Albert Camus The Plague
June 27, 2012
Book Critique of Albert Camus’ THE PLAGUE
In reading Camus’ The Plague, I found myself easily attaching personal significance to the many symbolic references and themes alluded to in this allegorical work. Some of the most powerful messages woven throughout the novel seem to all speak to conflict or imbalance between two ends of a spectrum. The ideas of apathy vs. concern, solidarity vs. isolation, freedom vs. imprisonment (intellectually and physically), individual moral responsibility vs. the power of the collective, as well as the potential abuse of the power that government and religion have over the masses.
When the rate of human deaths in Oran starts to cause reason for concern among
Rieux and the town doctors, …show more content…
They simply could not wrap their head around something so pervasive and overpowering as the Plague. They continued their travel, business and social plans despite finally having heard the news. This lack of action on the part of the townspeople highlights another shortcoming in humans in that we allow ourselves to so easily slip back into complacency and apathy, even after (or at the same time, but in a different context) expressing rage and disapproval over the pain and suffering of others and vowing “never again”.
This public lack of concern or engagement caused more time to pass, resulting in mounting death tolls, and soon the town has to be sequestered to contain the spread of the epidemic. Was the news delivered “too little, too late”? Would any choice of when or
how to deliver the news have mattered to the apathetic, self-absorbed public? How does one generate in others a true interest in a subject that doesn’t directly affect their own narrow circle of experience? Is it only when calamity strikes close to home that we are awakened and moved into action? Consider the following …show more content…
At this point, due to the prolonged isolation and physical separation from loved ones and in some cases, each other, the townspeople are now grappling with the physical manifestation of the plague, as well as personal “demons” or “plagues of thought”.
“Each of us has the plague within him; no one on earth is free from it. “ pg. 229
In their collective “isolation”, each person feels imprisoned by their own “private plague” and madness and lawlessness ensue. People start turning on each other, fighting to escape Oran, in the search for freedom. As the sense of humanity declines and the town is ravished by death, the number of people committed to helping to end the plague slowly mounts. Do the numbers of people moved to action correspond to the number of people who have had a brush with the plague hit close to home? Is it not enough to fight suffering in others if it does not directly affect oneself? It would seem so…
Ultimately, the plague is controlled and the numbers of death slow enough for the town to fling open the gates and be “free” again. Rieux adds this positive thought:
“There are more things to admire in men than to despise” pg.
Book Critique of Albert Camus’ THE PLAGUE
In reading Camus’ The Plague, I found myself easily attaching personal significance to the many symbolic references and themes alluded to in this allegorical work. Some of the most powerful messages woven throughout the novel seem to all speak to conflict or imbalance between two ends of a spectrum. The ideas of apathy vs. concern, solidarity vs. isolation, freedom vs. imprisonment (intellectually and physically), individual moral responsibility vs. the power of the collective, as well as the potential abuse of the power that government and religion have over the masses.
When the rate of human deaths in Oran starts to cause reason for concern among
Rieux and the town doctors, …show more content…
They simply could not wrap their head around something so pervasive and overpowering as the Plague. They continued their travel, business and social plans despite finally having heard the news. This lack of action on the part of the townspeople highlights another shortcoming in humans in that we allow ourselves to so easily slip back into complacency and apathy, even after (or at the same time, but in a different context) expressing rage and disapproval over the pain and suffering of others and vowing “never again”.
This public lack of concern or engagement caused more time to pass, resulting in mounting death tolls, and soon the town has to be sequestered to contain the spread of the epidemic. Was the news delivered “too little, too late”? Would any choice of when or
how to deliver the news have mattered to the apathetic, self-absorbed public? How does one generate in others a true interest in a subject that doesn’t directly affect their own narrow circle of experience? Is it only when calamity strikes close to home that we are awakened and moved into action? Consider the following …show more content…
At this point, due to the prolonged isolation and physical separation from loved ones and in some cases, each other, the townspeople are now grappling with the physical manifestation of the plague, as well as personal “demons” or “plagues of thought”.
“Each of us has the plague within him; no one on earth is free from it. “ pg. 229
In their collective “isolation”, each person feels imprisoned by their own “private plague” and madness and lawlessness ensue. People start turning on each other, fighting to escape Oran, in the search for freedom. As the sense of humanity declines and the town is ravished by death, the number of people committed to helping to end the plague slowly mounts. Do the numbers of people moved to action correspond to the number of people who have had a brush with the plague hit close to home? Is it not enough to fight suffering in others if it does not directly affect oneself? It would seem so…
Ultimately, the plague is controlled and the numbers of death slow enough for the town to fling open the gates and be “free” again. Rieux adds this positive thought:
“There are more things to admire in men than to despise” pg.