L'Etat de Siege - The Comet & Diego and Victoria

I found L'Etat very interesting to read as it does seem so different to most of the other Camus we have read, in terms of his writing style. I also agree with everyone that in La Peste he seems to get his point across a lot more clearly and less invasively. L'Etat seems to make the same points again and again and doesn't really seem to progress in the way that La Peste does, in terms of the audience arriving at various realisations or moments of reflection.

I found two things a bit bizarre and couldn't really get my head round them! One was the comet. I found La Peste so chilling because it all seemed so realistic and brutal - the moment when they are all discussing what to call 'La Peste' and how to deal with the public comes to mind as being particularly realistic and uncomfortable. However, while I can see why the use of a comet as a sort of omen/symbol makes sense, it seemed a bit silly (for want of a better word!). It opened the text with a sort of weird sci-fi/mystical tone which then distanced it from the realities of the town in a way that La Peste didn't. Obviously it signifies many things for different readers etc. but for me it just seemed a bit incongruent and distracting...

Also I found the relationship between Diego and Victoria a bit puzzling, mostly because at times I thought their dialogue was so cliched and saccharine that it seemed a bit sarcastic, for example p34 D "Que tu es belle!" V "Que tu es fort!" D "Avec quoi laves-tu ce visage pour le rendre aussi blanc que l'amande?" V "Je le lave avec l'eau claire, l'amour y ajoute sa grace!"... etc. I wasn't sure what Camus was trying to say with the couple...is he satirising other writers or is it more then nature of young lovers/new relationships which then seem to sour later..? The other relationships we have studied (not necessarily romantic) always seem so disfunctional compared to Diego and Victoria, but I don't believe the point of them is to show the "perfect" relationship... Also even if it was, this all seems a bit at odds with Camus's larger point about the government/law etc. I'm not sure why it has a place in the text but sure I must be missing something...?!