I found this book to be relatively underwhelming, relative to my high expectations sourcing from its status as a classic. While reading this story, I spent most of my time enjoying the prose while simultaneously wondering what all of the various details and descriptions were leading up to. Though I guess the sense of underwhelm and pointlessness may well be part of the described philosophy, so fair play to the author haha.
An angle I’ve found quite interesting is looking at this story through the lens of neurodivergence specifically. Meursault's continuous failure to conform to society’s expectations is a large part of why he is sentenced to death; the prosecutor’s claim that he was responsible for his mother’s death as well as the unrelated case of parricide was a wild one, and one that would’ve been entirely avoided if he had looked a bit sadder, chosen to see a sadder movie, and cried at the right times in front of the right people. While this man is called monstrous for a lack of this innate quality, these accusations are more a result of failing to engage in various social pretenses, and he was all in all not a menace to society outside of this one incident. Having just read East of Eden, I additionally found it interesting to consider Steinbeck’s perspective on Kate in contrast to society’s treatment of this story’s protagonist.
As an aside, I want to note that Camus' absurdist view on life likely isn't as revolutionary to me as when this work were first published; I feel like I've had too much exposure to this kind of philosophy at this point in my life to be truly changed or fascinated by it in the way I had anticipated, but others might find this to be a transformative read. Despite this not being a massive standout, the last few pages (the last two, in the edition I read) are marvelous, in my opinion, and I will be coming back to reread those specifically.