I believe that the most powerful attribute of this novel, 36 years after its first publication, is how prophetic and lucid this work is. In fact, the shocking plot of the novel should be easier to grasp today than it might have been for readers three decades ago. After all, the idea of a Western, White world panicking at the imminent arrival and subsequent unrest provoked by an undesirable and incommensurable mass of poor and marginalized immigrants is a well established fear in today's society.
Jean Raspail does a formidable job depicting this ‘White panic’. The explicit description of negative feelings, expressed by different characters in the novel, because of the imminent arrival of these unwanted and uninvited newcomers is another strength of this novel. Through the bureaucrat, the wealthy, the cleric, the politician, and the common man that populate the pages of his work, Raspail gives a clear account of how much the Western world hates, fears, and ignores - misunderstands to put it mildly - the victims of all the oppression their world has inflicted in these underprivileged people.
An additional strength of the novel is its very core theme. The very suggestion of the scenario Raspail proposes should be an eye opener to Western minds. What would happen if the oppressed developing nations of the world decided to push the Western world to share the concentration of resources they hold? Raspail exposes his vision of what would (or perhaps will) happen. As shocking and unbelievable as his vision could be, do not the socioeconomic disparities between the oppressed and the oppressors in today's society suggest that this scenario could take place? Has it not happened before in the history of man that a society reaches a point where the oppressed gets tired of the oppressor's injustice and finds a way (usually outrageous and shocking) of terminating a given unequal order? Raspail's work is highly detailed in how to challenge the oppressing foundations of a racist, for-profit social order.
As for the weaknesses of the novel, I have found only one. I believe that the author makes use of unnecessary violence. I regard the violence in the book as unnecessary for two reasons. First, I simply find some descriptions of rapes and killings too shocking. This of course can be interpreted as a serious (or perhaps subjective) restriction to freedom of speech.
Please do not get me wrong. While I understand the need of the author to include chaos as a key component in this story (and the inclusions of so shocking details as key elements in his narrative style), it is my belief that all this violence - and this is my second reason against its use in the novel - can be directly associated with the Indian fleet in this work of fiction and with immigrants around the globe in real life. I feel that in the eyes (and minds) of readers an erroneous equation can be made: immigrants equal chaos; from looting and lawlessness to murder and rape. It is relevant to note, though, that Raspail does not actually place many brute acts of violence on the part of the Indian immigrants, that is with the exception of some five or six killings. Rather, it is the chaos that their presence brings to the minds of those who feel invaded what brings all the violence, extreme in many cases. Most of the violence in this work of fiction is actually exercised by those who await the arrival of the Indian immigrants rather than by the immigrants themselves. However, the closer the Indian fleet gets to West, the more turmoil it causes. With this dynamic, it is easy to blame the immigrants for every atrocity that takes place and this can contribute to real discrimination to real immigrants around the world.
This novel is not only extremely outrageous, excessively explicit and bloody at times, and often rather cruel, but, for the most part, it is also a very lucid work that deals with oppression, racism, political hypocrisy, and social injustice. The camp of the saints remains a living declaration of injustice and how it can end the world as we know it. I would like to conclude with a comment by Garret Hardin on The camp of the saints: "The process of moving from poor to rich will continue until wealth is equalized everywhere". Does anyone doubt this?
.JPG)
