Author Archives: KAICY GAYNOR

After Reading ‘The Death of Ivan Ilyich,’ I was reinforced with the idea that nothing we gain in this life through money, wealth, or status, will go with us once we die. After reading about Ivan’s struggle to accept death, I noticed his focus was so much on how he will not be able to live life as he once enjoyed. He has to get used to and anticipate a new experience, for example not having people over as much to his house, not having the physical strength to do things as he once did, and the most daunting anticipation of all, death. During the pandemic, I have seen many people go through the same process of getting used to new ways of living and even anticipating death. For me though, in this new era of life when the entire world has to live through a pandemic like this, I have realized that although everything that we cherish in this life does bring comfort and joy, we must all also anticipate and expect even, the few things common to all human beings, and one of the only few things that do not discriminate; change and death. Throughout this entire pandemic, personally, I have gotten used to the trend of change and the news of death. Although I never experienced death in my immediate family, since the beginning of the pandemic I have witnessed relentless news reports of the mass deaths due to the coronavirus. I have also witnessed and experienced tremendous change due to this pandemic. Change is also one of those things that everyone must experience, by choice or not. Having to stay home all the time not, not being able to visit family members as frequently, seeing so many establishments closed, have all been changes we all had to face in this pandemic. In this way, this idea that every human being is going to experience and even has to prepare for these things is reinforced after reading the Death of Ivan Ilyich. Ivan, although a fortunate and wealthy man, could not escape change nor death, nor can any of his friends or family members escape those things, and neither can we.

1. What did you learn from this story that you did not previously know about life in Nazi concentration camps?
   I learned that even children were not spared from being dehumanized, and from the horrors of the Holocaust. There were many extremely disturbing scenes in the text, but the most striking and painstaking was reading about children being brutalized.
2. Are we good people?” asks our narrator.  What is this exchange about? What do you think?

I believe this exchange was the process of the narrator being desensitized to the horrors of killing people. The fact that I’m the text, the narrator said he wanted the people to hurry up and be killed off in the gas chambers so he could go rest was a signal that he was not completely emotionally connected to the lives of the people that were being stripped away, and their suffering. Him asking this question was a realization of this disconnection, and he asked in order to see if this feeling resonated with Henri. I believe this was just one step in the process of the narrator being desensitized to human suffering and death.

After reading Isabel Allende’s story “And of Clay We Are Created,” I noticed specific elements in Rolf’s partner’s character that I could relate really to. In the story, as she watches on the television Rolf helplessly trying to save the trapped girl from the muddy, dangerous debris from the volcanic eruption, I could sense her having a feeling of earnest yet obsolete desire to help them, but she is not able to, since they are in completely different locations. This same desire resonated with me, because it reminds me of all the times in my life where I watched helplessly as a person whom I really want to help does not receive the aid they need due to their situations, and my help is also rendered obsolete, because we are in completely different places in the world. One such occasion that comes to mind are the countless infomercials that show how millions of African children have to suffer from thirst, starvation, and even death, because they don’t have the provisional resources to keep them healthy. I remember watching the African children, thin to the point where their bones poke through their skin, oftentimes covered in flies. I remember watching them cry for attention, for food and water, many of them also in need of serious medical attention, to which they may not receive. During these times, I feel that like I need to help these children, but at the same time, I realize how far away I am from helping them; both physically through distance, and financially, since I am not financially stable enough to donate any impactful amount of money. In these times, as I watch these suffering children on the television screen, I can closely relate to Rolf’s partner, in her futile desire to help those in need, since they are opposite sides of the world.

In the story, I believe Talib was conveying that even though tradition is an important, respected part of society, it will imminently be affected by modernity. In the story, Talib talks about all of the inconvenient ways of life in his village. He makes it clear that it is not easy to live there, and has many unpleasant aspects. But in this underdeveloped neighborhood, the Doum tree is the most respected and cherished part of their culture. This can especially be seen as people speak about having dreams of Wad Hamid and the Doum tree, and also the woman’s report of being healed because of the tree. But although the tree is very important to the village, which can be seen by the villagers relentlessly defending it against government officials who sought to cut it down, the Doum tree was eventually affected by modernity. This is seen when the government officials manage to block off the tree, in an attempt to memorialize it. The effect of modernity was also seen in how the narrator’s children ended up leaving the village to live in the city. This just goes to show that no matter to what extent a certain tradition is protected abd preserved, the effect of modernity will affect it one way or another.

Music was a reminder of Gregory’s humanity although it was encased in a bug’s body. Gregory still had an appreciation for music and he still enjoyed being able to hear his sister play the violin. These were all human characteristics, and in the story we are even told that Gregor wanted to send his sister to study music at college with the money he earned. So seeing these things, and seeing Gregory‘s reaction to his sister playing the violin even though he is a bug, this is all a reminder that Gregor still has human feelings and characteristics and even memories although he was a bug. Even though his appearance was shocking to those around him, Gregor leaving his room was an action that served as a reminder but he still had human feelings, tendencies, intentions, and motivations.  Similarly, Gregory’s death had a human like intentionality behind it. Gregory’s family felt that his presence was a liability, Gregor himself felt a heavier weight of guilt towards the effects of his transformation. So much so, that it writes in the story “His conviction that he needed to disappear was, if anything, still firmer than his sister’s.” His death was attributed to the fatal injury induced by the apple throwing, but it was also due to this very conviction: that his presence has now become a nuisance. This can almost be described as a guilt, and it is this thought that leaves Gregory’s mind as he takes his last breath. So as we read, Gregory’s death can be attributed largely to his love and guilt for his family, which was why he “left” or died to alleviate his family.

Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,

The muttering retreats

Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels

And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:

Streets that follow like a tedious argument

(Stanza 1, lines 4-8).

The literal meaning of this passage is showing the speaker with another person traveling through an area resembling the city, and this specific city does not seem very populated, and it is fairly lower class, as the passage mentions its “cheap hotels” (line 6). I chose this passage mainly because it was a key factor in the passage, it helped me to understand the setting of the poem by describing the city-esque scenery, and since it appeared in the first few lines, I think this was an important aspect that set the tone of the poem. For this poem, I chose to look up the words tedious and muttering, to provide better clarity to read the poem. Tedious generally means incredibly slow and uninteresting, and muttering means a complaint or unpleasant feeling that is expressed privately (both definitions were taken from Oxford Languages through Google). Eliot employs imagery to express the setting that the speaker and unidentified person embark on, he uses this to describe a somber, quiet city area where they spend time together. He also uses a simile to describe how ongoing the streets are in the somber city. These lines connect to the overall idea of the poem because the scenery is described from the perspective of the speaker, and this is used to convey his overall underwhelming and somber attitude towards life, particularly concerning him not having a wife in his older years in life, and his lack of effort and ambitious intent toward correcting that. I still don’t understand who this “you” is when the speaker talks about going to the city with this person.

After reading ‘Punishment,’ I noticed one of the central themes within the text, as well as one of the greatest issues the characters faced was the death of Radha. Additionally, how the characters responded to her murder were equally as significant to the story, because this is what led Chandara to confess to a murder she never committed. An intestresting aspect in the story ‘The Death of Ivan Ilyich’ has a similar textual context, in that although Ilyich’s death is one of the main focal points, the reactions of his peers shortly before and after his death are also notable. Firstly, in Punishment, one of choices Chidam makes after an additional witness to the murder appears, Ramlochan, is to lie about what happened, so as to try to protect his brother from being charged for the murder he committed by pinning the blame on Chandara. As the story writes, “But why is Dukhi crying so?’ asked Ramlochan, stepping towards the verandah. Seeing no way out now, Chidam blurted out, “In their quarrel, Chotobau struck at Barobau’s head with a farm-knife.” (p. 894) According to the story, Chidam’s rash thinking placed a higher value over his brother than his wife, which caused him to put the blame on her. From this, we can see that Chidam was quick to make decisions, but did not think them through before proceeding. At first glance, this is understandable, in that Chidam is trying to protect his only brother from incrimination, but this false accusation spirals into Chandara being executed for Dukhiram’s crime. On the other hand, when looking at The Death of Ivan Ilyich, the character’s reactions to the death are not so consequential, but still very notable. When being faced with Ilyich’s death, his colleagues responded with thinking, “Well, he’s dead but I’m alive!” (p. 741) They anticipated the “very tiresome demands of propriety by attending the funeral service and paying a visit of condolence to the widow.” (p. 741) From this, we can see that Ilyich’s peers did not care that much about his death, and were very pleased to remember that they still had their own lives to live and enjoy, although their peer had lost his life. In this light, although in both stories the characters have to deal with a death, their reactions to the death adds even more details and textual evidence to their character traits, and who they are as a person, and what their values are.

Upon watching Hedda Gabler, and reading the play, there are subtle differences in how each work portrays and represents each character. Firstly, in the beginning of the written version of the play, there is a detailed paragraph describing the house that Mr. Tesman and Hedda are living, which works to acquaint the audience with the lavishness and splendor of the house. On the contrary, in the beginning of the televised play, the audience is rather shown Berta just doing regular duties around the house, like tending the fire, shortly before conversing with Miss Tesman. Additionally, as we continue to read the beginning, Miss Tesman does not fully enter the house before making her appearance in the play. On the other hand, in the televised play, Berta and Miss Tesman are already shown interacting in the middle of the house. Furthermore, the way in which the televised showcases Miss Tesman and Mr. Tesman’s relationship is much more heartwarming and close-knit, and the aesthetics that are provided with this adds an aspect of familial fondness that was not conveyed as much in the written play. I think the interpretation the televised play takes on Ibsen’s original play adds a more familial depth and fondness to the relationship between the characters of Berta, Miss Tesman and Mr. Tesman. I believe this perspective of their relationships also dramatizes the impact Hedda’s crass and distasteful words are toward Berta and Miss Tesman, and portrays her overall character in a more unlikable light, because as we see these characters showing familial love and comfort toward one another, as Hedda’s character is presented in such a starkly different way, this contrast emphasizes Hedda’s negative character traits.

After reading Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of a Slave, and seeing the scene in which Mr. Covey and Douglass fight, where Douglass walks away relatively unharmed, while Mr. Covey, the slave master, is very bruised and bloodied, left a lasting impact on me. Especially more so upon reading Douglass’  new sense of empowerment, as he describes as being “the turning point in my career as a slave. It rekindled the few expiring embers of freedom, and revived within me a sense of my own manhood…however long I might remain a slave in form, the day had passed forever when I could be a slave in fact.” This realization of Douglass’ true strength and inward freedom were revolutionary; Douglass realized he had the power to be free. This realization carries heavy implications of the condition of the other enslaved African Americans, because Douglass’ freedom came about after his migration from having the mentality of a slave, to a mentality of free man. This shows that all the other slaves were both mentally and physically enslaved, and if they were to abolish their slavery mentality, the abolition of physical slavery would soon follow. This is especially evident in how Douglass said that he was no longer a slave in fact, but a slave in form. This completely captures Douglass’ transformation being enslaved mentally, which resulted in his acceptance of his slave status, to being a free man mentally, which ultimately led to his freedom.