 The scene is very detached from the remainder of the narrative as the reader experiences what the two men would have—a break from the "reality" of the plague. The moment is also a very personal one for the two friends and it is likely only one of them could write it accurately (255-7). The vocabulary and tone of the scene however, are most similar to Dr. Rieux's speech, Tarrou is often more philosophical or, alternately, methodical, in his approach to recording events. The similarities between Tarrou's beliefs and those of the narrator strongly suggest to the reader the possibility of him being the narrator, however, differences between the two men begin to weaken this possibility.
	Tarrou is initially an outsider to Oran, trapped there by the onset of the plague and isolated with the rest of the town. This could help give him the objectivity needed to write a chronicle of such a personal and emotional period of time. It could also allow him to more easily communicate the sense of isolation he and the others feel; the accuracy of this sense of isolation and entrapment is essential to the nature of the narrative—both as an allegory and as a story. However, in his writings Tarrou is almost too objective to be meaningful, he focuses on obscure everyday events and minutia. Additionally, the narrator is, rather often, not actually objective at all. 
	Tarrou's opinions, although they also seem to parallel the narrator's, are not always in agreement with the narrator. The narrator's nonobjective dislike of Oran is apparent in the first few paragraphs; it is an "ugly" and "smug" town where "everyone is bored" (Camus 3-4). Tarrou, while he also mentions the commercial nature of the town, finds a sort of "paradoxical satisfaction at the discovery of a town so intrinsically ugly" (24). The narrator and Tarrou use similar word choice ("ugly"), and comment on the same theme, but they arrive at opposite conclusions. Tarrou also writes on how "not to waste one's time," the narrator has implied that this is one of the chief faults of the people. Another connection is drawn between the narrator and Tarrou, but it too is blurred and nearly broken; Tarrou's conclusion is approaching absurd, he believes that if one is aware of the passing of time one won't waste it, thus one should spend a lot of time engaged in repetitive, frustrating routines. 
	A final difference between Tarrou and the narrator is the style and method they use when chronicling the events of the plague. Tarrou is formally logical, keeping his interpretation from the reader and showing the "Query…" and the "Answer" for each of his investigations. However, Tarrou's idea of a "full and accurate picture of the life of our fellow citizens during that summer" is not the involved narration Dr.Rieux chooses to use, but "a longish description of a day in the plague stricken town" (119). 
