Book Review: "The Plague" by Albert Camus

Albert Camus is one of those writers I don't read often and the reason for that is because there's so much talk about his works on the internet already, sharing my views may be like beating a dead horse. Well, I first read The Plague some years ago and back then, I have to admit I didn't think much of it - but since I've returned with a little bit more time - I've managed to reread it, revisit my old thoughts and make sure I've become clear with my point of view. Here's my point of view very clearly: I don't think much of The Plague still, and I don't think it is Albert Camus best effort at a philosophical novel. However, I am quite understanding when it comes to the fact that this book is important to modern literature.

The opening image is perhaps one of the most famous in its era of literature: rats that enter the public sphere to die. Let's take a look at one of the other reasons I stay away from Camus' novels - it's usually because of the writing style. Now I understand it is meant to be blunt and almost clinical (I get that it is a matter of style and purpose), but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. The Plague is at least a short read and for this purpose I'm also going to say I enjoyed the play Caligula more than this novel. We are introduced to Dr Bernard Rieux and he becomes the man who will treat the human cases of this illness, which often include the symptoms of plague. Now, here's my case and point: Albert Camus is, in fact, a great writer but by the second chapter - I felt a little hard done by in the atmosphere department. We're just getting information at this point. As much as I understand it, I don't think I care for it. But we shall persist and see if it changes in any way.

Town officials downplay the danger, seeking to avoid panic or damage to commerce - which is interesting since this is almost exactly what happened during COVID. Now does that mean Camus was some sort of soothsayer? Probably. The more this world view gets revealed to us, the more it mirrors our own miseries. This, in my opinion, is what he is best at. Humans often attempt to control things they cannot control and so, when it comes to an uncontrollable force such as this, reality is reduced to absurdity and the very moment of action (where Rieux is concerned at least) is also absurd. Why? He's not just sitting around thinking about it, he's taking steps. Of course, in times of great misery and uncontrollable confusion - this in itself is absurd to everyone.

Daily life becomes strict and military-like whilst also retaining that uncontrollable confusion: funerals are rushed, hospitals overflow, and the town sinks into numb repetition. I'm not going to lie, this is about the point where I started to realise what the hell was going on. Needless to say, I still didn't enjoy the writing style - it was a bit too rigid for me but it did say what it needed to. That even in the weirdest and most unpredictable times, humans will try to assert control and find meaning for themselves when there clearly isn't any. Rieux and some friends try to fight the spread of the contagion and it's clear that Camus is making a great message about how human solidatory works in the face of the uncontrollable. Action without reward is good enough to assume here as our author rejects the idea proposed by nihilism in which we all just wait for our turn to die.

Human suffering is probably the point of this book but if we look even closer there are messages about hope and the fact that our requirement for ethical action should never really be put on the back-burner. I'm going to assume that everyone knows this already, but I don't actually agree with Camus' philosophy as much as I understand it. I have enjoyed picking up The Plague again and learning more about the 'why' and the intentional messages about solidatority. But I think if I were to visit this book a decade from now, I would perhaps feel differently. I can't say.