Author Archives: EVAN NIERMAN

Long Live the Roots

A great work of literature is one that insightfully challenges contemporary conflicts in a creative and artistic style. Tayeb Salih’s short story, “The Doum Tree of Wad Hamid,” translated from the Arabic by Denys Johnson-Davies, deserves recognition as a ‘Great Work’ of literature. The short story is simple, yet complex, in its welcoming, yet abrasive, design.  The use of the narrator, a well-aged village native, speaking to a visitor, you, establishes a relationship between text and reader. The personal relationship between the wise speaker who speaks on behalf of the village is like the wise author speaking on behalf of his work and protecting his culture; and the uneducated tourist who is foreign to the land, who is only visiting for one night, is literally you, the reader.  The narrator uses a sort of reverse psychology to invite you to stay. He does not believe you can handle the hardships of residing in the village. He does this by telling tales of previous tourists who could not bear the harsh reality of just one night in the village.  Telling stories of previous visitors is a brilliant trick to entice the listener as well as teach. The narrator also does a precise job of identifying you, my son, and your tendencies. The text states,  “No doubt, my son, you read the papers daily, listen to the radio, and go to the cinema once or twice a week. Should you become ill you have the right to be treated in the hospital, and if you have a son he is entitled to receive education at a school.”  Although these interests may seem like necessities of modern life, it is more practical to identify them as, in a few sentences,  the demands of an individual in an industrial society. I believe it is ‘great’ that the old-aged narrator has the ability to, still, identify a tourist sixty years later. It is ‘great’  because, since publication in 1960, the description of the tourist has not changed and yet still remains accurate. 

Describe an example of dehumanization in the text.  What about this moment made a particularly strong impression on you? Why?

The first words of any work of writing are arranged in such a way to stimulate the reader. To urge his or her attention to continue reading and, perhaps, provoke an understanding of the topic at hand. Tadeusz Borowski’s short story, “This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen” does not fail to exceed these expectations. The story begins, “All of us walk around naked”(695). This is the stark reality of horrid life in the concentration camps.  ‘All of us’ is referring to inmates in Auschwitz 11, the largest of the Nazi extermination camps. Immediately, the vision of millions of individuals being stripped of their cloth to ‘walk around naked’ is constructed.  Borowski opens his short story with this vision to embark on the dehumanization men and women face in concentration camps.  The introduction continues, stating,  “Cyclone B solution, an efficient killer of lice in clothing and of men in gas chambers”(695). To compare the extermination of lice in clothing to men in chambers is degrading, but the harsh reality of the conduct taken place.  Later, the text states, ‘Around us sit the Greeks, their jaws working greedily, like huge human insects”(699).   The repetition of the comparison rekindles the dehumanizing conditions of the concentration camps. It is difficult to put into words the disgrace of such vulgarity. 

A tall, grey-haired woman who has just arrived on the “transport” whispers, “My poor boy,” to our narrator.  What does she mean?

A tall, grey-haired woman ultimately preserves Tadek’s life.  Prior to the emergence of the woman, Tadek was ordered by an S.S officer to clean out the remains in the train and then to pass these remains to the accompanying women. Tadek’s frustration is revealed in his approach to these women when he states, “Take them, for God’s sake!’”(702). The women rush away from him in horror due to the blend of the remains in his possession and the attitude of the situation. The failure to cooperate antagonizes the S.S officer to reach for his revolver.  The significance of the tall, grey-haired woman is that she comprehends the situation, unlike the young boy. The young boy is fueled by emotion. She realizes the emotional hardships he encounters during these scarring situations. Without her contribution, the S.S officer may have carried out his intended action when reaching for his revolver. The grey-haired woman whispers, “my poor boy” and smiles at Tadek because she is conscious of the lack of support surrounding him. 

The final paragraph of Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis embarks on an optimistic tone. This is a dynamic shift in the spirit with respect to the attitude of the characters from the midst of the story.  In the final paragraph, when describing characters in their setting, the text states, ‘The carriage in which they sat was flooded with warm sunshine. Sitting back comfortably in their seats’(241).  The description reveals a mood that was not present among the three of them when in the flat. The attention is no longer on Gregor but rather Gregor’s sister, Grete. It seems that Grete, too, went through a metamorphosis of her own. It was communicated through glances that it seemed about time to ‘find a suitable husband’ for Grete.  Mr. and Mrs. Samsa refer to their daughter as ‘lively’ when noticing her in the carriage in the park, in the conclusion of the story. The two recognize she has ‘bloomed into an attractive and well-built girl’ and describe her body as young and nubile. The attention on Grete concludes a confident attitude emerging from the mature characters. 

Through language, the text illustrates, “Gregor, drawn by the music, has slowly inched forward, and his head was already in the living room. He was no longer particularly surprised by his lack of discretion, where previously his discretion had been his entire pride”(235).  The text then goes on to depict Gregor and the scene in which describe his emotions in detail. Gregor is completely captivated by the music.   His guard is down. The text states,  “Could he be an animal, to be so moved by music? It was as though he sensed a way to the unknown sustenance he longed for”(235). The tenants, on the other hand, were not so fascinated by the violin playing and Gregor is aware of this. He feels as if their lack of engrossment reflects their lack of respect for his sister.  And it was then, when listening to the music, his frightening form would come in useful for him. He imagined how he would go about the situation with him, his sister, and the tenants. Transfixed by the music and his own imagination, Gregor slips too far into the living room and his presence is identified by the middle of the gentlemen.

      “In the room the women come and go

Talking of Michelangelo”

The standalone couplet first appears between the first and second stanza on lines 13 and 14. The infringing rhyme can either be intended as an obstruction in mood between eerie stanzas or as a bridge of unknown time passing between surreal scenes.  The first stanza ends with,  “Let us go and make our visit”(12). The word ’us’ makes the action personal to the narrator as well as engaging to the audience. But the free-standing rhyme shows no signs of the narrator connecting with anyone. The women in the room, If anything, seem distant.  They just come and go. The duad then repeats again between stanzas three and four on lines 34 and 35.   The repetition of the standalone couplet is a faultless technique in provoking extensive analysis of the message beyond the rhyme.  Regarding the literal sense, the duad is overly candid. That is if you know who Michelangelo is. Yet it is extremely vague in detail. In respect to addressing the artist, A footnote in the text states, “Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475–1564), famous Italian Renaissance sculptor, painter, architect, and poet; here, merely a topic of fashionable conversation”(541).   Michelangelo is best known for his painting of the Sistine Chapel along with his expertise in sculpture and architecture. His artistry in such fields could perhaps be the Michelangelo talk circulating the room.  Perhaps his work encompasses the room. An interesting note is the sense of only women. It is interesting Prufrock only acknowledges the women. Is this because there are truly no men or that Prufrock is only interested and concentrated on the women who come and go. Nevertheless, in the literal sense, the women are forever changing but Michelangelo is an unfading name that will be mentioned ‘in the room’ until doomsday. Thus, it is indefinite.

Hedda is a woman of wealth. She does not work and any house chore that a wife would do is, instead, carried out by the maid, Berta. The multiple rooms and the tasteful decor furnishing the home, set at the beginning of Act I, implies Hedda lives a life of affluence and wealth.  Chandara is a low ranking part of the Caste System in Bengal, therefore Chandara is guaranteed a life of poverty with no ability to escape.   Although the two come from distinctly different backgrounds, Hedda, the protagonist from Henrik Ibsen’s play, Hedda Gabler, and Chandara, the wife of Chidam in Rabindranath Tagore’s short story, Punishment, are destined for the same fate, death. More specifically, both wives choose to meet their maker. But why do they choose death? And do both women choose for the same reason? Yes. Both women feel imprisoned in their daily lives. Both women choose death, because to them, death seems more liberating than life.   When speaking to Judge Brack, Hedda states, “I mean, for me, It’s liberation for me to know that in this world an act of such courage, done in full, free will, is possible. Something bathed in a bright shaft of sudden beauty”(834).   In context, the ‘act of such courage’ Hedda is referring to is suicide.  Liberation is the act of setting someone free or released, from imprisonment. Hedda is attending to the idea that it is liberating to have the free will to decide to live or to die.  On the surface, Hedda’s choices are far less complicated. She has the choice of either shooting herself and committing suicide or not shoot herself and commit to living.  It is important to note that Hedda mentions that it is liberating to know that such an act is possible. not necessarily liberating to end life.   Chandara, on the other hand, is granted a much more complicated scenario. She can either accept the blame of Radha’s death, which her husband assures her to do or deny responsibility and go against Chidam’s request. But to be in disagreement with Chidam leads to domestic abuse. The text states, “Chidam glared at his wife and said, ‘If I ever hear that you’ve been to the Ghat on your own, I’ll break every bone in your body.’ ‘The bones will mend again,’ said Chandara, starting to leave. Chadic sprang at her, grabbed her by the hair, dragged her back to the room and locked her in… He even once or twice wondered if it would be better if she were dead”(896). When it comes to living in a house under such detrimental conditions, maybe death is more liberating than life.

The Death of Ivan Ilyich is a novella written by Leo Tolstoy that explores the purpose of living and the resentment of dying. Chapter II begins with the statement, “Ivan Ilyich’s life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible”(746). 

When reading this, the first thing I recall is the quote, ‘All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy’ which was originally stated in David Lean’s 1957 film Bridge on the River Kwai and then typed over and over and over again, on paper, in Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 film, The Shining. Both films are novels that have been adapted for the silver screen. And both films tackle the idea that all labor and no pleasure will lead to a life of misery, which is also the case when it comes to the life of Ivan Ilyich.  In chapter II, when speaking about Ivan Ilyich, the limited omniscient third-person narration states, “Even when he was at the School of Law he was just what he remained for the rest of his life: a capable, cheerful, good-natured, and sociable man, though strict in the fulfillment of what he considered to be his duty: and he considered his duty to be what was so considered by those in authority”(746).  This description of Ivan brings answers to a few life-altering decisions. Like why did Ivan get married? He at first had no intention of marrying, but it was considered the right thing by the most highly placed of his associates. And why did Ivan make a change in his official [work] life? Because he was offered the post of Examining Magistrate and new men were needed. In simple terms, Ivan does not make decisions for himself.  In other words, Ivan Ilyich was a man who was controlled by the written and unwritten rules of life. He was so controlled by the rules of the system that he literally was a part of it by pursuing a career in the legal system. 

During this time of social distancing, individuals are given the opportunity to self reflect. They are given time to think about the direction their life has been going. And they are given the time to think about the direction they would like to be going. And most importantly, to ask the question: Do I make Decisions For My   Self!

Cock Your Pistols

Published in 1844, The Luck of Barry Lyndon is a novel by William Makepeace Thackeray. In 1975, the film adaptation of the novel was released for the silver screen by director Stanley Kubrick.  In respect to making connections, comparisons will be made between the film adaption of Barry Lyndon and the stage play, Hedda Gabler; but it is important to note that the novel in which the film is based was published 46 years before Henrik Ibsen’s play. Although there may not have been a direct influence of one work impacting the other, both works are a part of the same writing era, the Victorian period, which ranges from 1832 to 1901. Works from similar time periods often share similar themes and styles, so what does the story of Barry have in relation to Hedda? Not too much.  Not much at all, besides both stories are named after their main character, and both use pistols to ‘kill time’ by telling stories. Both characters develop around the beauty and power of a pistol. But what is the significance of pistols in the Victorian Era of writing? 

Anton Pavlovich Chekhov was a Russian author and playwright, who lived from 1860 to 1904, who tackles the significance of the instrument. In his work, he brought light to a concept referred to as ‘Chekhov’s Gun’ which describes how each element of a story should contribute to the whole. Chekhov says, “If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don’t put it there” which is precisely done in Hedda Gabler. It is done in each and every act. In the closing moments of Act I, Hedda mentions to George, “I shall have one thing at least to kill time within the meanwhile… my pistols”(800). Hedda ends the first act of the play with pistol talk. In the following act, Act II, the scene begins with one pistol in Hedda’s hand and the matching pistol on the writing-table. Hedda says “Hello again, Judge” and after he acknowledges her presence, she raises the pistol, aims, and shoots(800). Act III ends with Hedda gifting Lovborg a pistol. Foreshadowing, again, the use of the instrument in the following, and final, act. In Act IV, Hedda is told by Judge Brack about Lovborg and his incident with the gifted pistol. It seems to be solidifying the purpose of the pistol in the third act. But to finalize the play, Hedda uses the matching pistol, which was mentioned to be located on the writing-table,  to blow her brains out. A superb example of Chekhov’s gun in the same era of its discovery. 

The pistol is relevant in both the film and the play. The film, Barry Lyndon, begins with a duel. The man directing the duel says the first words, “Gentlemen, cock your pistols” and immediately, there is an intriguing scenario revolving around pistols. The first action is taken and Barry’s father is killed in a duel.  Later in the act, there is a duel between Redmond Barry and Captain Quinn of the English Army over the love of a woman. Barry is on the left, just as his father was in the opening scene. His opponent is on the right. Unlike his father, Barry wins the duel.  It is later in the story where Barry learns the duel was fixed. The guns were faulty. The duel was designed in such a way to teach the boy a lesson. Now, according to Anton Chekhov, every element of a story should contribute to the whole. So Kubrick altered the climactic tension between Barry and his step-son, in the second act to bring rhyme and reason to the faulty pistols used in the first act. In Act II, it is Barry who alters the pistols to teach his opponent the stakes of dueling. Another sublime use of Chekhov’s Gun.

Mr. Fundementals

“Very soon after I went to live with Mr. and Mrs. Auld, she very kindly commenced to teach me the A, B, C. After I had learned this, she assisted me in learning to spell words of three or four letters”(250).  The alphabet is the foundation, the bricks, of language. Douglass writes in a style that embraces the fundamentals of the language. His words are short, clear and concise. His syntax and diction follow a repetition. This approach shapes the narrative, adding a sense of authorship to his words. To give an example of his repetitive language, Douglass uses words like how to, seldom, slave, well, read, write, and mentions God through the whole of the text.  The word seldom, which is not a common word in respect to the other words of repetition, is extant, written in the work twenty times. The paradox of such word choice is that seldom is a synonym for rare(ly); infrequent(ly); on only a few occasions, yet the word is frequent throughout the text. Does this finesse manipulation of ironic wordplay mean anything? 

Douglass continues, stating, “Just at this point of my progress, Mr. Auld found out what was going on, and at once forbade Mrs. Auld to instruct me further, telling her, among other things, that it was unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read. To use his own words, further” (250) and what Douglass recites Mr. Auld uttering, here, reveals the sheer power of language. The overarching theme of the narrative. The explanation of what Mr. Auld fears. He quotes Mr. Auld,    “he said ‘If you give a nigger an inch, he will take an ell. A nigger should know nothing but to obey his master–to do as he is told to do. Learning would spoil the best nigger in the world. Now”’(250). Although many words in this quotation do not need decoding, there are a few to take close note of. Accounting to hearing and comprehending what an ell is, the initial logistics point to the letter in the English alphabet. However, after searching the definition, in context to Mr. Auld’s words, an ell is describing a measure of length, typically about forty-five inches or so. Mr. Auld is describing, figuratively, how an inch of learning can grow rampant. How learning the alphabet and putting letters into small words opens the door to new intellectual discoveries. 

Spoil is written in italics. Predominantly, spoil is a synonym for ruin, or perish. But spoil, like many other words in the English language, has more than one meaning.  Contradictory to the first interpretation, spoil can also be to treat someone very or too well, especially by being extremely generous. It can also be something valuable or desirable gained through special effort or opportunism.  Thus, learning to read can very well spoil a slave by directing him toward freedom. A special opportunity for a man of color at the time. Douglass continues to quote Auld’s rant, “said he, ‘if you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy.’ These words sank deep into my heart, stirred up sentiments within that lay slumbering, and called into existence an entirely new train of thought”(250). Without learning the written word, Fredrick Douglass would be unable to present the language of Mr. Auld. He would not be able to communicate his experiences on such an extensive level, if at all.  Without reading, Douglass may even be unable to decipher Mr. Auld’s words properly. 

Allow that to sink in. Reading is learning and writing is documenting. Douglass, now conscious of his capability, exposes the colloquial language of the American citizen of the south. He does not hold back from unmasking the barbaric diction of, who he must address at the time as, his master. According to Frederick’s recollection of the situation, he says, “It was a new and special revelation, explaining dark and mysterious things, with which my youthful understanding had struggled, but struggled in vain. I now understood what had been to me a most perplexing difficulty–to wit, the white man’s power to enslave the black man. It was a grand achievement, and I prized it highly. From that moment, I understood the pathway from slavery to freedom”(250-1). The pathway from slavery to freedom is through the written word.