Sisyphus
What is Camus getting at in The Plague?
At least, to me, it seems fairly obvious that he’s trying to teach us about human nature. His background in philosophy, his staunch Absurdism, and even the way Mr. Mitchell presented this book to us on the first day of discussion: it just follows logically that The Plague isn’t supposed to be a “thrilling” novel, or even a plot-driven one at all. The science-y and medical aspects of a plague outbreak are often glossed over, replaced with profoundly cerebral moments such as this one on p. 128:
“...since the order of the world is shaped by death, mightn't it be better for God if we refuse to believe in Him and struggle with all our might against death, without raising our eyes toward the heaven where He sits in silence?”
I’ve thought about that quote a lot since reading it. However, right now, I want to explore this point: for a writer trying to teach us about human nature, Camus’s characters are oddly formulaic. You’d think that human nature is random, highly individualized, since all of us are individuals. But Camus seems to many of his characters into the “Sisyphus model.”
Take Rieux, our narrator. His Sisyphean task is fighting the plague. He even acknowledges, in a certain conversation which I cannot find right now, the absurdity of his task; the way he continues to go from patient to patient, knowing that each one will succumb to a painful death and that there is nothing he can do about it. His purpose is to “struggle with all [his] might against death,” allowing the figurative rock on his shoulders to keep his eyes from “raising… toward the heaven where [God] sits in silence.” Meanwhile, several other members of the “main cast” engage in their own Sisyphean journeys. Rambert attempts to escape Oran, getting closer and closer each time, and then finally deciding to stay; an absurd choice, made in spite of all the energy he put into escaping. Grand writes his “book;” but we find out, in the end, that his “book” is just one sentence, repeated over and over again with the slightest variations, which ultimately gets thrown into fire. Even Paneloux is committed to a “fruitless goal,” as he tries his best to stir up faith in the town during the epidemic, but the congregation turns away, and even his relentless piety doesn’t save him from death. These are just a few examples; I know I haven’t mentioned Tarrou or Cottard, but there are definitely arguments to be made for them as “Sisyphean models.” If anyone wants to help me out in the comments, go right ahead.
Let me know what you think!
-NC
P.S. thanks to Ryan for inspiring me to put paintings in my blog post :)
This is a really well thought-out blog post, and I enjoyed reading it. I agree that Camus fits nearly all his characters into a Sisyphean model, but I do think that he individualizes all the characters. From what I understand of it, his point is that regardless of individual attributes and characteristics we're all stuck in the same cycle, and the nature of humanity is to constantly be striving for unattainable goals.
ReplyDeleteI like the painting by the way; maybe I'll start including paintings in my posts too!
Honestly your blog posts always blow me away they're so well written and the analysis is on point. You mentioned that the characters in this book are oddly formulaic for Camus' goal: to emulate/represent human nature. I think we could take this a step forward and let this tell us something about human nature itself. Maybe human nature isn't as unpredictable as we think. Camus undoubtedly chose these characters with purpose. I think that these characters that he chose could come to represent all of society's thoughts and reactions to some level, in this pandemic situation at least.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that this myth is a huge part of Camus style and seems to seep its way into almost every instance of his work. The examples you cite are the epitome of this phenomenon. In the end it least for me, it makes his novels slightly tiresome. However, maybe others will feel differently.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis is very interesting and not something I spent too much time considering. For me, the message I got from Camus is that fighting against death and suffering is a noble act and makes you a hero (in some sense). I think a good example of this philosophy in action is Rambert attempting to escape Oran but eventually staying. I agree with you that it is completely absurd but, I think Camus wanted to portray this as the ultimate sacrifice and an action only noble heroes would choose (making Rambert one of those noble heroes). Your take gives me an interesting new perspective to think about in regards to Camus' philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI think the formulaic characters function as archetypes, which makes them actually more relatable in some ways than if they were more complicated. In every time of crisis, people will fall into categories to some extent, like heroes or opportunists or people just trying to go through their daily life like Grand. In the year of a pandemic, I saw a lot of people in this class mention how instantly recognizable a lot of characters and situations were compared with COVID-19. Maybe the characters' Sisyphean pursuits are a universal part of human nature.
ReplyDelete