Rieux as a narrator

 “This chronicle is drawing to an end, and this seems to be the moment for Dr. Bernard Rieux to confess that he is the narrator. But before describing the closing scenes, he would wish anyhow to justify his undertaking and to set it down that he expressly made a point of adopting the tone of an impartial observer.” (301)

Well, first off, I find it highly strange to read Rieux apparently writing about himself in the third person. Second off - this is when I realized I’d actually already been assuming Rieux was the narrator this entire book. I had read the first couple pages and my mind just went “yea so Rieux’s the narrator now moving on”. When it’s “revealed” to the reader, I can’t tell whether it’s supposed to be surprising or not, since it felt very predictable.

The way the book has been written, it switches between telling an over-all story of what was happening and focusing in one Rieux and his friend group. This focus was what made me thing Reiux was the narrator, since it was always Rieux that each person could be tracked back to, like a spider web with him in the middle. 

Now I’m stuck in this weird space where I’m a bit disappointed with Rieux being the narrator, as it was somewhat “anticlimactic” for lack of better terms (which is strange, since it's not like this was some big build-up, I hardly ever thought about it), while still getting why it would be strange for anyone else to be narrator. I actually think having a different narrator would change the very core of this book - although I would not particularly be against that, I’m not the biggest fan of some parts of the book. 

Still, Rieux as a narrator is essential to the way that the plague and the people of Oran came across to the reader. In that quote I put at the beginning, Rieux says “he expressly made a point of adopting the tone of an impartial observer”. At first, I thought this was just plain wrong - if Rieux was just trying to relay the facts about what had happened in Oran during the plague, he had failed utterly. Only about half the time was he actually narrating what was happening around him, the rest of the time he was going on these philosophical tangents or zooming in on what he and his friends were doing.

However, after pondering it for a bit longer, I think that it’s not right to say he failed at being an impartial observer in chronicling the plague in Oran. He allowed his personal philosophies and values to bleed into a lot of the things he talked about, but a large part of his philosophies seems to end up being expressed in a very “do what you want, who am I to judge” way. It doesn’t interfere with his recollection as much as other people’s might, because he offers no judgement or attempted explanation in places where others might. It's how, although he does take some liberties with his narration, he doesn't often stray far from impartialness.  

It also makes me wonder a bit if that way Rieux seems chill with literally everything may come because he’s actually actively trying to be chill with everything so he can give an “objective” recollection

Secondly, although he does focus in one some specific characters, it seems like Rieux was trying to capture the feel of the citizens of the town, not just the plague itself. So instead of just relaying the facts - which he did as well - he used his friends as a little snapshot about what life was like, to show that “bigger picture”. He also used things such as Tarrou’s diary for the same reason.

Still, despite revising my initial thoughts, I would say that calling what Rieux’s doing “impartial observing” is a bit of a stretch.