The Common Vs The Hero // Haylee Lynd

     To say that Rieux, Tarrou, and the sanitary groups are not heroes is a significant statement. They are some of the few people on the front lines, as we say, fighting the plague. Their mindset was that they must put up a fight against the plague and to save the greatest number of people from death. Arguably, this is heroic. They are soldiers in this war. Yet, the narrator states, "There was nothing admirable about this attitude; it was merely logical" (Camus 133). Rieux seems to share this same view. He does not see himself as a hero. He says to Rambert, "...there's no question of heroism in all this. It's a matter of common decency" (163). To say that Rieux and the rest of the individuals who are actively fighting against the plague are not heroes, but rather, the common, lowers their status but also, significantly raises the moral standards. If it is common decency rather than heroism to fight against the plague, what do we call those who do not? What do we call those who passionately proclaim, "It's not my job" (158)? Now, can we sympathize with those not joining in the fight because we can understand them not joining in the fight against the plague? Because they are normal? Is to not have common decency the normal? What does it mean for us to sympathize with those characters, like Cottard and Rambert? 
      The biggest question is how much better is it to think of the actions of those who are fighting against the plague as common decency rather than heroism? It's ten times better. It may be humbling to those who are doing those acts, but it means that when considering whether to do so is not considering whether or not one has the ability to be a hero, but whether or not one has common decency. The pressure of being a hero is removed, although the suffering is not. However, to make suffering for the good of all the normal thing to do means a greater mass of the population acting as what our society today considers to be heroes. It is the best mindset to have. Furthermore, it is extremely convicting to consider in the light of our present pandemic.

P.S. I commented on Joshua's and Emily's posts.

Comments

  1. Emmett BryantFebruary 14, 2022 at 7:44 PM

    Haylee I really like how you pointed out that Rieux and Tarrou did not see themselves as heroes. Rather they did only what they thought was logical and necessary. Even while the government sat on the sidelines, they took matters into their own hands to help the people they saw walking down the street everyday.
    - Emmett Bryant

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bug OlsenFebruary 14, 2022 at 9:44 PM

    I think that the defining difference in the presentation of heroism in The Plague versus how we view it today is Camus's and the narrator's view on the natural state of man. Through the novel, Camus shows how he believes humans are naturally more good than bad, and thus this would not be heroism. However, as Christians we generally view humanity as more bad than good, thus making these moral decisions more of exceptions and heroes rather than the norm.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Emily OttsFebruary 14, 2022 at 11:18 PM

    If you ask me, what makes a hero is putting your desires behind in favor of doing what others need of you. Rieux, Tarrou, and the sanitary groups are giving away their free time, risking getting the plague, in order to help others. By doing so, that makes them real heroes in the midst of the pandemic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Song WhittingtonFebruary 14, 2022 at 11:23 PM

    Hi Haylee. I like how you pointed out how they didn't feel like heroes but rather it was the "right thing to do." I wonder if the others around them thought of them as heroes as we do the workers who are on the frontlines today, and also if the workers today view themselves as heroes or simply "doing their job." Good post.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A House Divided//Emily Otts

The words Jesus spoke in Matthew 12 remind me so much of this play: "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand." (Matthew 12:25) King Lear, at the end of the day, is about a family being divided multiple ways. These divisions arise over greed and hatred for one another and cause the whole family to be ruined because of it. King Lear first divides the kingdom after his daughter Cordelia does not proclaim her love to him, so he banishes her. Later, his daughters go against him for not doing as they asked, believing he is unfit and unworthy to be king, secretly plotting against him. But all of this comes to a head in Act 5. After capturing King Lear and Cordelia, Edmund plans to have them killed. You would believe the sisters would be able to work together because their plan is working, but an even greater division has risen between them. Both of them wish to have Edmund for themselves, and they plot against each o...
Read more

The Plague in Everyone// Emily Otts

     In part 4 of the Plague , Tarrou tells Rieux about how he has had the plague forever. Except, this is not the same plague as the one ravaging the town. Tarrou speaks of how his father was a lawyer who believed in the death penalty, how he saw so many people support it and be comfortable about it, and how he had to witness the executions of prisoners. He explains how this sort of mindset is a plague itself, one Tarrou had been fighting for a long time. " That's why everybody in the world looks so tired; everyone is more or less sick of plague. But that is also why some of us, those who want to get the plague out of their systems, feel such desperate weariness, a weariness from which nothing remains to set us free except death" (Camus, part 4, chapter 6). Tarrou wants to desperately not submit to such awful ways of thinking.      Tarrou does not realize it, but the plague he is talking about is sin. Everyone has it, some people give in to it and let...
Read more

The Thirst for Knowledge

     With Book Seven of Milton's Paradise Lost, Raphael is continuing his exposition on Satan's apostasy. The plan is to expose Adam and Eve to the wretched fate of those who cross God's will. The more he shed's light on the subject, however, the more Adam is inclined to ask for more information. He wants to know everything about the subject, as well as God and His creation.      However, while the taste of such knowledge leaves Adam yearning for more, there are boundaries. It is like a toddler eating a cookie... and eventually begging her mother for the rest of the jar. Is it a coincidence that the one thing Adam and Eve are not to touch is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Most readers know how the story ends: these toddlers are never going to be content with a few cookies. They're going in for the jar.   There is a statement in the Bible that is constantly being repeated throughout the Old Testament: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of ...
Read more