“A Room of One’s Own” by Virginia Woolf, Woolf stated that ” here then was I (call me Mary Beton, Mary Setion, Mary Carmichael or by any name you please – it is not  a matter of any importance)” in the chapter one. (340) It showed the readers that the narrator was a fictionalized character instead that she was not her. The lack of identity of narrator gave the readers that everyone could be the narrator. It also made the narrator more convincing. By using “I”, Woolf emphasized the fact that women were not treated equally as men were which due to the sexism and traditional bonds.

In the chapter one, the narrator had two expulsions because of the sexism in Oxbridge College. When the narrator was warned off the university lawn, instantly a man intercepted her. After she realized that the man intercepted her only because she was a woman. The man said that “Only the Fellows and Scholars are allowed here; the gravel is the place for me [narrator]” (341) In addition, she was forbidden to enter the library. “he waved me back that ladies are only admitted to the library if accompanied by a fellow of the College or furnished with a letter of introduction.” (342) Two expulsions could explain to the readers that the narrator was treated unequally just because  of her sex; It also was a symbol of education culture which was a invasion to the women’s mind. After that, Woolf used personification to describe the library which slept forever, moreover, the narrator made decision that she would not come back to the library at all in order to show how angry she was. (342) In the of period time, Woolf described the sound of music was sorrowful to set off the emotion of narrator because she was not treated as the same as men.

Woolf was carefully not to blame men for the unequal treatments towards women in the chapter two. Instead, she considered the reasons caused the gender inequality, such as women were not independent in finance. The narrator got five hundred pounds a year by her aunt, as a result, she did not need to do hard works to earn money and survive her life.  Instead, she thought that “I need not hate any men, he can not hurt me.”(360) She forgave men for their injustices to women when she was independent in her finance. She claimed that when she enjoyed the luxury of finance, she also got freedom. On the other hand, she thought that it was a reason for a woman why they could not write well because of lack of independent finance.

Woolf also found  that how unequally women were treated in history.  First of all, she stated that “Wife beating” was a right for men; then what effect was when a daughter refused to marry the man of her parents’ choice. Even though women who lived in upper class family,  they rarely were allowed to choose their husbands by themselves.(362) She thought that women were considered as the property of their families or husbands. How could they have ability to write well in the situation?

She conjured the imaginary character of Shakespeare’s sister to show that women could not be as well as men because they were treated in two different ways. Both Shakespeare and his sister lived in the same background. For Shakespeare, he could do what he wanted to do and people would support him. Compare to Shakespeare, the sister could not get education. Even though she read books, her mother would ask her to change her mind, instead of caring about housework. Woolf also described how other people reacted when they knew that a woman wanted to be a player in order to explain why a woman could not have the same achievement in any areas.

Do you agree or disagree that a woman has to be independently wealthy in order to write well?why?

In “Diary of a Madman”, Lu Xun began with an introduction from someone. The introduction gave the readers contents that those were journals about mental illness man. Though the journals, Lu Xun described the madman who suffered from paranoia thought people around him would “eat” him. Lu Xun used metaphor to connect cannibalism to explain a critical issue in society. By using the words “eating” people, the author exposed the nature of Chinese feudal ethical was ignorant.

In the first diary, the madman expressed, he “haven’t [hadn’t] seen it [moonlight] over thirty yeas” (244). It sounded that he talked in nonsense. That was because that it was impossible that human beings had never seen moonlight for three decades years. However, it was a symbol of spiritual awakening for madman. It made readers pay more attention on reading journals in order to know whether the man was actually mad or not. On the other hand, as a human being, the madman was afraid of Zhao family’s dog only when the dog stared at him. This demonstrated that he lived in panic.

Lu Xun used first point of view to describe how panic the madman was when people looked at him because he thought they would “eat” him.  Of course, the fact was that the people did not want to eat him; instead, all of images were his illusions. It expressed the madman’s spirit was destructed. Moreover, madmen described how people “ate” people from Wolf Cub Village by using verbs “beaten”, “gouged” and “fried” (246). It helped the madman infer that those people were cannibals.

As a result, madman stated leafing through history books to find why people “ate” people. He realized that every page educated people should “benevolence, righteousness and morality” (246). However, he began to make out eating people was filled in every simple lines. in addition, madman thought it was a very common thing to “eat” people in the period time. Shizhen Li stated that “fresh can [could] be eaten” and his older brother also explained “exchange [exchanged] children and eat [ate] them”(248). He was not sympathy when “a son, in order to count as a really good person, should slice off a piece of his own flesh, boil it and let them [ill parent] eat it”(252). Instead, he satirized the Chinese people were ignorant. They only followed statements form last generation or history books in order to expose the nature of Chinese feudal ethic was ignorant.

The diaries referred to corrupt Chinese government. Actually, the madman was distinct form others by opposing to “eat” people;  He was a symbol of courage to challenge the traditional secular society and anti- feudal democrat. In third diary, madman described that  “some have worn he cangue on the district magistrate’s order……by creditors” (245). For those people, they did not rise up against people who bullied them, instead they decided to imitate them and bully other people. the madman felt confuse and angry. He cursed cannibals and started with his brother (249). At the end of diaries, the author deeply hoped that there were some children who still had not eaten human flesh and appealed “save the children …”(253).

There was a fact that Chinese people did not have freedom of speech in the period time. However, the author used metaphor to connect cannibalism to explained that human’s spirits were destructed by last generation or history books without an obvious assault on the government.

If you were Lu Xun, how did you express the human’s spirits were destructed by Chinese feudal ethical without an obvious assault on the government?

In “Kabuliwala”, Rahamat treats Mini as his daughter. He makes friend with Mini and gives Mini gifts. At the beginning the narrator does not trust him, and he thinks Rahamat is a traveling seller and he wants to give money to Rahamat, but Rahamat rejects it. After Rahamat goes to prison the narrator and Mini forget hi m quickly. The turn point that changes the narrator’s perspective of Rahamat is that Rahamat visits his home and show him Rahamat’s daughter’s handprint on a paper. The narrator is shocked about this and he suddenly realizes why Rahamat treats Mini so nice and kindly. He finds out that though they come from different social class, they actually are same and equal as a father.

The narrator is not friendly to Rahamat until he sees Rahamat’s daughter’s handprint paper. The family of the narrator is not friendly to Rahamat from beginning to end. Why they don’t feel Rahamat’s love to Mini before he goes in prison? The narrator is a well-born Bengali gentleman, then why he says such ungracious words to Rahamat like “I told you there’s a ceremony in the house… You can’t see anyone else today.” I think it might because that as a well-born man, he actually looks down on a criminal. But after he realizes Rahamat’s sincere emotion, he does not think Rahamat is a criminal or a dry-fruit vendor from Kabul, he just thinks Rahamat is a lovely father. The nice affection of a father can weighs more than the social role.

I think that in this novel Tagore writes two symbolic father figures: the narrator and Rahamat. The narrator is not Mini’s biology father, but he loves Mini so deeply as his own daughter. When Mini asks him different strange questions, he is very patient and tries to give Mini answers, even when he is working on his novel. Rahamat is not Mini’s father, too, he is just a traveling seller, but he always talks with Mini in smile, and he gives Mini gifts and warm regard. After he comes out from the prison, the first thing he does is visit Mini. Rahamat has biology daughter, but he cannot come back to his hometown maybe because of some reasons. Therefore to some extent he treats Mini just as his biology daughter. Though these two fathers come from different class, they pay equal affection to Mini as surrogate father, and they are on the same level as a symbolic father. Tagore may indicate that a lower-class person also has sincere love, and he can be a great father, not only a great biology father but also a great surrogate father. There is always nice emotion in the world, and it is independent of money or social status.

Oppression of women is an ongoing conflict, especially in third world countries. Women there are given no value and no respect. They are suppressed by the empowerment given by men and do not have the ability to break society’s norms. If, by chance, they are able to break these barriers, then they are ridiculed, threatened, beaten, and abused for doing so, ultimately leading them back into suppression. They’re only escape from oppression is death. By experiencing death, these women achieve their freedom and independence. This claim is exemplified in the narration of, “Punishment”, where the brilliant author, Rabindranath Tagore, portrays the mass oppression and belittlement given to women and the manners in which they are perceived, stereotyped, and treated in a third world environment.

From the very beginning of the text, Tagore portrays one aspect of stereotypical behavior amongst women in local villages. He compares the “shrill screams” between two women to the “sun rising at dawn”. No one questions the rising of the sun and therefore no one would care to question the emotions of women. In other words, this behavior is apparent amongst women and so it was not a “violation of Nature’s rules” (893) because naturally, it is bound to happen. As mentioned earlier, women are suppressed by the empowerment of men in society. Men hold certain expectations against women. They seek for the women to have certain tasks accomplished and made ready. In one account of the story, Dukhiram was famished after a long days work and so was “expecting” his wife, Radha, to have made lunch ready. However, Radha was unable to provide for Dukhiram in that instant. The reason is not that Radha could careless for her husband. But, that her husband in fact did not provide the means for her to have made lunch ready. Additionally, in that same scenario, Radha tried to talk back. But, in this society, women do not have freedom of speech, they are unable to make their voice heard. They’re inability to project their voice is evident, and the moment they even try to speak back, it feels “like a spark on a sack of gunpowder” (894). That spark is their voice, which is denied in this society. That spark also signifies all of their emotions and overwhelming feelings that are bottled up inside. When they finally try to let their emotions out, the outcome becomes that “spark on a sack of gunpowder”. When they do talk back, it is viewed as disrespect, as a sign of rebellion. The moment they try to “rebel”, they become killed by men who are “raging with hunger” (894).

Tagore portrays another unjust attribution given to women. In the next claim, he shows women being used as scapegoats in society. “In their quarrel, Chotobau struck at Barobau’s head with a farm-knife” (894). The younger brother made a false claim in defending the real murderer, his older brother by putting the blame on his wife. He did not think for one second about this false accusation, and that this will get his innocent wife killed. He gave her up in a moment of a second. “A reply to Ramlochan’s question had come instantly to mind, and he had blurted it out” (894). An “instant” thought resulted into an “instant” blame and turned an innocent individual into an “instant” victim. This shows how undervalued these women are in society. They are deceived by even their “lover” in matters of misery and have no outlet from their own misery.

An ideal female figure emerged in Tagore’s, “Punishment”. She was the wife who was put on blame for the murder. Chandara was an ideal figure because although she was innocent, she took matters into her own hands and was able to stand her ground. “I shall give my youth to the gallows instead of to you. My final ties in this life will be with them” (897). Although many acts of reassurance were given by her husband, she knew that she had the ability to abolish herself from suppression. She knew that her husband’s words held no value. In accepting the blame, she performed an act of justice for herself. She was free from injustice, abuse, and suppression. She no longer had to cope with society norms and injustices. By accepting death, she became a “handful of mercury” (896) that was able to slip away from prejudice and blame given by society. The real punishment professed by Tagore was not the punishment given because of murder, but the punishment given to the women in society. Their abuse, mistreatment, and belittlement in society were what Tagore wanted to project in his work. The descriptions of Chandara were ideal to Tagore because that was how he wanted women to be perceived in society. Tagore also indicated in the passage, “The Deputy Magistrate…new rice-crop” (898), that these events and misdemeanors against women were an ongoing problem. Life must go on, but according to Tagore, life should go on in way that it should be equally blissful for people of the opposite sex.

From the story, the author, Rabindranath Tagore, uses of literature (in which presents in a narrative way) as a mean to examine the position of women in the society and its jurisdiction in India during the late 19^th century. In this society, women’s positions are very similar to the western women in the essay, A Vindication of Rights of woman by Mary Wollstonecraft that we read before. Women are treated like men’s property, their duties are taking care children, obeying men’s orders and doing house work as the only reason to live on. More importantly Dukhirman and Chidam treat them as inferior and use Chandara as a tool to cover his guilt. For instances, Dukhirman kills his wife without any hesitating, then they decides to let Chandara to take all the responsibility. Later Chidam said that “if I lose my wife I can get another, but if my brother is hanged, how can I replace him?”(895) This conversation shows that men are more important than women because Chidam chooses to save his brother by sacrificing his wife. It also reveals the society in India, in which men have the dominating position and power over women since remarriage is not a problem for men.

As a reader, we clearly see the truth that Chandara is innocent and know that it is unfair. Well! The story is called “Punishment” implicitly refers the theme of unjust or unfairness. I define the term “punishment” as a penalty for people who committed an act of offense, fault or guilt. Chandara did not commit any of those but receives the punishment of death while the real offender gets free, hence the punishment is mistaken and unjust. The reason that it ends in this way also because of the unjust and failure of the justice system, the judge or the jury decides this case solely on the basis of eyewitness accounts, without any material evidence to prove the claim. Also due to the positions difference between men and women, the judge is also biased by the class and gender, bringing the story to its sad ending. Therefore, this type of justice system is unreliable and unjust.

The question that I want to ask is “Who or what is responsible for her death?” Is it her husband/ the society/ the justice system or others?

The underground man begins the second part of his narration by explaining events that occur to him in his young age. He describes that at the age of twenty- four he was already depressed and antisocial. He always feels isolated at this very early age not being able to look at anyone in the eye, and imaging that every one looks at him with disgust. “ I indulged in depravity all alone at night furtively, timidly, sordidly, with a feeling of shame that never left me even in my most loathsome moments and drove me at such times to the point of profanity.” (661) It is evident that the isolated feeling began at a every early age. He is anxious of being seen, he haunts mysteriously everywhere he goes. The underground man compares himself to a fly in the eyes of society, where he feels ignored and disgusting compared to the rest of the individuals of society. From this early age he considers himself to be smarter than the rest. His comparison to a fly symbolizes how he is “insulted and injured” by everyone whom he encounters.

This second segment exposes the narrator’s development from his youthful perspective, influenced by Romanticism and ideals of “beautiful and sublime.” This perspective is merely cynical about beauty, loftiness, and his passion of literature in general. The underground man was able to escape from his depressed state through the power of his dreams. His dreams were where those “escapes into everything beautiful and sublime” (666) could be possible. In his dreams he feels love, though he feels no need to apply the love to his real life. His dreams always end with artistic moments stolen from poetry and novels.  After three months of dreaming, the happiness of dreaming makes the underground man wants to rush into society. The happiness encouraged in his dreams was a sort of turning point that allowed him to finally give humanity a chance.

After accepting humanity the underground man experiences serial events that forcefully make him let go of his cowardly ways and socialize with humanity. However, even though he has allowed himself into society he still withholds this battle within himself of not being good enough for others. The Underground Man’s separation displays itself in all kinds of relationships. The underground man experiences encounters with his former classmates and tries to liberate a young prostitute named Liza. The underground man is confused about social interaction with his former schoolmates still referring himself as a “ordinary house fly.” He blames the fact of this isolation is due to the baldy way he was dressed, “which in their eyes, constituted proof of my ineptitude and insignificance.”(668) Later that evening the underground man also tries to save Liza by stating romantic speeches about the dreadful destiny that is near her if she continues to sell her body.

Unfortunately, even though the underground man gained the courage needed to leave his isolated and depressed state he was still confused and disordered not understanding how to create relationships and interact sociably.

The Underground Man, the story’s narrator and his own worst critic, describes himself as a spiteful, proud, ill,  and envious man. Yet, he later rebuffs that statement and says he was lying signaling the readers that they are faced with an unreliable narrator. There is no telling if what he says next will have any truth to it. Nevertheless, he continues his monologue, in a manner that sounds like a train-of-thought process voicing his opinions seeking the reader’s approval and understanding, even though he repeatedly states that he doesn’t care. His constant use of the word Gentlemen, is to continually hold the attention of the audience and appeal to them. At the age of 40 he doesn’t feel like a fulfilled person, especially when he compares himself to a man that wasn’t born from the bosom of nature, but was made from a laboratory test tube (p 640). He blames this loss of oneself on many things, but always comes back to ultimately blaming himself. The acute consciousness he refers to stops him from doing many things he believes a normal person would do. His memories from boyhood are summarized as “…no one was like me, and I wasn’t like anyone else.” (p 659) posing the question if, at 40 and still having the same outlook, he was unable to transition into a more mature individual and let go of his childish behavior.

His view on pleasure, although at first may seem slightly disturbing, describes a larger scope of human essence where not everything is ideal and pure, “…the pleasure resulted precisely from the overly acute consciousness of one’s own humiliation; from the feeling that one had reached  the limit; that it was disgusting, but couldn’t be otherwise; you had no other choice – you could never become a different person; and that even there were still time and faith enough for you to change into something else, most likely you wouldn’t even want to change , and if you did, you wouldn’t have done anything, perhaps because there really was nothing for you to change into” (p 638). Dostoevsky’s exploration of the human psyche hits head on, describing a new type of generation. The generation that is tired of the ideas of Enlightenment, as the narrator speaks on his distaste for the laws of nature (p 641), and no longer taken with the ideas of Romanticism, where the narrator calls them stupid and often ridicules the “beautiful and sublime”. The question though still remains if this narrator really reflects any particular person, if he reflects humanity as a whole, or if a person like that is entirely fictitious. Notes from Underground is an early work of existentialism, where this dark side of humanity is exposed raw questioning the readers to consider if they share any similar qualities with the narrator. This unrestrained and realistic outlook on human thoughts presents a man in a limbo of existence, afraid to be seen but at the same time afraid to be forgotten, hating himself yet unwilling to change, feeling lonely and isolated but never escaping the social world. Are we the Underground Man? Or are we pretending that we’re not?