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.