Nobody cares about dead rats

Below is a summary of my thoughts on the first part of "The Plague," by Albert Camus.

In the opening scenes of "The Plague," we are introduced to a narrator by the name of Dr. Rieux. He describes the town of Oran from his perspective. In this description, we find that the people of Oran are very habitual. People work during the week, to make the most money they can, and party on the weekends (when it is acceptable). Therefore, they do not take immediate action when the rats begin to die. Instead, they make up false realities. For example, the concierge claims the dead rats were brought into his building by pranksters. Then, when the deaths increase, he is more worried about being at "the same level" as the rest of the town than the implications of the mass amounts of rat deaths. Everyone just assumes it's someone else's job to care about the rats that nothing is done about it for a long while. The reporters even refuse to publish on it, at first. Only when the newspapers finally begin to report on the rats, does the government take action to eradicate the problem. However, they just take action in cleaning the rats off the streets; a sort of cosmetic fix to a very real problem. Nobody wants to face the reality that there could be a bigger problem here; therefore, nobody is prepared when the plague finally reaches humans. One might think that this was very stupid on their part; however, there are some striking similarities between this plague and the Covid-19 of today. For example, the people of Oran could symbolize America, while the rats could symbolize other countries. While there were many reports of what was happening to the "rats," our government was still very slow to act. Overall, I like this book so far. It's easy to read, interesting, and timely. 

Comments

  1. Zachary's History as Fiction BlogNovember 22, 2020 at 9:55 AM

    I agree with you that the idea of "cleaning the rats off the street" is a cosmetic fix to the problem, and I think Camus means there to be some symbolism you picked out here. He views the government as wanting to "look" like they are helping, while still not going through with the effort needed to actually make a large difference and cut into the problem to make it better.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ArianaNovember 22, 2020 at 11:54 AM

    I agree with you, but I also think it is more than "nobody wants to face reality". I think it is "nobody can be bothered to face reality". People are so used to a routine that anything which may break their continuous cycle is not worth their care or attention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JakeNovember 28, 2020 at 10:57 AM

      I agree that it can be "nobody can be bothered to face reality" but honestly in my mind its "people can't accept reality", at least when connected to modern day. They may realize what is happening but they can't accept the fact that it could affect them too. It's not that worth their care because it is breaking their cycle, but that it isn't seen as a threat at all by them. Maybe because it hasn't directly affected them they can't accept that it is a real problem.

      Delete
  3. Lorenzo PantanoNovember 22, 2020 at 3:55 PM

    I think how you put it was great: "However, they just take action in cleaning the rats off the streets; a sort of cosmetic fix to a very real problem". This is exactly like what we have today, with people using bandanas as masks: it doesn't actually do anything, but it makes people feel like they are protected.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Katya S.November 24, 2020 at 4:08 PM

    Yeah your post reminded me of how when the pandemic was first starting, people were kind of viewing it as a Chinese problem, then an Italian problem, then Europe as a whole's problem. No one wanted to believe that the coronavirus could spread to the U.S., and when it did, people viewed it as only isolated cases. This kind of reminded me of that one moment in the book where Rieux mentioned that nobody wanted to believe and address the problem when it was first starting out; everyone was waiting until the death rate would rise.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnyaJanuary 6, 2021 at 3:37 PM

    "Nobody wants to face the reality that there could be a bigger problem here"

    Exactly. I wrote about this in my post as well, comparing this state of denial in The Plague to our current pandemic. At the beginning of 2020, before the lockdown began, many people (at least in the US) were talking about how there was "some virus in China." No one felt that we needed to worry about it affecting us until it had already become a problem.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mrs. Dalloway: Facile or complex?

 Since the beginning of the book, Mrs. Dalloway is portrayed as a lover of life. For example, she is happy to do choose that are "below her" on a social level, such as fetching flowers. She also seems to know what she wants out of life. For example, the constant back and forth contemplation of her past refusals to Peter's marriage proposals. She knows that she would have "fun" with Peter, however, she wouldn't have any freedom. Overall, she comes back to the fact that Mr. Dalloway can give her the life that she wants. In this way, she is very objective and aware of herself and her surroundings. There are many points in the book where she looks inward to examine her wants, morals, and even mortality. On one hand, one can take her cheery and direct appearance at face value and determine her to be a happy housewife--content with her house parties to be her only gift to the world. But what if there was more? Mrs. Dalloway  is set in 1924, a time when women had j...
Read more

The ending of "The Plague"

 For me, the ending of "The Plague" was a bit anticlimactic. The story seems to fall apart, in my opinion. Firstly, because Tarrou dies just as everyone is recovering from the plague. Tarrou, who had been keeping the account that Dr. Rieux uses throughout his narration, dies just as the plague ends. We meet him at the very beginning of the book and it seems as though his job is completed with the end of the plague. I was kind of disappointed by this because I wanted to see a happy ending for all of the characters; however, that did not happen in this case.  Additionally, Cottard seems to go insane when the plague ends. This part confused me because neither Grand nor Reiux reacted in the way I would've thought. They weren't really worried about Cottard or inquiring as to what was happening. They just laugh at him and continue on. I feel like this scene is a little messy because there isn't enough explanation as to why Cottard has "gone mad." I get that th...
Read more

Who is L?

 Throughout "The Mezzanine," the character known as "L" was mentioned in passing many times. However, we--the readers--know almost nothing about her. I find this unsettling because we know just about every detail of Howie's thoughts pertaining to just about everything in the story, except L.  It seems to me that one of the main goals of Nicholson Baker in writing "The Mezzanine" was to encourage "stopping to smell the roses" so-to-speak. I fully understood this to be one of his goals with this novel when I read his reaction to Aurelius's view on life: " Observe, in short, how transient and trivial is all mortal life; yesterday a drop of semen, tomorrow a handful of spice and ashes." Howie was very disapproving of Aurelius's point of view and outwardly disagreed with it. He was angry that someone would even say that. This outrage shows me how significant life is to Howie. In combination with all of his tangents on seemingly ...
Read more