I knew that the highly acclaimed "l'enstranger" would be refreshing, but I didn't expect it to be full of shock to my view of life. It was also the first time I really experienced that a good literary work can really transcend the constraints of politics on discourse, to directly penetrate human mind, describe a system of rules and reduce politics to an unsurprising rule in the system. At the same time it is conveyed in a way that is extremely down to earth, not overlooking the masses.

Camus was also extremely straightforward to summarize all what he wanted to express directly in the preface (the version I'm reading is the afterword, and many thanks to the editor for putting it at the end instead of at the beginning otherwise there would be much less exciting to read through the novel...) The central idea is clearly summarized, even without the literary treatment, reading it is a pleasurable experience:

I summarized The Stranger a long time ago, with a remark I admit was highly paradoxical: "In our society any man who does not weep at his mother's funeral runs the risk of being sentenced to death." I only meant that the hero of my book is condemmed because he does not play the game. In this respect, he is foreign to the society in which he lives; he wanders, on the fringe, in the suburbs of private, solitary, sensual life. And this is why some readers have been tempted to look upon him as a piece of social wreckage. A much more accurate idea of the character, or, at least one much closer to the author's intentions, will emerge if one asks just how Meursault doesn't play the game. The reply is a simple one; he refuses to lie. To lie is not only to say what isn't true. It is also and above all, to say more than is true, and, as far as the human heart is concerned, to express more than one feels. This is what we all do, every day, to simplify life. He says what he is, he refuses to hide his feelings, and immediately society feels threatened. He is asked, for example, to say that he regrets his crime, in the approved manner. He replies that what he feels is annoyance rather than real regret. And this shade of meaning condems him.
 
For me, therefore, Meursault is not a piece of social wreckage, but a poor and naked man enamored of a sun that leaves no shadows. Far from being bereft of all feeling, he is animated by a passion that is deep because it is stubborn, a passion for the absolute and for truth. This truth is still a negative one, the truth of what we are and what we feel, but without it no conquest of ourselves or of the world will ever be possible.
 
One would therefore not be much mistaken to read The Stranger as the story of a man who, without any heroics, agrees to die for the truth. I also happen to say, again paradoxically, that I had tried to draw in my character the only Christ we deserve. It will be understood, after my explanations, that I said this with no blasphemous intent, and only with the slightly ironic affection an artist has the right to feel for the characters he has created.
 
by Albert Camus
January 8, 1955

One more thing, here is my guess on why Camus mentions that it is a "slightly ironic affection" in the last sentence: the original is "I had tried to draw in my character the only Christ we deserve", and he explains that he does not mean any blasphemy, but "the slightly ironic affection an artist has the right to feel for the characters he has created". In fact, Camus's ability to portray the Christ with such precision and literary flair is far beyond the realm of an "artist", but to say directly, "I'm even more awesome than the Christ for writing such a work", the "normal" readers can not accept it. That's why Camus said there is a "slightly ironic affection", right? ;D

我知道被盛誉的《局外人》会让我耳目一新，但是没想到在高预期下仍然满是震撼。也是第一次真切体会到好的文学作品可以真正超脱于政治对于话语权的束缚，去直接穿透人性，描述一种规则体系并且把政治归纳为体系中毫不出奇的一条的。同时它又是用一种极其平易近人，而非俯瞰众生的方式传达。

加缪也是足够真实的哥们儿，直接在序言（我读的这个版本是后记，跪谢编辑大大把它放在最后而不是最前变成白话剧透文...）把中心思想概括得清清楚楚，哪怕没有文学性的处理，读来也是让人头皮发麻：

很久以前，我用一句话概括了《局外人》，并且，我意识到这句话是如此的荒谬：“在我们的社会里，任何不在他母亲葬礼上哭泣的人，都有可能被处以死刑。”我只是想说，这本书的主人公之所以被判刑，是因为他不参与这个社会设定的游戏。从这个意义上来说，他就是这个社会的局外人： 徘徊在社会边缘，游荡在生命边缘，孤独而充满肉欲。因为这个原因，一些读者试图把他理解为一个被社会抛弃的人。但是要更准确地把握他的性格，或者说把握他的作者想要创造的那个性格，你必须要问问自己，默尔索是以怎样的方式抵抗这种游戏的。答案很简单：他拒绝撒谎。撒谎不仅仅是说假话。事实上，尤其是当你说的不仅是真相的时候，你就在撒谎。在人心灵的层面上，说出的内容比内心感受到的更多，就是撒谎。为了让生活简单一点，我们每天都这么做。然而，默尔索并不想让生活简单一点，虽然他看上去恰恰相反。他怎么想的就怎么说，他拒绝掩饰自己的感觉，于是社会立马就感觉受到了威胁。比如说，总是有人想让他承认，他为自己的罪行悔恨。他的回答却是，与其说是真的感到悔恨，不如说是觉得厌烦。就是由于这个差异，他被治罪了。
 
所以对我来说，默尔索不是一个被社会抛弃的人，而是一个可怜的、赤裸裸的人，他所热爱的，是如昼日般绝对的光明，甚至不为阴影留一点点余地。他不是没有感觉的人，他的内心被一股坚韧不折而意蕴深厚的激情驱使，驱使他追求一种“绝对”和“真实”。这个真实虽然只是从生活和感觉中衍生而来的消极真实，但是没有它，人类不可能战胜自我，也不可能战胜外部世界。
 
所以读者大致可以认为，《局外人》讲述的是一个毫无英雄主义的自命不凡、只是愿意为真实赴死的男人的故事。我也曾经说过——当然听起来又是非常荒谬的：“我想要塑造的主人公，是我们的救世主该有的唯一的模样。”解释了那么多以后，我想大家会理解，我所说的话并没有任何渎神的意思，我只是想说，一个艺术家有权对自己创造的角色心怀一种稍显讽刺的情感。
 
阿尔贝·加缪
1955年1月8日

最后一个完全是脑洞开的想法为什么加缪提，说是“稍显讽刺”的感情：原文是“我想要塑造的主人公，是救世主该有的唯一的模样。”并且解释自己没有任何渎神的意思，而是“一个艺术家对自己创造的角色心怀一种稍显讽刺的感情”。其实加缪能够如此精准且文学性地塑造出救世主形象，已经远远伟大于一个“艺术家”的范畴了，但是直接说“老子能写出这样的作品比救世主还牛逼那么一丢丢"又让“正常”读者没办法接受了，才会有这一种“稍显讽刺”的感情吧哈哈哈？