Many instances of dehumanization are portrayed within “This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen”, as the narrator describes the suffering of those subject to torture in concentration camps in Auschwitz. One moment that was striking to me was the description of the transport of new incoming prisoners. The narrator says, “People . . . inhumanely crammed, buried under incredible heaps of luggage, suitcases, trunks, packages, crates, bundles of every description. Monstrously squeezed together, they have fainted from the ear, suffocated, crushed one another” (700). The descriptiveness of these lines made a strong impression on me, as I was able to visualize the horrific conditions of the prisoners experience from one of the earlier stages in the process. It was striking to see that before these new prisoners even entered the gates, the Nazi’s were already torturing them. They were being suffocated, crammed and fainting before even knowing anything about this new place they were being brought to.

This instance raised many questions for me, including: Did people die before entering the concentration camp? If so, was it common? Was any priority given to women, men or children, as far as who might be able to ride in any kind of comfort? Or, did the Nazi’s just pile in as many people as they could gather upon pickup?

The detailed description of this bus ride made a strong impression on me. I was able to picture the faces of tortured men, women and children, and understand that they had absolutely no control over their situation. In this clear depiction of the prisoners, Borowski was able to emphasize the horrors of the Nazi Germany, which he continues to do throughout the text.

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock is a poem written by T.S. Elliot. After reading several times and digesting each line, I was finally able to grasp some of the poem’s meaning. This speaker of this poem is the character Prufrock, who throughout the poem is addressing a woman. Prufrock is in love with the woman he speaks about, and his words suggest that he is being held back from approaching her and telling her how he feels. Prufrock says “Do I dare / disturb the universe?” (45-46). This is one line that tied together most of the poem for me, and allowed me to understand Prufrock and his current struggle. I read these lines as Prufrock expressing that the people he is surrounded by are judgmental, which seems to be what is holding him back from telling this woman he loves how he feels. T.S. Elliot presents Prufrock as a character that is facing some kind of battle involving his internal psych and a lack of confidence. Prufrock is a confused character and is constantly searching for an answer and some kind of guidance. Prufrock later says, “And should I then presume? / And how should I begin?” (68-69). These lines relate back to lines 45-46, in that Prufrock continues to express his frustration which stems from this inability to tell the woman how he feels because of the people he is surrounded by and their influence on his mind. Prufrock is a character that is lost in his thoughts and emotions. He is afraid to come forward with what he feels for this woman, and is unsure of how he would even begin the process.

Three questions about the poem:

1. Is there any significance in the form of Elliot’s writing and his use of fragmentation?
2. Why reference religious figures?
3. Do you think Prufrock thinks interaction with this woman is at all possible?

Throughout this semester, many of the stories we have read have depicted characters facing similar hardships and mistreatment. While reading “Punishment” by Rabindranath Tagore, I noticed the presence of these issues, and was able to link certain parts of the text to “The Chimney Sweeper” and “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass”. The beginning of “Punishment” describes the work life of Dukhiram and Chidam, who are brothers and two of the story’s main characters. Tagore says “They couldn’t come home for lunch; they just had a snack from / the office. At times they were soaked by the rain; they were not paid normal / labourers’ wages; indeed, they were paid mainly insults and sneers” (893). By saying this, Tagore describes the harsh mistreatment and abuses these men face at work. Unable to take lunch breaks, unfair pay, and soaking wet from the rain paints a clear picture of their awful and labor-intensive situation. This directly relates to the issues that the young boys in “The Chimney Sweeper” were subject to. William Blake portrays the mistreatment of Chimney Sweeps, as the narrator points out that he was sold by his family and slept in soot. In the text, Tom Dacre, who was a chimney sweep, dreams of being set free from this life of misery. The narrator evinces the feeling of being trapped by describing Tom’s dream when he says, “Were all of them locked up in coffins of black” (337). The chimney is described as a coffin, which further points out how these boys were working in conditions that caused them to feel isolated and neglected from the world around them. Both Tagore and Blake are able to describe the cruelty and harshness that characters faced from their labor-intensive jobs.

Next, Tagore’s depiction of Chidam’s character is similar to Frederick Douglass’ master in certain ways. Thus, his wife Chandara becomes subject to his mistreatment just as Douglass was to his master’s. When Chidam forces his wife to take blame for the murder of Rhada, he is seen as evil and controlling, which is similar to Frederick Douglass’ master. Tagore says that Chidam has “devilish clutches” (896). His wife began to hate him as “he taught he repeatedly what she should say” (896). Chidam’s controlling personality in this instance is similar to the Douglass’ master. As we learned from his narrative, Frederick Douglass describes that masters did not only have power over what a slave did each day, but also over their minds and how much knowledge they were able to have. He says “A want of information concerning my own was a source of unhappiness to me even during childhood” (236). Here Douglass describes the mental mistreatment of slaves, pertaining to the knowledge that was withheld from them because of their controlling masters. Chidam portrays a similar sense of mental abuse as he tries to control his wife’s thoughts and words.

Although I am sure there are many more connections to previous stories that we have read, these are a few instances that stood out to me from “Punishment”. Mistreatment that characters faced in this story is strikingly similar to that in “The Chimney Sweeper” and “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass”.

Hedda Gabler: Comparing the film to the text

I have always enjoyed watching the film versions of stories after reading them. In doing so, I find that it is quite common for directors to keep the same plot but tweak characters and the roles that they play throughout the film. After forming my own interpretations from reading the text,  it was interesting to see how certain characters were portrayed in the film version. After watching the film version of Hedda Gabler, I found certain character changes to have a significant effect on how I viewed the main character, Hedda throughout the story. The film did a better job at capturing her true emotions. It emphasized Hedda’s dishonesty towards men even more so than the text. Something that I did not fully grasp from the text was just how manipulative her personality was. Of course the text did describe her as cunning, but the film was able to truly shift my attention to this. In addition, while reading Hedda Gabler, I understood Hedda to be much younger than she seems in the film version. The text actually tells us that she is twenty-nine years old, whereas in the film she seems much older. From this information, I was more focused on her youth and beauty while reading. However, while watching the film I was more fixated on her influence as this dishonest and calculating character. Another significant change in the film version was the absence of Berta. Berta, the Tessman’s housemaid, was given a larger role in the text. In the film she seems to be much less significant. Overall I enjoyed watching the film after reading Hedda Gabler. It was interesting to see the alterations of the main character Berta, while forming new interpretations of the play as a whole.

In her work, Harriet Jacobs gives us a glimpse about the horrors of slavery from her own experience. As she explains, the principles and lessons that she was taught by her grandmother were tainted by her cruel slave master. Jacobs says “. . . For years, my master had done his utmost to pollute my mind with foul images, and to destroy the pure principles inculcated by my grandmother, and the good mistress of my childhood.” Her words relate to the horrible mental impact slavery had on people, in which Frederick Douglass was also able to portray to us. The slave masters did not spare even the child slaves from the many abuses of slavery. Adults and children were beaten, whipped, raped and so on. The physical effects are obvious, but like Douglass, Jacobs points out how these things had a lasting mental impact on the young slaves.

From my research, I found that modern day slavery in America and around the world still exists today. As pointed out in an article from ACLU, Some forms of this include, but are not limited to:

-Forced labor, by mental and physical threat (very common in the United States)

-Human trafficking, in which humans are traded for the primary purpose for sexual slavery

-Child labor, in which children are forced to work long hours in horrible conditions for very little pay. This often comprises any kind of formal education the child is able to receive and puts them at risk for many diseases

My reading and understanding of slavery in America was strongly impacted by the following passage from Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: “A want of information concerning my own was a source of unhappiness to me even during childhood. The white children could tell their ages. I could not tell why I ought to be deprived the same privileges.”

In this passage, Frederick Douglas evinces a major problem that all slaves in America were facing at the time. That is, being deprived the ability to know anything about themselves and the world around them. To Frederick Douglass, the mere fact of not being able to know his own age had a great impact on him. Slaves were prevented from understanding anything more than the harsh routines they went through each day. Their minds were controlled by their slave masters, who did not care to provide slaves with even the slightest information about their family or where they were from. As Frederick Douglass explains, this problem began at childhood, and knowledge was considered a “privilege” that only the whites were given.

From his words, I learned just how confined slaves were, not only physically but also mentally. Frederick Douglass’ diction reveals that he is upset and frustrated by this unfair treatment he and other slaves were subject to. His words help us to understand the harsh mental component of slavery, and the inhumane treatment of the slaves. Knowledge, as Douglass describes, was withheld from slaves. From this passage and some of his later explanations, I learned that many slaves did not know where they came from, who their family members were, or how old they were.

Before reading this passage, I knew little about this lack of knowledge. When I thought of slavery, the first thing that would come to mind was the physical component. That is, the lashing, beating, and so on that is more commonly mentioned when referring to this awful time. This passage given by Frederick Douglass has helped me to understand the mental impact slavery had on those subject to it. After reading I am still curious about how common reconnections were between family members, and how many slaves were ever able to learn who their birth parents were.

After reading The Chimney Sweeper from William Blake’s “Songs of Innocence”, I was able to note many similarities between the image presented below and the poem itself. The speaker of the poem is a young boy who was sold by his father to become a chimneysweeper after his mother passed away. Within the poem, the boy explains his painful life of sweeping chimneys and sleeping in soot.

One way in which the poem and image work together is that the image directly portrays a young boy who is a chimney sweep. The pain and sorrow on his face portray him as someone who is struggling with his life, similar to the speaker of the poem and little Tom Dacre. Tom is a character in the poem who dreams of being set free from his life as a sweeper. In his dream, him and other chimney sweeps are locked up in coffins and an angel comes along to set them free. This moment of the poem enables readers to feel some of the pain that these young boys are going through. The coffin in his dream acts as a symbol of the confinement they face in their lives as chimney sweeps.

The boy in the image appears dirty and tired, just as we imagine Tom and the other chimney sweeps from the poem to be. The image helps me to understand just how miserable life for these young boys was. At the end of the poem, after Tom awakens from his dream, we see a moment of happiness from him. The speaker says that Tom is happy as he goes off to work. This image of course differs from that part of the poem, as it only shows the depressed side of life as a chimney sweep.

Not able to attend the staged reading at Baruch, I was given an alternate assignment to watch Oedipus the King on YouTube and post my reaction. The play I watched was roughly one hour long, and posted by YouTube subscriber Yong Suk Yoo. The actors did a great job at presenting the storyline, while working with a simple set. All of the characters dressed in black, maintaining a dark and deceptive feel throughout the play.

This version portrayed Oedipus as a very frustrated and angry character. Most of the play focused on his desire to understand where he came from, as he sought out answers from all of the other characters. The played opened with an unnamed citizen of Thebes, begging that the plague the city was facing be put to an end. Oedipus, his wife Jocasta, and a messenger then entered on stage. We learn about the murder of Laius, who ruled Thebes before Oedipus. The murderer of Laius resides in Thebes, and unless he is driven out the plague will continue. While Oedipus is trying to solve the murder mystery, he speaks to the prophet Tiresias. Oedipus learns from the prophet that the murderer of Laius is his son and that the murderer would sleep with his mother. On stage, Jocasta tells Oedipus to not think about the prophecy. She is hiding all that she knows, and hopes Oedipus will believe Polynus is his father who died of natural causes. The messenger reveals the story of Oedipus’ true past, and explains that a shepherd gave him Oedipus as a baby after finding him on a mountain with pierced feet. We witness a few instances of aside, when the messenger reveals his thoughts which are not heard by the other characters frozen on stage. Oedipus remains confused, unable to understand where he came from, and continues to question the messenger.

Oedipus, screaming with frustration, asks the other characters where that shepherd might be. After the shepherd appears, Oedipus discovers that Laius is his father, who he did kill in self-defense long ago. He also finds out that Jocasta is his mother, who left him to the shepherd when he was a baby. We see Oedipus screaming on stage, professing that his life is cursed. He is angry with his mother Jocasta for holding in a lie her whole life, and realizes that the prophecy ended up being true. At the end of the play, Oedipus pierces his eye and curses his own life. This is a symbolic moment for the main character, portraying the significance of sight, and even though he could see with his eyes, he struggled to have a clear vision of his own life. This version of the play portrayed Oedipus as a confused and frustrated character, as he continuously struggled to find out about his true fate.

I think the actors did a great job in this version of Oedipus the King. I was very impressed by the acting done by the character of Oedipus, as well as the shepherds. I think the director could have done a better job with the portrayal of Jocasta’s character in the scene when she tells Oedipus to deny the prophecies. She lacks stage presence especially in this scene. However, I enjoyed this play overall and hope to be able to attend one at Baruch in the future!

In Akinari’s “Bewitched”, the main character and son of a prosperous fisherman Toyo-o is deceived by a woman named Manago. When he first meets Manago after taking shelter from a storm, he is drawn to her beauty and wishes to pursue her. When Toyo-o visits Manago at her house, she tells him how she wishes to marry him, and presents him with a sword. Manago tells him that the sword is that of her late husband, who was once a government official. When Toyo-o returns home, his family does not believe his story of Manago and accuses him of stealing the sword from the Kumano Gongen Shrine. Toyo-o is confused and tries to explain to the chief priest and samurai’s the story of Manago and how she gifted him the sword. After the men seek Manago, she disappears when thunder roars, and we later find out that she is deceiving Toyo-o in hopes that he will marry her and be under her spell.

Manago takes on the role of a woman, but is really the devil in serpent form. The sword was stolen by Manago, along with all other types of riches from the shrine depository. Manago lies by saying that her late husband’s spirit must have committed the crime. Her deceitfulness is later confirmed when a man spots her near the river and says “You devils! Again you are bewitching and deceiving human beings. How can you dare assume that shape and form before my very eyes!” (Akinari, 643) The image below is that of a Greek mythological female serpent named Lamia. Quite obviously, this directly relates to the story by depicting an image similar to what Manago might look like. Lamia is described as an evil murderer and thief, who like Manago, uses deception in her plot against humanity. Along with holding some kind of weapon, Lamia’s deep red eyes and other features portray villainous characteristics that correspond with those of Manago.

Within his comedy “Tartuffe”, Moliere portrays a relationship based on underlying deception between the characters Orgon and Tartuffe. When Orgon first meets the religious hypocrite after a service, he immediately becomes drawn to Tartuffe’s ideals and practices. Orgon believes Tartuffe to be modest and have exemplary character, beginning when he hears Tartuffe say, “I am not worthy. I do not deserve your gifts or pity. I am here to serve” (1.5: 52-54). Orgon becomes infatuated with Tartuffe and invites him to move into his home. However, the other characters within the comedy see through to the real Tartuffe, who is a man using acts of deception and trickery to develop a relationship with Orgon, who gives him everything and remains a disciple to him.

Dorine and Cleante, both prominent characters within the comedy, have a clear understanding of Tartuffe and what he is doing to Orgon. Speaking about Orgon, Dorine says, “He is intoxicated with Tartuffe-a potion that exceeds a hundred proof, It’s put him a trance, this devil’s brew” (1.2: 13-15). Dorine is suggesting that Orgon is blind to the evil that Tartuffe is bringing into his life. Tartuffe claims to be a religious figure, and Orgon believes he is protecting his home from sin. However, it is explained that Tartuffe uses Orgon and his money, displaying his true character, which is one of greed and deceit. Dorine explains this trickery when she says “But what’s evil is seeing the deception and upheaval of the master and everything he owns. He hands him money. They’re not even loans- he’s giving it away. It’s gone too far, to watch Tartuffe play him like a guitar!” (1.2: 37-42)

Although the characters warn Orgon about Tartuffe, he continues to argue against them and defend Tartuffe’s actions. Cleante, speaking to Orgon, says that Tartuffe is a hypocrite and not truly devoted to religion. She says, “He’s a fraud, this man whom you adore” (1.5: 176). Orgon does not want to believe in Tartuffe’s greed, or think that he is being used by him in any way. Orgon defends Tartuffe when saying, “If you only could know him as I do, you would be his true disciple, too” (1.5:14-15). Although toxic, the relationship between Orgon and Tartuffe seems plausible considering Orgon’s character. Religion was an important aspect to his life, so it is understandable why he could be so easily deceived by a religious figure that he met during a time of worship and blessed him in the house of God.

Similar instances occur today, where we see people deceiving others and using them for things such as their money. Many people become blind to these acts, probably because they do not want to believe that someone, especially a close friend or family member, would try to take things from them using deceit.