for a singular character and the narrative devolves into self-important nihilism that is so prevalent in pretentious media.

A reread of this story, 7 years after I first read it. Still as impactful and thought provoking as the first read. Love how brisk the sentence structure is, while still being dense with visual and sensual imagery. This read brought to light how apathy and colonialism is inherently violent. 

It’s a classic absurdist and nihilist text, and it does not impress me the in the way that Waiting for Godot did in high school. Obviously the plot of L’étranger is more plausible. While the focus is on the protagonist’s morally devoid character, the happenings of the novel occur purely as a result of circumstances. The lack of character development may be explained by the perspective of Meursault who exhibits sociopathic behaviours. His thinking processes consider people as facts, they are relevant to him when they are in his vicinity, when they are absent they almost vanish from his conscience. Marie is beautiful, people conduct their business on the street, and the sun is oppressively hot. He lives hedonistically but accepts all which comes his way. 

What interested me was the flaws of human justice processes that were raised, whereby the prosecutor drew a string of coincidental events into a flawless tapestry condemning Meursault to the guillotine. The idea that the defence lawyer and the prosecutor were into his soul rather than coming to a verdict purely on the basis of facts casts light on the complexities of human instinct and feeling that are often in direct opposition to logic and plain facts.
The murder scene was also interesting as the sensory overload Meursault experiences was reason enough to murder a stranger who he was not in direct conflict with, in fact the murdered man defended his sister from Raymond’s abuse.  None of these details mattered in Meursault’s mind. 

Overall, this English translation is sharp, effective and a solid introductory text into absurdist and nihilist philosophy. For this reason I imagine it is a required reading for Year 11 and 12 Extension English. As a French speaker, I wish to read the original French version because I believe it will be more enjoyable to me. I prefer the poetics of the French language and the feeling of proximity to the author through their native language.

At first, it started boring and a little monotonous, but as I continued, the story gradually became interesting. I was even curious about what was going to happen to the characters as the plot developed. But the ending was a little upsetting and I still couldn't believe that he was going to die (I still hoped that he would get at least a less severe punishment)