When The Plague was first posted in 1947, it was obvious to many people what Albert Camus acquired attempt to do. For the kids, the novel was solely an allegory of France through the Second World Conflict, charting the rise of Nazism, the work of the Level of resistance when confronted with oppression, and the eventual decline and withdrawal of German occupying makes. In this essay, however, I will put forward the idea that although The Plague does closely resemble France through the occupation, the book is in fact a lot more than that: it's not only an allegory of battle, but also a comment on the absurdity of the world all around us, religion, and, most of all, the human condition.
In many ways, The Plague is a representation of Camus' own life. Even though the novel was first published in its entire form in 1947, smaller editions appeared before then, and even through the battle. In his article on Camus' work, Tony Judt argues that Camus' own political and wartime experience shape the themes or templates of the book. In November 1942, for example, while Camus was convalescing in the Massif Central, Allied troops arrived in North Africa and the Germans responded subsequently by occupying Southern France. Algeria was take off from the mainland and Camus became an exile from his home. This parting, says Judt, from not only Camus' homeland, but also his better half and mom, is echoed strongly in the e book. "Illness, separation and exile, " says Judt, "were thus within Camus's life as in his book" (Judt, "A Hero for Our Times" within the Guardian, 17 Nov. 2001).
Indeed, further elements of Camus's own life can be seen in the novel - the storyplot is not only a metaphor for totalitarianism or the surge of Nazism, but also for Camus's own life and his politics experiences. When Tarrou speaks to Rieux about his former, he appears to be echoing Camus's own concerns about his engagement in the Algerian Communist get together in the 1930s: "I thought I was struggling against the plague. I found that I put indirectly backed the fatalities of thousands of men, that I had even brought on their fatalities by approving the actions and principles that inevitably resulted in them" (164). Tarrou, Judt argues, is "the traditional tone of Camus", when he concludes that "We all have been in the plague All I know is the fact that one should do one's best never to be a plague victim Which is why I've decided to reject anything that, immediately or indirectly, makes people pass away or justifies others to make them expire" (166).
Camus, it appears, is willing to reiterate the point that to give in to the plague, or even to help its pass on, is the real madness, even more so than the plague itself is madness. Becoming a member of the health teams, says Rieux, our narrator, is not a significant move to make; rather, "not carrying it out would have been incredible at that time" (206). Down the road, Rieux says of the plague: "When you see the anguish it brings, you have to be mad, blind or a coward to resign yourself to the plague" (233).
This point, between others, was perhaps the most powerful for critics at that time, who, taking their cue from the novel's epigraph, a quote from Daniel Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe (1719), interpreted the text as an allegory for France through the Second World Warfare, with the plague representing, as Wayne Williams says in the intro to his critique of Camus's novel, the Nazis ("la peste brune" (9)). In the quote, extracted from the preface to the third volume of Robinson Crusoe, Defoe argues that "it is really as reasonable to represent one kind of imprisonment by another, as it is to represent whatever really prevails by whatever is accessible not!" (qtd. in Camus 69). By this reasoning, it is not hard to understand why contemporary critiques saw Camus's are an allegory of occupied France, and, for an extent, this holds true.
Camus's standing assured his book's success. But its timing experienced something to do with it too. By the time the book came out, the France were starting to forget the discomforts and compromises of German profession. Got it been postponed until the 1950s, its subject-matter would probably have been overtaken by new alignments blessed of the frosty war.
When we go through the book itself, parallels are easily drawn between Oran and wartime France. The dying rats at the beginning, for example, could be said to represent the go up of Nazism in European countries, and, just as that few got any notice of the dead rats in Oran, few worried about Hitler's anschlu with Austria or his occupation of the demilitarised Rhineland. Likewise, like Nazism, the plague spreads like wildfire, consuming everything in its path. In Oran, as with France, many agree with Father Paneloux's major retort: "My brethren, you have deserved it" (197). In a very desperate try to pre-empt the plague, Rieux pleads with the hesitant authorities to adopt stringent options - measures that are implemented too past due. Furthermore, like France after the German invasion in 1940, Oran is quickly take off from the exterior world and divided up into various areas.
During the past due summer time and throughout the fall there might daily be seen moving along the road skirting the cliffs above the ocean, a odd procession of passengerless trams swaying up against the skyline. The residents in the region soon learnt that which was occurring. And, though the cliffs were patrolled day and night, little groups of men and women contrived to thread their way unseen between the rocks and toss flowers into the open up trailers as the trams passed. And in the warm darkness of the summer nights the automobiles could be observed clanking on the way, laden with blooms and corpses (110).
For Judt, Camus's consideration of the illegitimate activities that spring up in the city of Oran through the quarantine is so near to the France of World Battle II, that "Camus's motives could hardly be misread. " Furthermore, even though story is informed in the third person, Camus sometimes slips in "we" and "our" here and there, and, as Judt argues, "the 'we' in question - at least for Camus's major audience - is the French in 1947. "
We have observed, then, that The Plague suits quite neatly into an allegory for wartime France and the go up of Nazism, but could it be anything else? At the time, lots of critics questioned Camus' selection of metaphor. Simone de Beauvoir, for instance, disliked the utilization of a natural disease as a symbol for what she required to be fascism. Corresponding to Judt, she insisted that "it relieved men of their political duties, and works away from record and real political problems. " Roland Barthes was another such critic, arguing that this Plague simply offers visitors an "antihistorical ethic" (qtd. in Judt). But the novel goes more deeply than that. Corresponding to Judt, positioning a definition on Camus's report is nearly as easy as it would first show up: "It had been not 'fascism' that Camus was aiming at - a fairly easy target, after all, especially in 1947 - but dogma, conformity, conformity and cowardice in all their intersecting public forms. " He goes on to claim that while critics might say that by using a natural plague appears to absolve man of his responsibilities to his fellows, what is very important is how these obligations are assigned: "It does not followthat the 'plagues' that humankind brings down after itself are 'natural' or inescapable. But assigning responsibility on their behalf - and therefore preventing them in the future - might not be a simple matter. "
Williams things instead to the irony and the absurd aspect of the booklet in his search for its true so this means. HOWEVER THE Plague does stand for in lots of ways France during the conflict, one cannot simply dispute that is all the novel represents. In other respects, it is an allegory of Camus' own lifestyle, and a critique of religion and the position of the Catholic Chapel at the beginning of the battle.
As Williams has described, "The world of La Peste is one of perpetual question and ambiguity" (63). This, we can easily see, is a process set in place by the novel's very title: is Camus here referring to a definite plague, or just plague generally? If Rieux the chronicler is meant to be both objective and report the facts to the best of his knowledge, why, then, is the particular date at the beginning of the storyplot ("194-") shrouded in enigma? This ambiguity and hesitation is shown in the interpretations of the book. Is Camus writing about the climb of Nazism, or totalitarianism generally? Is the book set through the war, or can it be set anytime ever sold? Indeed, this is an interesting idea: The Plague is, regretfully, even more relevant today in a post- Sept 11th world.
Plague invades Oran equally as spring is starting to bloom; plague produces dreadful figures and information yet must be counter-attacked accurately in those conditions; Rieux ceases to stay in an environment of personal abstraction by tossing himself straight into the abstraction of the plague; the determination to group struggle coexists with a wholesome pursuit of egotism; plague brings a finish to the mental plague of boring and reawakens the capacity for feelings; the levelling process of the plague ends up creating further feelings of inequality; the news of the death of Rieux's wife from tuberculosisarrives just like the pestilence withdraws from Oran; Tarrou's unexpected and fatal succumbing to the disease with a two times group of symptoms occurs just days and nights prior to the gates reopen (63-64).
Adele Ruler, in her publication on Camus, in addition has noted that while the incinerators and quarantine camps call to mind German focus camps, Rieux, "who resembles a Amount of resistance hero, is instrumental in setting up the camps and hiring people to staff them" (77). However the irony in these discrepancies only hints at a deeper, more fundamental contradiction. You can argue that the whole essence of the plague is exemplified in the clash of ideologies between Rieux and Paneloux, the priest. While Paneloux's "Kierkegaardian Christianity" (Williams 65) requires that the townspeople must blindly succumb to and allow their inherently absurd real human condition, Rieux constantly rejects Christianity because, in his view, the lifetime of evils like the plague makes direct conflict with the idea of a sort and caring God. However, as Williams highlights, Rieux's viewpoint is "highly paradoxical since he essentially blames God for not existing" (65). Perhaps Rieux does believe in Paneloux's God, and yet does not want to say it, because to confess that might be to succumb and give into the plague: an "incredible" react. The fundamental difference, perhaps, between both of these men then is the fact that while Paneloux is happy to recognize God's judgement on the townspeople of Oran, Rieux rejects it. For Rieux, God is unfair and unjust: for Paneloux, God is not to be questioned. In the long run, Paneloux dies, appropriately enough, from the very punishment which he so approved.
In his appraisal in the Plague, Williams identifies a well known critic, Colin Davis, that has convincingly argued that the change from "dogmatism to hesitation" (66) in Paneloux's two sermons highlights the fact that it's virtually impossible to provide The Plague a definitive meaning or interpretation. Furthermore, he points out, the narrator's natural obscurity illustrates the doubt of the book itself. Formulas such as "this reaches least the conviction of the narrator" have the potential to undermine the narrator's trustworthiness and expert, as well as boosting the question of whether the text helps the narrator's views. Relating to Davis, the author's "compulsive" (66) use of qualifying phrases ("perhaps", "in a few ways" etc. ) cast questions on Rieux's interpretative licence. Furthermore, the narrator is obligated to recognize the elasticity of the word "we": Cottard's success in the black market and the periodic interruption of gunfire while Rieux is speaking with Tarrou one nighttime show that not absolutely all the town's inhabitants are humble heroes. Davis argues that with these discrepancies in the narrative, Camus was exploring the darker side of humanity, and especially enclosed areas. Says Williams: "Camus may gesture towards an ethics of generosity predicated on the personal information of themes in a unified community, but neighborhoods operate just as much by exclusion as by inclusion, and the other face of generosity towards one's own kind is hostility to the outsider" (66-67). In The Plague, the outsider is the reader who, argues Davis, is effectively "'murdered' by the text's strategies of domination and bafflement" (67).
Philip Thody, in his publication on Camus, further explores the idea of an 'absurd' world - the world of The Plague in which an illness is seemingly been to on a populace for no clear reason. Unlike health problems such as Supports, syphilis, heart disease or lung malignancy, which are all diseases created or along with the immoral or unwise carry out of man, argues Thody, plague is essentially random. Though it can be prevented by superior sanitation and it spreads easier in crowded urban areas, it isn't, unless we subscribe to Paneloux's viewpoint, man's 'mistake'. As Thody says, "It can be explained, if at all, only by saying that the universe makes no sense whatsoever if you look at it in conditions of real human ideas of right and incorrect" (47).
This brings us back again to the quarrels of Simone de Beauvoir and Roland Barthes, that the use of a natural epidemic as a metaphor is unsound, and sidesteps major historical issues. As Thody and Williams have explained, however, this isn't necessarily the case. Barthes, though, proceeded to go further. In early 1955 he composed an article in the Plague in which he questioned whether an ethic of solidarity, which Camus perpetrates in his novel, is actually enough to combat the evils of the world in their many varieties. Regarding to Barthes, at no time is the camaraderie between Rieux and the other characters of the booklet a really "general and well-defined solidarity" (qtd. in Williams 69). Because these people, regarding to Camus and his ideas of moral choice, are neither executioners nor subjects, Barthes argues, they are simply condemned to individual solitude. Camus reacted firmly and quickly to Barthes' critique within an open letter in which he argued decisively that this Plague, "which I wished to be continue reading a number of levels, nevertheless has as its apparent content the have difficulties of the Western resistance motions against Nazism" (Thody 1967, 253). Camus continued to say that the evidence for this lies in the fact that "although this foe is nowhere named, everyone atlanta divorce attorneys European country acknowledged him" (253). In addition, argues Camus, extracts through the Plague came out during France's Job in a assortment of resistance text messages, and, in answer to Barthes' questions about solidarity, The Plague "does represent, beyond any possible conversation, the motion from an attitude of solitary revolt to the popularity of any community whose problems must be shared. If there is an advancement from L'etranger to La Peste, it is towards solidarity and involvement" (253).
It is difficult, however, to swallow Camus's assertion that his content material can be an allegory of wartime France so easily. As Williams points out, these declarations newspaper in the narrator's clear indecision and numerous safeguards so as to chuck into question Camus's entire argument in this esteem. The explanation for this, clarifies Williams, is the fact that Camus's letter displays his growing panic, by 1955, about the expansion of Communism and the risk it provided. For Camus, world Communism was as big a threat as Nazism - corresponding to Williams, "later, in 1959, he even referred to certain kinds of socialism to be encouraged by the devil" (69). In this light, Camus's statements seem doubtful. So, while his words functions on a variety of levels, Williams shows that Camus' work is not simply about the war alone.
The Plague is a book bound in contradictions, and this is why is attributing a interpretation to the publication so difficult. Perhaps, you can argue, it might be wrong to give the story any one meaning, since the epidemic can symbolize so a lot of things. However the world of Oran can be translated neatly to the world of France under the German job, as Camus so adamantly stated in 1955, it also signifies Camus' own beliefs about the absurd aspect of our world, in which we have been condemned to live on, where everything, including warfare and faith, are in the end futile. At the same time, however, the novel offers a engaging study of the hazards of totalitarianism in its many varieties, whether it is Hitler's Nazi empire or Stalin's Communist one, and this, Personally i think, is the most detailed and successful metaphor. Unfortunately, it is a metaphor that is tossed into stark framework today in a global in which totalitarianism has been by no means abolished. Equally as The Plague manages to translate its meaning into another dialect (examined, as it was, in translation), it's communication too, translates over the years. The Plague's note is really as effective and poignant today as it has always been.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay