Right vs. Correct

      Men with opposite opinion can be both correct. He might say it is raining while another replies it is sunny. How? They live in different places!

       Certainly, Conrad’s work projects the image of Africa as “the other world,” the antithesis of Europe. Furthermore, the language Conrad uses to describe the natives, such as “savage”, appeared to contain racism. To Achebe, Conrad’s use of diction offends him. However, is Achebe correct when he believe Conrad is racist? Or is Conrad a common European who lived in the 19^th century?

       Both men are right. But their correctness depend on the different angles the reader chooses to view the matter.

       Achebe approaches this work of literature with a background of African history, in which he has an idea what setting was like back then. In comparison and contrast to what Achebe had learned, Conrad fails to fulfill his expectation of the Congo. Instead, Achebe takes the language from the work literally. On the other hand, it is not Conrad’s focus to educate the readers about the setting or to fulfill anyone’s expectation of the work. Rather, Conrad’s purpose is  to explore different aspects of humanity, imperialism, colonialism, racism and others. The difference between Conrad’s and Achebe’s approach to the work contribute to their division, yet both men are correct in their own ways.

       On the other hand, one must note the difference between the year that Conrad’s and Achebe’s work were published. In the time Conrad lived in, it was common for many Europeans to feel superior to other race. Therefore, it would be common for others to dehumanize Africans. In contrast to Conrad, Achebe lived in an era that is more advance than Conrad’s, especially in the view of Africans or other race. Conrad expresses his imagination of an adventure in Congo in parallel to the common beliefs during his time while Achebe expressed the beliefs that reflect the progressive thoughts in race. If we live in Conrad’s or Achebe’s era and were exposed to the same influence as them, we would most likely to have a similar reaction with both men. Once again, both men are correct, but their degree of correctness depends on the time they lived in.

      Moreover, one might argue Conrad dehumanizes Africans by focusing on their exterior features through diction. Perhaps, it is Conrad’s intention to depict Africans in such way to reveal truths relating to humanity. After all, it is impossible for us to confirm the answer from Conrad.

      With such different, yet correct ideologies, can this work “be called a great work of art?” The answer lies within our evaluation on our value of Heart of Darkness, and whether the good outweigh the “bad”. Besides, there are works of literature that are sexist and/or racist.

      Achebe’s opinion on Conrad’s work continues to emphasize the different angles people might have on the same subject. Racism might not be racism to some people.To me, Heart of Darkness is another work of literature that would allow me to advance my writing and reading skills and to discover people’s realization regarding to humanity or another area. What do you think?

Killed before Kill

    There are deaths in deaths.

     People can die before they died. What is the weapon? Negative emotions? Medicine? What kind of weapon kill people and allow them to stay alive in the same time?

      In Emily Brontë’s Gothic work, Catherine’s and Heathcliff’s life ended in a mystical way. However, both Catherine and Heathcliff died prior to their deaths. This new type of “death” certainly highlights a new scope of the meaning of death to humans, in which death could not be restrain to a cold body with no pulse.

       Prior to Heathcliff’s return from his departure, Heathcliff killed Catherine. Catherine states, “[Heathcliff has] killed me-and thriven on it.” (117) How? The cause is Heathcliff’s departure after Catherine has decided to marry Edgar. To Catherine, the absence of Heathcliff has a significant impact on her emotional health. The connotation of death associates with sorrow and loneliness, and its combination of negative feelings represents Catherine’s feelings toward the departure of Heathcliff. Not only did Heathcliff left Catherine, he returned with a mature countenance. To Catherine, Heathcliff’s new outlook appears to Catherine that his life is flourishing, in contrast to the sorrow Catherine felt. This kind of death demonstrates how love could serve as a weapon to kill a human being, yet she can remain alive in another sense. Furthermore, Heathcliff defends the cause of Catherine’s death was not him, but herself. According to Heathcliff, Catherine have killed herself by betraying her heart when she chose to marry Edgar. Ultimately, it is Catherine who chose Edgar, leading to Heathcliff’s departure and her heartbreak. In a sense, both Catherine and Heathcliff contribute to her own “death”, and it is the power of true love that grant love its strength to become a deadly weapon.

         On the other hand, Heathcliff is killed before his death. Toward the end of the work, Heathcliff states, “It was a strange way of killing: not by inches, but by a fractions of hairbreadths, to beguile me with the spectre of a hope through eighteen years!” (280).Heathcliff’s vision of Catherine offers him a hope to a connection with his love. A connection that could only be felt, but could not see. Furthermore, Heathcliff emphasizes the length of his beguilement, in which his hopes has accumulated throughout these years and it becomes an act of killing. It is the unfulfilled wish that killed Heathcliff. Even though the cause of Catherine’s and Heathcliff’s “death” is different, both “deaths”reflect the power of true love, in which it could affect one’s mental state in a negative way.

        The different types of “death” contrast the traditional view of death. Death cannot be associated only to grave or deadly weapons. Instead, unfulfilled desires and the absence of a love one can cause one’s “death”. Altogether, both types of death evoke despair and loneliness. The love between Catherine and Heathcliff proves true love would not cease. Death cannot end true love, but love can serves as a weapon and leads to death. Certainly, love and death are spears pointed at both ends.

I am Lucky

We are lucky.

      If we compare ourselves to lottery winners, we might not appear to be lucky. Certainly, most of us might not win the lottery once, not even a raffle ticket. However, if we compare our life with those who live in developing countries, without a clean source of water and basic necessities. We are definitely lucky.

      Through juxtaposition, our values and gains can be highlighted with others’. In a similar way, Siegfried Sassoon utilizes juxtaposition to criticize the contrast treatment and the outcomes between the privileged generals and the ordinary soldiers in a war.

       In the beginning of the poem, the speaker reveals that he had “speed glum [soldiers] up the line of death” (3). Following this line, the speaker reveals that the authority figure stays in the best hotel while the soldier fought in the war. The situation between the soldier and the authority figure is extremely different. One lives between life and death while the other not only lives in a hotel, but the best one as well. The rank between the speaker and the solders contributes to this dichotomy, in which only the authority figure have the power to send soldiers to the war. Thus, it is the generals or any soldiers of a high ranking who live in the best hotel while the soldiers try to survive. The juxtaposition of the extreme situations of ordinary solders and privileged general highlight inequality within the army.  

   Toward the end of the poem, another difference between the soldiers and the general arises again. The speaker states, “When the war is done and youth stone dead,/ I’d toddle safely home and die-in bed” (9-10). The speaker utilizes forms of die to emphasize the various interpretation of death. Dead is used as an adjective to describe the death of the soldier in the war while the speakers utilizes die to describe the generals’ current action. What makes the “death” more different is the location of their death. The soldiers died in the war with wounds. On the other hand, the generals die in their cozy bed. Not to mention that the authority figures toddle to their homes, walking casually, instead of walking home with worries about the war. The juxtaposition, along with diction represents the speaker’s attitude toward warfare.

        Moreover, the speaker’s attitude intensifies at the end of the poem, in which he states,” Yes, we’ve lost heavily in this last scrap” (8) Yes what? Why we? The speaker utilizes “we” to emphasize the combined effort with the soldiers in the war that he did not directly participate. What is lost anyways? The manpower that was manipulated by the privileged generals or the war overall? The speaker’s sarcastic tone reflects his attitude on the topic-abhor by the privileged generals who enjoy the best hotel while the soldiers are fighting for glory and their lives.

       Throughout the poems, the speaker contrasts both subjects to highlight and criticize the unequal treatments and outcomes of a privileged general and ordinary soldiers. Nevertheless, laziness will always remain in humanity, as well as social class. In our society, many of the privileged people are similar to the generals who in the poem and are often exempt from laborious jobs while many of the commoners will share a similar experience with the soldiers who were sent to the line of death. For now, I am still lucky!

Communism or Nah?

At this moment, you are living in a communist country, where there is no social class and there is an equal distribution of necessities. However, you realize you are different than the rest of the people, in which you are more intelligent, considerate and ambitious than the rest of the population. Now, are you willing to become a citizen who share everything equally with others, or are you willing to become a leader and utilize your intelligence to create a change in the society?

       
        On October 24, 1917, Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolsheviks, and other launched a successful coup against the Russian provisional government, known as the October Revolution. Later, they established a new government based on the ideals of communism, which emphasized equality in the public life. 

It was not until 1945 that George Orwell, a British novelist, published Animal Farm to criticize Russian Communism by highlighting the ineffectiveness of the political institution to evoke a change within the audience. Furthermore, Orwell reflects the complexity of humanity in his work. Through the incorporation of exaggeration and irony, Orwell accentuates that men serves the interest of no creature except himself. 

Everyone is a different entity. Some are smarter than others while some are stronger than the rest. Orwell exaggerates the various level of education within the animals in his work to emphasize the complexity of humanity. Clover, a horse, learned the whole alphabet, but could not put words together. Similarly, Boxer, another horse, could not get beyond the letter D. However, the pigs can read and write perfectly. Although the animals live in a society that promote equality, the animals are not synchronized in their educational level. This difference in education eventually enables the pigs, who are smarter than the rest, to dominate the leadership positions, which further enlarge the social and political gap between the pigs and the rest of the animals. Thus, true communism cannot be achieved.  Moreover, the pigs utilize the advantages of their leadership role to procure beer, apple and soft beds, luxuries to the rest of the population. The selfish acts of the pigs display how they can neglect the ideals of communism in exchange for their benefits solely.

On the other hand, Orwell incorporates an irony to highlight the different between expectations and the consequences in a communist society. In the beginning of the book, the old Major, a pig with high reputation, states, “ Men  serves in the interest of no creature except himself.” (10) Although Major has once warned the animals, they neglect this warning. The animals allow Napoleon, the leader of the farm, to inhabit a separate apartments from others, to drink beer and to have the gun fired every year on his birthday. Napoleon no longer embraces the ideals of communism, in which he establishes his privileges and rules above all animals. The expectation of communism is fulfilled by inequality. Thus, the idea of equality might appear to be a triumph for all animals in the farm, however, it is just a beginning of another dictatorship that concentrate on the benefits of the leaders. 

By presenting the negative aspects of communism, the audience would be exposed to the flaws. Through recognition, there would be a change in audience, whether the change is to alter their opinions about communism or/ and to act upon inequality in other communist countries.   

After reading this novel, I no longer believe equality can be achieved in every areas under communism, instead, I believe communism is simply another way for men to serve their own interest though a political institution. What about you? 

                                           Men vs. Animals

“I am twelve years old and have had over four hundred children. Such is the natural life of a pig.”- Old Major (8)

     What? A pig can talk? This was my first reaction when I read the first chapter of this book, Animal Farm by George Orwell. The story begins with animals in the Manor Farm are revolting against their owner, Mr. Jones. Surprisingly, pigs, cows, horse and other animals win the rebellion. They even have their own flag!  

      There are many scenes in the Animal Farm that reminded me of historical events. One event is the immediate cause of the Animal Farm rebellion. Although the animals has been dismayed about their amount of labor and ration, it was not until the farm workers forgot to feed them that they begin to let their hunger fuel their actions. This reminded of the bread riots in the beginning of the French Revolution. During that time, bread was the staple diet of the lower class, and its variations in the price of bread impacted the poor the most, especially by women who often bought bread. The need of bread gave rise to the bread riots, in which people demanded for lower prices by marching and violent actions. The power of hunger from animals and humans can lead to disastrous  events.

       Another event is the Seven Commandments. After the animals won the freedom and expelled Mr. Jones, they immediately write down seven commandments with white paint on a board. Some of the rights are: Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy, no animal shall wear clothes and no animal shall sleep in bed. Does this sound familiar to you? When I read the Seven Commandments, I am reminded of the Bills of Rights. What does this reminded you of?

      Aside from many of these “this sound familiar” moment, I chuckled a lot when I read about the absurdity of the education of the animals. In the farm, the pigs could read and write perfectly. On the other hand, Clover, a cart-horse, learned the whole alphabet, but he could no put the words together. Also, Boxer, a strong cart-horse, could not get beyond the letter D. He would only trace out A, B,C and D. Sometimes, he learned E, F,G and H. Dun Dun Dun! But he would forget A,B,C and D after. Perhaps the inability of animals to learn would hinder them since they could be easily manipulated by other animals.

      Despite the absurdity of the animals, their words and actions have similarities with human experience.

“Let us face it: our lives are miserable, laborious and short.”(6)

      So often, I share the same experience with the animals, but to a different degree. For many years, I had suffered from heart-breaking moments. I had suffered the pain of school work, and I had came to the realization that life is short. 

     Overall, the role of animals in this novel motivates me to rethink their role in today’s society. The bacon, eggs, fried chicken, steak and milk we often consume are built upon of the sacrifice of animals. 

Victim Blaming 

So often, it is expected that the evil one will be the perpetrator, but the victim can never be underestimated. Many people are not what they appear to be, even an amiable figure.

In William Shakespeare’s play, Othello, who is to blame for the tragic ending? Othello or Iago? Before pointing one’s finger to either character, one needs to consider the background of the play. 

Throughout the play, the female characters are often succumb to male authority. Emilia states, “[Men] are all but stomachs and we all but food; [Men] eat us hungerly, and when they are full/ They belch us.” (57) During that time period, many men simply view women as an instrument to satisfy their desires, and when their desires are fulfilled, they neglect their women. Women does not have the same status as men, even though they share the same senses. It is no surprise that Othello does not trust Emilia when he asks her thoughts on Desdemona and Cassio’s affair. Rather, he trusts Iago’s words. Under the influence of gender inequality, Othello chooses to believe Iago, even though Emilia has a closer relationship with Desdemona than Iago.

Furthermore, the weak foundation of Othello and Desdemona’s relationship play a role to Othello’s downfall. Desdemona loves Othello for the dangers he had passed, and he loves her for her pity. What other traits do Desdemona has that enable Othello to like her? Desdemona once deceives her father in exchange her loyalty to Othello. However, her loyalty soon becomes her justification to betray Othello. If the foundation of Othello and Desdemona’s relationship is strong, would Othello still chooses to believe Iago, instead of his beloved wife? If the foundation of Othello and Desdemona’s relationship is strong, would Othello still chooses to kill Desdemona, instead of forgiving her?

Aside from the gender inequality during that time and the weak foundation of Othello and Desdemona’s relationship, Othello’s insecurity plays a significant role in the tragic ending. His insecurity derives from his race. Othello once states, “Haply, for I am black/ And have no those soft parts of conversations/ That Chamberes have…She’s gone.” (48) Othello’s race influences him to infer Desdemona would soon get tired of him and would devote herself to other white men. Although Othello is often described as valiant, he does not have enough confident to believe he is as good as other men. He does not have enough faith to believe Desdemona would continue to love him. He does not even know what other reasons that cause Desdemona to marry him. Othello’s race becomes Desdemona’s justification to betray him. The insecurity serves as a cause for Othello to  believe Iago’s words. Iago appears to be a negative influence that affect Othello's rationality, and Othello appears to be his victim. However, Othello is the one who causes the tragic ending by assailing Desdemona.

        With his evil visage, many would blame Iago for the tragic ending. However, was every event occurred in the play planned by Iago or just his luck come into his way? As Iago tries to persuade Othello to believe Desdemona and Cassio have an affair, the main evidence is the handkerchief. Although Iago steals the handkerchief and brings it in Cassio’s chamber, it is Bianco who decides to enter the scene and asks Cassio about the handkerchief in front of Othello. Also, when Iago decides to remove Cassio from his position in order to procure Othello’s trust, it is Cassio who chooses to take the drink. It is Iago’s luck that aided him, not his words.

   At the end of the play, it is Othello who decides to kill Desdemona. It is Othello who decides to listen to Iago. It is Othello who gives in to his insecurity. Even the amiable soldier in the play is not what he appears to be.