At the ending of the book, we finally learn the identity of the narrator. Dr. Rieux, the main character of this book, is also the narrator. Now, this isn’t really too much of a shocking revelation. We spend so much time with Rieux and so much detail is put into those scenes, it’s hard to imagine anyone else being the narrator. Possibly if Rieux had some sort of diary, but you would expect the narrator to mention referring to Rieux’s diary if he had one as he did with Tarrou. And I know early in the book, we had our suspicions already that the narrator might be Rieux. But why did we just now learn that he’s the narrator?
For one, by keeping his identity a secret for most of the book, Rieux could provide a more unbiased narrative by distancing himself. Sure, he did rely a lot on his experiences during the plague, but he also made sure to look at those experiences in the bigger picture and look at the experiences of others in the town of Oran. Of course, he can’t remain fully unbiased (just take a look at his description of Oran at the beginning of the book) but this approach allows for him to lay out his own experiences as just one of the pieces of information in this broader narrative.
Another possibility was that it would be easier for Rieux to narrate if he distanced himself from the events that he narrates. Because of his role in the plague as a doctor, he most likely has a lot of troubling memories from that time. If he remains an anonymous narrator, he can distance himself more from these past events.
Also, if we knew that the narrator was a character in the book, that has the potential to be distracting. It would depend on how he would structure it, but considering Rieux is trying to present not just his own experience but others as well, the fact that the narrator is Rieux could become diverting from the actual content of the narration. Sure, over time the reader would become more used to the fact that the narrator is Rieux and Rieux is the narrator, but just remaining anonymous lessen those distractions. Of course, we wondered who the narrator was, but we also knew that the narrator would reveal themselves at some point.
Or I suppose it could be a combination of these possibilities or none of them. What do you think of Rieux as the narrator? Why do you think he kept his identity a secret?
I'm going to be honest, I thought it was really funny when Rieux revealed that he was the narrator. Like you said, it's been pretty obvious from the beginning (as Rieux provides the perspective for almost all of the book), but I just kept thinking about the one time Rieux described himself as a "Sicilian peasant." What a way to talk about yourself...
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I agree with your point about Rieux deciding to remain anonymous in order to "lessen the distraction" of it. If we'd known, for sure, that Rieux was the narrator the entire time, we might've been more inclined to analyze the narrative through his specific lens. (Just think about how much we picked apart the first chapter of The Sun Also Rises, framing Jake's depiction of Robert Cohn as a reflection on Jake himself.) I don't think Rieux's (and, by extension, Camus's) goal was to study individual characters, and presenting The Plague as "Rieux's Story" rather than "A Chronicle of Oran in the year 194-" detracts from the impact of the philosophical lessons which Camus wanted to teach his readers.
Yeah I agree with Noel. I think Camus kind of meant for us to assume that it was Rieux, but coming out and saying it would have definitely made it harder to see this as an objective description of Oran. To be honest, I wasn't even expecting the narrator to reveal himself. I thought it was quite obvious who it was, and I thought it would be pointless to actually say it. That being said, I think Rieux might have revealed himself because the last part of the novel was more personal, and he wanted the deaths of Tarrou and his wife to really hit home. It made the deaths of all those people during the plague more personal instead of just a statistic.
ReplyDeleteYou make an interesting point of Rieux's anonymity being a result of his desire for separation from the events that occurred. I mention some of my theories for the decision for Rieux to reveal his identity in my own blog post but I never thought about this aspect of it. Perhaps his separation from the "Rieux that lived through the plague" not just allows for him to provide a reliable narration, but allows allows him to provide any narration at all. If any of us had lost a loved one during this current pandemic, could we truly be vulnerable and courageous enough to give a first person account of what happened? I think I, too, would want to separate my identity with the person who lived through the events.
ReplyDeleteFor the first three chapters I assumed that Rieux was the narrator, and that that was just a fact, until I realized that it was a mystery. Rieux and the narrator just had similar personalities? All about facts and logic. After I realized that the narrator was mysterious, I assumed that he would end up being some random character we hadn't met yet. When they revealed it was Rieux I was kinda mad because that's what I had guessed at first, but I assumed he wasn't an option.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it felt as though he was trying to be a chronicler of the time and he felt that revealing his identity would make this more of a story rather than a collection of accounts into a historical work. I think it would have been a better story if he had stated upfront what he was doing but it somewhat adds to the believability of the story if he writes it the way he did. I think I would have just preferred it if it was a story though.
ReplyDeleteMy immediate assumption was that he was the obvious narrator in fact I think I heard Mr. Mitchell slip up in class and reveal it, but I kept quiet. I think it makes sense that he would hide his identity in order to keep our view of the plague unadulterated by what we would consider his bias.
ReplyDelete