Now I'm writing this right before I read the last section of the book because I really wanted as much information as possible to look at before trying to decide who the narrator of The Plague is. I wasn't actually expecting Camus to take so long before revealing who the narrator was, I was kind of expecting in somewhere in the middle of the book, but I suppose it would be harder to look at other people's point of views after you know exactly who's talking. Now there are a few things that the narrator says that lets me eliminate some people, first off he talks about people that are forced to stay in this town while traveling as another group, so I think it is safe to assume that the narrator does live in this town. This can eliminate the reporter which I think would've made a great narrator but since he doesn't really know what this town is like when the plague isn't here so it would be hard to comment on the extent of the changes the plague causes to us. Though I still think he would make a pretty good narrator as he should be invested in telling people about this plague as a reporter. The narrator also says that he knows what it is like to be separated from your love so it is safe to assume that like Rieux or Rambert his significant other is out of town at the moment. Now this really makes me believe that Rieux is the narrator, which would make sense, he is one of the biggest characters in the story and most of the other main characters interact with him regularly. He appears in practically every chapter so it would make sense to me if he was the narrator. The only reason that I feel that he might not be the narrator is because it wouldn't make too much sense to not just have him be revealed as the narrator at the beginning of the book, I do think that he makes the most sense out of the rest of the characters though.
Assuming you have read the rest of the book at this point, I think that you do a great job inferring the correct narrator in Rieux. I think it's also worth mentioning that Rieux waited to name himself as the narrator because he wanted to present a relatively objective account of what happened in the town, whether he actually was able to do that by being such a central figure of the story might be up to discussion.
ReplyDeleteRieux really is the logical answer, though I never even thought about who the narrator was because of how weirdly laid out it was. The story would take breaks to transition to Tarrou's journal and stuff, which made me think this was written much in the future after it had all been recorded somewhere and someone was compiling it into a record or something.
ReplyDeleteYou do a really good job of logically eliminating potential narrators and coming to the conclusion that the narrator is Rieux. I've always felt like the narrator is Rieux, but was definitely thrown off by some of the descriptions of scenes without Rieux present, and particularly the scene where the narrator inserts a description of Rieux from Tarrou's journal. It does make the most sense though for the narrator to be Rieux, because he understands and experiences the plague to a much greater extent than every other character.
ReplyDeleteYou make the correct assumption that Rieux is the narrator. Another blog I commented on makes an interesting point about Rieux's association -- Or intential separation -- from the story. Though he may not be trying to turn himself into the main character due to the significant pain and stress he went through, it's not possible to completely cut oneself off from themselves.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good deduction, I thought that Riex would not have been able to be the narrator since I didn't think he would be able to be objective enough but it does make sense since he is the main character. It is neat how Camus doesn't include any mention of Rieux in scenes where apparently he is present since he is narrating it.
ReplyDeleteI know that when I was reading the book, I wondered when the narrator would be revealed and why the narrator hadn't been revealed yet. However, now that I have read the whole book, I think that it makes sense to wait until the end so that it won't be distracting. I also suspected Rieux to be the narrator, like how we discussed in class after reading the first section. It just makes sense in terms of all of the people he interacted with and how involved he was in the plague. There is also just a lot of detail about Rieux when he's by himself, and the narration never talked about referring to his diary or something (like it sometimes did with Tarrou, who we later learned died).
ReplyDeleteYour thought process is very logical and well done. I want to focus on how you mentioned that you thought the reporter would have been a good narrator and I agree. I think his job would have made it even easier to give an objective narrative of the plague. On the note of him not knowing how Oran is without the plague, I think this is a pro and a con. Not being connected to anyone personally in the town would give him even more objectiveness but, as you mentioned, it would also make it harder for him to be able to compare Oran before and during the plague.
ReplyDelete