Literary Analysis: Camus' The Plague
Written in 2017, but happened in 2020:
The Plague
Bibliographic Information: Camus, Albert. The plague. 1947. Translation by Stuart Gilbert.
Literary Era: Along with The Stranger, The Plague belongs to the literary era of existentialism (1850-present).
The Plague, originally published in 1947, illustrates a multitude of sociological and philosophical aspects concurrent with the historical era. Albert Camus, the author of The Plague, was born on November 7, 1913, in the district of the colonized French Algeria. Recognised as Camus’s second grand work, The Plague trailed after The Stranger as the eminent pronunciation of life as Camus sees it. The influence of Camus’s philosophical being had its toll on his perspective, as he embraced and supported the school of thought known as absurdism around the 1930s. His novel revolves around the study of absurdism and mild nihilism, by which he creates a society to enact the two concepts with. Often echoing the voice of the Danish philosopher Kierkegaard, Camus takes the novel unto subjective and objective truths that individuals and societies alike fall prey to. The historical era also affected this work, analysts stated that the author was largely concerned with political and moral dilemmas in neo-imperialism. Perhaps this was his motivation to write–– to explain the concept of the void and transmit the idea of mortality. He chose the town of Oran, one he had familiarized himself to. His allegory of the tainted Earth allude to the tainted society, which under absurd situations may receive corresponding absurd responses. His interpretation of human condition revolves around microcosm and macrocosm, in which the human consciousness may altogether blend into one–– suffering without boundaries. However, it is exactly this against this suffering that man should always struggle with.
Quote Analysis:
“Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see if we were not always so much wrapped up in ourselves” (37).
There are three targeted, criticized ideologies in Camus’s work, and they are ignorance, individualism, and fatalism. Ignorance appears in Camus’s criticism against figures like Cottard. Camus, while not openly disapproving the character’s ignorance, subjectively hints at his inferiority. It is reasonable to infer that Cottard dwell in a state of conflict, that in a time of peace and prosperity, he is out of place and rebellious; in a time of bizarre uproar or time of suppression, he is at peace and consequently flourishing. Camus also jests at the singularity of individuals nowadays, for which we lose our common goal and common desire. The population in the beginning of the plague, tends to believe that the individual’s suffering does not equate any others’ suffering––their personal terrors somehow range more horrendous than others’. Finally, the stupidity that Camus objects to is the idea of fatalism. As an atheist, Camus fully understands that religious fatalism does not correspond his definition of the human condition. Human condition, is that we as a specie must fight against an undefiable enemy.
“Man is an idea, and a precious small idea, once he turns his back on love. And that’s my point; we––mankind––have lost the capacity for love” (163).
Love is connection. Conversely, to not love is disconnection. Rieux, inquires philosophically of what mankind is or what he is capable of. The two discuss about dying for an idea, and then the two divulge into what an idea would be. In the position of Tarrou, man qualifies as an idea, something that deems saving. What Tarrou wants to argue is that, since man has lost the capacity for love, he then become an idea and no longer an identity, therefore he deems valuable to save. Because of the multitude of disconnection, man has committed himself to categorization and institutionalization. Rieux and Tarrou converse philosophically just as the author wants to communicate the effect of “the plague”.
“Each of us has the plague within him; no one, no one on earth is free from it. What’s natural is the microbe. All the rest––health, integrity, purity––is a product of the human will, a vigilance that must never falter” (253).
Camus incorporates this statement for the effect of clarifying the definition of a plague in Tarrou’s eyes. The author most evidently wants the readers to realize that the human intuitions will always persist, no matter the given situation. Their natural being will always be chased by the fear or condition of mortality. Human will, as Tarrou suggests calmly, determines whether one should face alienation and isolation. That exact will, factor into how one should stand in an issue, to become indifferent or involved.
Title Significance:
A piece of literature is never as simple as an explanation of plot, or else readers would go seek other genres. Albert Camus chose this title due to his explanation of a situation and of a literary experiment. He tries to portray one individual within a collective group, bound together in an irresponsible and indifferent manner that eventually was saved by heroism. Perhaps Camus wishes to convey this point to the readers: the plague is an absurd situation that mirrors the current society. A plague can be interpreted literally, that it is an illness that can be spread to cause great harm and pain universally. The plague, first notified by the emergence of the rats and symptoms of buboes, is not unprecedented historically. Camus most likely draws evidence on structuring his plague from the Black Death during the 13th century. Under severe circumstances, people were forced to obey certain measures. A plague can interpreted analytically, and perhaps the right way, that the readers understand the forces of the society that cause distress. When shown Under the plague, what would the people of Oran do? Under the plague, what would the world respond? Consequently, under this experimental situation, what can Camus say about human condition?
Setting:
On the first page, Camus reveals the setting to his readers. Set in the town of Oran around the 1940s, close to a French port on the Alerian coast, a headquarter of the prefect of a French department. Geographically, Oran is positioned in Algeria not far from the tip of Africa by the North. Camus described it as ugly, or at least to the doctor’s perspective. “The town itself is ugly” (3). The negativity in this novel begins on page 5, that the sign of mortality and death already creeps into the book. In a season-less world, he cherishes the winter, which is the season of bleak and void. The literary geography of Oran is of a valley-shaped isolation spot, where a perfectly shaped bay envelops the town. Camus or rather Rieux notes the civilians’ interest in getting rich and disinterest in a wider scope. Being an Islamic or rather Arabic state, the book never mentioned any signs of indigenous tongue but rather a fully integrated European perspective. Historically, the French colonized Algeria during the age of imperialism and beyond. In the 1930s, the French army settled in Algeria in the pursuit of petroleum, coal, and resources. The social imbalance is apparent in the novel, and in addition, the World War II was happening. This largely give evidence of the great “plague” that people connect to. However, readers should take note of the description of the town as “modern”, for Camus purposely described it as without an identity. All modern cities, lack an identity of the past, and that is what draws in the topic of existentialism, for which the setting solely illustrates. Before going any further into the book, a reader can already make inferences on the town of Oran, that it is a grim place even without the plague. Perhaps Camus designed Oran to portray the larger scope of our society, despite the modern design and large population, we have lost the vivid desire for change and joy.
Themes
The subjective perspective overrides the objective perspective
In the beginning of the novel, Camus puts an emphasis on the objectivity of doctor Rieux on the subject of the plague and his encountering of the population. He does not reveal to the readers until the resolution that he himself is the narrator. His description of the ugly town, bitter taste in the growing materialism of Oran, and the grotesque fate of the masses are direct inferences that he gives the account subjectively. This connects to the world because a perspective historically have dictated what is commonly known as right and wrong. History itself would not exist objectively without the support of the subjective cause. To record an event such as the plague, or any significant incident, perspectives will always influence the way future perceives it.
All human share a common state of suffering
While The Plague can be an allegory to a grander philosophical being, the essential message of suffering rings throughout. It is an experiment with given variables, to see the social responses. When given a social dilemma, it is common that “What’s true of all the evils in the world is true of plague as well, it helps men to rise above themselves. When you see the misery it brings, you need to be stone blind to give in tamely to the plague” (126). The fate is shared with all men in the constant state of fear and terror, all men are faced with a interminable struggle. Individual destinies, then, become a collective destiny in the town of Oran. The plague, essentially, impact all races and all statuses. They all share a common emotion known as the sense of exile and deprivation of hope, which churns together in togetherness. Everyone suffers indistinctively because they also distrust others. The potential mortality of mankind is a threat to the individual, and everyone can be a possible carrier of the plague. They suffer, then, under the circumstance of the black forest condition. In our society, it is equally common for everyone to live under the same social condition and thus suffer under the same circumstances. Imprisonment under this institution can be shown through our lack of consciousness. Everyone in town, while they can have different situations––Rieux tries to understand the plague, Cottard tries to smuggle banned items, Rambert tries to contact his wife–– all are restricted under the grand scheme.
There is no definite definition of heroism
When people talk of heroism, they talk of Odysseus embarking on his grand journey, when the hero overcome a certain obstacle. They contemplate about the possibility of defeat and reflect on their journey toward this possibility. But what if that heroism has no meaning after the constant defeat? Where does that piece of admiration fit, then? A hero, to some, should have a consistent resistance to the foul, the bad. However, in Dr. Rieux’s terms, such struggle will never succumb to anything. To the perspective of Father Paneloux, the people of Oran are condemned and no heroism can be exerted upon the population. Such was a perspective of a fatalist, which does not accept the salvation of a particular potent individual but that of a command by an omnipotent being. A fatalist give into the participation of fate, rather than trying to passively attempt at an alternate solution. Heroism, in Rieux’s eyes, means avoiding acts of cowardice and inactivity, by simply defying traditional endurance. Rieux also argues for the emphasis on emotions, to feel beyond an individual’s subjective boundaries, “Man is capable of great deeds. But if he isn’t capable of a great emotion, he leaves me cold” (163). However, heroism is different for Rambert, whose individual success and fulfillment overviews the topic of heroism. When Rambert comments on Rieux’s cold world of abstractions, that he obeys the voice of reason, Rambert does not understand the concept of heroism in this context. In our society, we lack heroes in general; therefore, we lack the ability to interpret a hero and a selfish figure.
Character: In order of importance
Bernard Rieux is the protagonist and the narrator of The Plague. He is the first figure the readers are exposed to, the first figure in Oran to become alert and struggle with the epidemic. A doctor who believes in the portrayal of human empathy, Rieux promptly establishes himself as the person responsible for treatment. He does not accept the fatalist philosophy of giving into a dilemma. Rieux acts upon a high moral standard and obeys his social duties. Separated from his wife, he essentially is a good samaritan for he goes out of his way to accept the community. Camus describes him as a man around thirty-five, with moderate height, and black hair. One particular description stands out because Camus mentioned his appearance as “one of a Sicilian peasant”. Rieux plays a major role in the communication of Camus’s philosophy. Camus, in the 1920s, was attracted to the idea of suicide, human mortality, and the theme of death. The defiance of a natural incident, presents the reader a character who is heroic and absurd in the commoner’s eyes. One particular incident or thought of Rieux was that “he realized how absurd it was, but he simply couldn’t believe that a pestilence on the great scale could befall a town where people like Grand were to be found, obscure functionaries cultivating harmless eccentricities” (47). He sees the world as a just world, he believes that the world would punish the guilty and ease the innocent. Rieux sets the ignorant in its own category because he believes they have not yet had the chance to taste their version of the truth. Therefore, Rieux does not condemn Cottard because he thinks Cottard belongs to the ignorant and the alienated. Perhaps Camus hope to communicate the three shared principles of the population: isolation, suffering, and love. “They are more or less ignorant, we call it vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance that fancies it knows everything. There can be no true goodness nor true love without the utmost clear sightedness” (131). Rieux had seen the desperateness of humanity, but Rieux forgives it, and that is what echoes heroism in The Plague.
Jean Tarrou:
Jean Tarrou, while Rieux may seem him physically as a young man, is mentally superior to a majority of the population. Tarrou contributes to the account of The Plague by writing down his thought on time-wasting, or the value of time. He states in a paradoxical manner that doing repetitive and conscious work in a timely manner does not count as wasting time. Camus discusses all of his thoughts through Tarrou. Time, he suggests, can be discovered through tiresome routines. Productive use of time, however, is of a different matter. He gives his effort in the process of finding a cure and supporting Rieux along the way, “Monsieur Tarrou, that you are helping to enforce the prophylactic measures” (145). As a temporary resident of Oran, he has no intentions to leave the town and possess a more objective view of the city than perhaps even Rieux. Tarrou befriends Rieux, tells Rieux of his background, and invites the doctor out for a swim. Camus’s depiction of the ocean or water in literary works is very important because it is a state of freedom and connection. By the end of the novel, Tarrou struggle with the plague with all his might. In his eyes, the value of choice is beyond death and suffering.
Cottard: Cottard sets himself apart from the social tide of Oran through various ways. From his language to his actions, Cottard opposes the constant will of the town. From the very beginning, the readers acknowledge the character through a failed attempt at suicide. Next, in the light of the plague, he indulges in black market trade to fill up his pockets. Toward the end, he falls into a state of instability once the plague has ceased. Rieux described him as: “was that of a man who was sick and tired of the world he lived in–– and had resolved to have no truck with injustice and compromises with the truth” (12). Cottard lives in the same building as Grand, the writer, and he does not have a job. His secretive and lucrative ways is largely unknown to the reader. Cottard accepts the guilt within himself and accepts that his social clause is equal when everyone suffers at the same time. His fear of the exclusion returns and that causes him to fall to social delinquency when the plague recede. Cottard is a dynamic character whose temperament is highly controllable, yet under certain circumstances.
Father Paneloux: Father Paneloux represents the fatalist perspective in philosophy, the religious acceptance of a higher authority, and the submissive belief. He is an esteemed Jesuit priest in Oran. Like in the Black Death, people listened to the authorities for guidance and repentance. Fate, as he beckoned, gives the most reason in the process of punishment. “Calamity has come upon you, my brethren, you deserve it,” (94), the plague was a form of punishment to the people of Oran for their sins. However, when morale is lower, Father Paneloux immediately transitions to that He tempts on the souls for faith, that belief should never waver in bad situations, “today the truth is a command. It is a red spear sternly pointing to the narrow path, the one way of salvation” (98). Paneloux eventually fell to an eccentric illness but was not credited to the plague. Rieux, in response, regulated this case as a strange case. Camus wants to take a stance on the topic of religion, for he is an atheist. The Father accepts death as a natural response, however, it is quite the contrary that Camus is arguing.
Raymond Rambert:
Raymond Rambert is a “short, square-shouldered man with a determined-looking face and keen, intelligent eyes, he gave the impression of someone who could keep his end up in any circumstances” (7). Authorities had commissioned him to inquire and examine the living conditions of the Arab population. In fact, Rambert is the only figure that has connection of the Arabs in a town that was indigenously of Arabic origins. He felt trapped at first by the plague that seemed out of his boundary of concern. Rambert symbolises the great population restrained by social isolation, who can eventually find their goodness through exposure.
Conflict:
Person Vs. Society
Sometimes the currents of a society is inescapable and intolerable. In times of disaster, people’s minds flow to the place of security, assurance, and submission. While The Plague is not prominent on the theme of religion, Camus does stress the importance of people in general against the society’s pressure. When everyone lives under the careless, selfish, without-love state in Oran, any immigrants (if there are supposed to be any) will fit into the lifestyle and become one with the society. Religion, is a social stress suppressed onto the shoulders of the general population. Father Paneloux largely presents this societal pressure. Paneloux believes that the reason for the outbreak of epidemic is due to the willed destiny that was delivered by God. Camus’s Rieux is discontent with the pronunciation of truth, of something that can be so delicately given and not fought for.
While Camus does not reject the belief that the divine light can be seen even in the light of the most catastrophic events and a Christian hope is granted to all, he gives Rieux an argument that Rieux can not object entirely on his own. But Rieux does have second thoughts about the sermon, that “it crossed Rieux’s mind that Father Paneloux was dallying with heresy in speaking thus. He was well aware that certain minds, schooled to a more indulgent and conventional morality” (224).
Person Vs. himself
Rieux encounters a personal obstacle in the development of the plague. Primarily and more subtle, Rieux encounters the moral obligation and the social obligation. His wife, far from the town of Oran, lays on the beds of the sanatorium. His desire to be close to a family member echo somewhat of the citizens during the plague. The need for assurance and comfort by loved ones is essential to the wellbeing of an individual. For Rieux, although he does not show it, it is evident that his subjective description of the plague evicted that of descriptions of his personal life. Secondly, Othon’s boy, a fragile little youth, was “sacrificed” for the injection of the imported serum. Rieux cannot withstand the great burden he placed on his shoulders to watch a child suffer through a undeserving clause. His surprise at the failure of the serum and the horror at the plague’s injustice both agitate doctor Rieux. One quote described the effort that the doctor had put in and his perspective on the plague, that “when a has had only four hours’ sleep, he isn’t sentimental. He sees things as they are, he sees them in the garish light of justice––hideous, witless justice” (203).
Vs. Environmental: Isolation is a struggle, and just as potent as person to person conflict and mental conflicts. When isolation is suppressed against oneself, that individual cannot escape this state until the regulation has been lifted. Rieux’s struggle with the environment largely credit to his discontentment of the plague, or death itself. From the very beginning, Rieux devotes himself to finding the cure and searching for the correct treatment. However, what he is essentially struggling against is the inevitable death. Such a dilemma cannot be overcome single-handedly, cannot be overcome by mortal standards, and cannot be completed naturally. Nonetheless, this quote shows the population’s resilience against isolation and the plague, “they did not lack courage, bandied more jokes than lamentations, and made a show of accepting cheerfully unpleasantness” (79). Rieux, however, courageously remains consistent in his, Tarrou’s, and Rambert’s fight––the plague.
Point of View:
While doctor Rieux positions himself in the perspective of the common civilians through his encounterings, he does not wholeheartedly commit to the first person account nor the third person omnipotent perspective. Doctor Rieux often receive accounts of criticism against his own character, such as that of Rambert at first, “you can’t understand. You’re using the language of reason, not of the heart; you live in a world of abstractions” (87). He constantly refer to himself in third-person and give other’s opinions and descriptions of him. Toward the end, he reveals to the readers that he is the unnamed narrator who had incorporated Tarrou’s philosophical aspects about the epidemic. This perspective gives the theme of subjective description versus objective description. Because Rieux believes that a historical event such as the plague should have a objective description in a collective tone, readers can reasonably infer that Camus praises characters who possess the collective consciousness. By using this perspective, Camus argues that the human condition is to fight against any calamities, maladies, and unpleasantness even though they seem eminent.
Beginnings and Endings:
Largely informative, the author promptly opens up the work with the setting, the perspective (the point of view), and the introduction of characters. Like all literature works do, the introduction pave the path for the rising action. Camus’s The Plague is no different. The opening scene opens with a grand perspective and slowly centers in onto Dr. Rieux with his foot on a rat. This scene signifies the trigger to problems later discussed in the novel. The final scene of The Plague explains that Rieux is the narrator of the novel, discusses the outcome of Cottard, and concludes the philosophical implications. To readers who seek a solution––there isn’t one. Camus’s purpose on creating a nonsensical happy ending is to imply that there is no happy ending in a book about the plague in our hearts, in our society, and in religion. Perhaps death and ending should bond together as one, although one does not equate the other. While part four and five deals with reconstruction of Oran, it is largely evident that destruction is of a continuous process.
Irony:
Verbal irony: A verbal irony is a play on words. I used to think that verbal irony is simply an oxymoron, but now I know that one is for the intended meaning while the other is just putting two opposites together. In this case, a verbal irony gives the audience a sense of the author’s presence, almost like feeling the author next to himself or herself. In this sentence, the ease of terror is a play on words because there cannot be terror when someone is in a state of serenity, “because of the mistrust that keeps them apart… so far as this is possible, he is at ease under a reign of terror” (199).
Situational irony: Using the situational irony, the author employs the effect of portraying a situation opposite of what one would intend. An interesting item I found during the search for situational irony was that of the story of Don Juan, “Men who had pictured themselves as Don Juans became models of fidelity” (71), in which Camus says that men full of sins now return themselves as a pure soul. However, I believe Camus also intended upon making it an allusion to the work Don Juan, who eventually pays his sins in death, which makes everyone equal. Therefore, Camus’s “death makes everyone equal” allude to Don Juan. Consequently, this is a situational irony because readers would presume that the plague is a great malady that terrorizes the population, while the previous is true, it also brings virtues of love and faith back, an opposite to what one would expect. Similarly, the WW1 and WW2 triumphs the world by boosting its economy and encouraging new changes to the society––an opposite to what one would expect.
Dramatic irony: Using the dramatic irony, the author gives the audience sufficient information to understand the plotline while the characters in the story itself does not understand. “But you don’t care; you never gave a thought to anybody, you didn’t take the case of people who are separated into account” (87). This line is ironic because despite the short term of time the readers have accompanied the doctor, Rieux has thought about nothing but the plague and the cure and its subsidiaries. The journalist’s jest as the doctor’s indifference is of within, not without. This type of irony gives the philosophical spin that Camus wants out of the ignorant people. He pokes fun at the population who asserts their opinion without contemplating more to it.
Literary Devices and Techniques: Part II chapter 3 (pg. 92-104)
Simile: “Father Paneloux had launched at them, like a fistcuff, the gist of his whole discourse” (95). By using a simile, Camus demonstrates the fervor of Father Paneloux as he speaks. A talented orator like Paneloux gathers his credibility and crowd through persuasiveness. Camus wants to show that powerful speakers usually has authority.
Biblical Allusion: “... the lesson that was learned by Cain and his offspring, by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, by Job and Pharaoh…” (97). Since Father Paneloux has religious authority, it is essential that he mentions the bible for references when sinisters and calamities had taken place to justify the town’s terror and fear.
Foreshadowing: “Seventy years ago, at Canton, forty thousand rats died of plague before the disease spread to the inhabitants” (93). Like the rats, men share the same fate when they encounter the plague. It is foreshadowing when the rats began to pile at the curbs of the streets and left untouched by the sanitary workers, that men would also share the same fate.
Symbolism: “and once again today it is leading us through the dark valley of fears and groans towards the holy silence, the well-spring of all life” (99). What Father Paneloux emphasizes upon is the call for silence, for acceptance. That fear and groans are grotesque and rebellions are fruitless against something omnipotent. Camus uses symbolism to guide the readers to a higher understanding of the abstract themes in this book.
Metaphor: “Try as he might to shut his ears to it, he still was listening to that eerie sound that was the whispering of the plague” (102). Camus uses metaphor to represent the reality of the plague in a more subtle way. Metaphor does not use “like” or “as” but connects two items directly together.
Comments
Post a Comment