The power of literature

Hamlet has been staged all along the world, in many ways. It is a universal play. However, few times has it been brought to live with such impact and significance as in this high security prison. The play reflects many behaviors going on in prisons as well as the identities of prisoners themselves.

            It is very interesting to see how the prisoners reflect on their mistakes while they are characters on the play. They are impersonating characters who have acted in-what today would be deemed-illegal behavior. For example the actor who interprets Claudius is being confronted with killing a person, and committing a crime. I can imagine that as the scene within Claudius’ confession progressed, the inmate wasn’t playing a character he was truly repenting. Just as the person who plays the Ghost, he sees in the ghost the victim of his horrible crime. He murdered somebody, and as he read the play he felt that the ghost spoke to him. The power that the play has on the inmates is stronger than the thickest concrete wall or the most solid shackles.

            There is an interesting parallel with Hamlet and the prison’s structure. There are “killer whales”, and “guppies”. The killer whales hold the power entirely and in a prison this power is shown in cruel ways. This fear holds people back and prevents them from speaking freely. Their lives become plays, they show characters that are necessary for them to survive in prison and avoid the atrocities that happen there. That is why it was so hard for prisoners to act in plays, even if they wanted to. By acting they should weakness and might be perceived as “sissies”.

            During the podcast I felt like having a conversation with the jesters, especially when listening to “Big Hutch”. His size and power gave him a capability to speak freely, which is something very odd in places like this. They all spoke freely and naturally, they said what they felt and did in a very realistic perspective.

            This podcast reminded me of one of my favorite movies: The Shawshank Redemption. As I listened to the thoughts of these men, and their regret, their true desire for a second chance, I thought of a scene of this movie. Andy, enters the room with the intercom, he finds a record player and plays a records by “two A-talian ladies” he plays it outloud in the intercom for the entire prison two hear: “and for the briefest of moments, every last man in Shawshank felt free.

Hamlet J Alfred Prufrock

People at least once in their life face a moment of true indecision. That moment-be it seconds or days long-were reaching a decision seems to be a nearly impossible task. Sometimes the decision is clear but the path to it is scary or foggy. This is the case of two very different individuals: Prince Hamlet and J Alfred Prufrock. Both of them have reached a decision, but for very different reason they can’t find a way to make that decision a reality. Prufrock’s indecision roots in his insecurity and overthinking, on the other hand Hamlet is so consumed by rage and hate that he can’t execute a plan to fulfill his wishes.

It is important to discover the object of the two characters’ obsessions. iN Hamlet’s case it is his father’s death, the desire to avenge him from his murderous uncle and treacherous mother. In J Alfred Prufrock’s case it is a woman that captured his heart. This is the first clue towards understanding the differences between the two characters’ situations. Hamlet’s indecision comes from a negative situation, the death of his father in the hands of his uncle. This causes emotions of hate and rage. Prufrock is in love, he feels the most powerful and normally positive emotion a human can feel. Ironically the emotions linked with Hamlet’s desire for revenge have more power over his actions and make him more driven towards his goal. With love comes vulnerability, when love is truly present the person is vulnerable. This is why Prufrock is dithering to declare his love, he is scared of rejection and being hurt. That is the first difference between Hamlet and Prufrock: Hamlet is decided on his ends due to the aggressive nature of his situation, Prufrock wants to do something but he isn’t completely sure that it would benefit him.

Hamlet’s position in his environment is very different to Prufrock’s. He is a Prince, a powerful and confident person. Prufrock is an insecure, shy person, a tertiary character: “I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be; I am an attendant lord”. This makes Hamlet’s path to his goal easier he has more ability and power to achieve revenge. Prufrock is unnoticed and isolated, curiously enough those aren’t characteristics that appeal to a woman.

The indecision itself isn’t the same for Hamlet and Prufrock. Hamlet can’t decide how he wants to avenge his father, he is so angry that he wants to inflict as much pain as possible on Claudius. He wants his revenge to be perfect. Prufrock decides he wants to talk to a woman but in some level he knows he can’t do it and fantasized with his love affair with this woman. He considers-somewhat hopelessly-that by changing himself he will get this woman. “Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare eat a peach?”.

Finally Hamlet achieves his goal, Claudius ends up dead. However Laertes and Gertrude die in the process, not to mention him. At the end Hamlet dies with peace, he makes amends with Laertes and dies with a heroic scene and Claudius’s agonizing shouts. Prufrock grows old, in the midst of fantasies which remain that. He dies in an ironic peace: We have lingered in the chambers of the sea/By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown/ Till human voices wake us, and we drown.” Prufrock dies in an ironic peace, he realizes that fear held him back his whole life but realizes he was comfortable being an attendant guard in Prince Hamlet’s heroic death.

Body Paragraph

In One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest it is seen that as time goes by since McMurphy’s arrival, the balance of power inside the ward shifts as the Big Nurse looses power. The power that is held by The Combine starts to weaken as the weak patients start gaining confidence and power.

It is not only in the novel that this issue happens, the historical context in which the novel was written is that of rebellion and antiestablishment demonstration. During the 1950’s-before the book was written-and 1960’s-shortly after the book was published-many cases of people, who are oppressed or trampled, who defy the power of the Combine. The Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s is a perfect example of this change in power. An oppressed group of people fought-even the government-to acquire equality and rights that every human being should have. This time period is also the time period is also marked with the happening of the Cold War, in another aspect this can also be seen as a shift in the balance of power. The USSR with its communist regime starts to defy the powers of capitalism that rose in the lathe nineteenth century in England. As the red wave of communism attempted to take over the world, the USA did the same with its capitalist model and its tricky propaganda. In this particular case there are two Combines; one defying the existing power of the other, just to replace it with other oppressive politics-perhaps more direct and tyrannical. The dispute between this two Combines created the same effect that the struggle between McMurphy and Miss Ratched did: sometimes the patients lost-Cheswick, Billy Bibbit-and other times they were liberated like Chief Bromden. Taking those events into account it is not surprising that the values of American society in 1950’s reflect a necessity for power. The American Dream, a car, a big house with a corporate job, it shows a necessity for control that was created by the very events that happened previously. The mix of all these events lead to a very scared society-the patients-that allowed any inmorale action the Combine saw fit to accomplish their goals. However both Miss Ratched and McMurphy’s methods are questionable. In the novel Miss Ratched manages to make the patients doubt MacMurphy when she tells them that he is out to get rich and that his goal is actually selfish. This coincides with McMurphy realizing he doesn’t wan to spend his life on the Ward and starts to behave slightly better. At this moment the shift in the balance of power that happens stops and favors Miss Ratched for a second. It is only when McMurphy and The Chief fight the guards that the balance of power leans completely towards McMurphy, and the Nurse looses most of her power.

Just like Miss Ratched, the Combine of the 1950’s America controlled their patients through fear. However, like McMurphy came to defy Miss Ratched, there were certain people how defied the Combine. Although many of the events happened after the book was written, they do reflect the spirit of time. The antiestablishment movements that protested the war in Vietnam is a perfect example of this. The patients were tired of the abuses and atrocities committed by the Combine-no matter what goal they were trying to pursue. Basically around that time, we see that a very intrusive and radical Combine emerges and has a power struggle with the other Combine. One could say that USSR and USA represent McMurphy and Miss Ratched, and that the shift in power is only so that McMurphy can abuse the patients too. It is also plausible that McMurphy is more like the protestors of the Civil Rights movement or the Vietnam War, that are trying to defy the Combine not always in the most correct ways. Any of those two analyses is perfectly valid. In a way the two perspectives are true, McMurphy might want to acquire power to liberate the inmates from the tyrannical rule of Nurse Ratched only to take over and apply his own kind of justice and rule. Even though McMurphy’s methods may be questionable and that his purpose is not always the best it is agreeable that he intends to replace an oppressive form of government. The representation of the values and events of the time period is show simoultaneously in many different ways. The USSR, for example, could represent McMurphy in the sense that they both try to take down a regime they consider oppressive. Ironically one can see McMurphy as the USA trying to battle a tyrannical, cruel Combine that deprives people from their freedom. During the 1950’s, 1960’s, and even 1970’s-despite that this is after the books publication- there is a wave of instability in the institutions in leading to an inversion in the possession of control and power. Civil Rights Movements, the Cold War, Vietnam War protestation, the various revolutions around the world and the birth of a new generation of individuals-true individuals in the sense of individuality and freedom of spirit and mind- are all different forms of challenges to existing powers. Whether it is a Combine challenging the power of another combine, or an oppressed group fighting the tyrants, or the general public who is tired of the abuses of the Combine, control and power belonged to a different person or group even if for a short period of time. Parallel to this, in the book McMurphy slowly takes over the Ward until the party were he completely takes power over everyone and becomes in charge. The climax of his rule comes when he chokes the nurse and completely destroys her. After this he is lobotomized and martyrized, and even though he is practically dead his figure and ideals lives on to inspire the Chief-and almost everyone else-to escape the Ward and defeat the Combine.   

The Danger of A Single Story

“The Danger of a Single Story”. It is incredible how one single story can mold our perception of something. More often than not, first impressions stick and one isolated mistake can lead to people forever having a certain view of you. This goes both ways, everyone has at some point judged someone without truly knowing them. You see this en movies, literature, and life: a single story-accurate or not-shapes the mentalities of people. Single stories form stereotypes and create certain mentalities about people.

            In her talk Adichie mentions how the British books she read made her think a certain way. She thought of only white people who lived in a British way. I can relate to that, at a young age my mom showed me movies and read books to me that were mostly written in the USA. Consequently, the characters I thought of in my imagination were Americans more than Colombian. Even my perceptions of certain daily aspects of my life were shaped by those books and movies; I pictured Christmas with snow and ice every-needless to say there is no snow in my country-and I recognized thanksgiving as a traditional holiday even though it doesn’t exist in most of the world. But I have also felt that people have certain perceptions of my country and me. This summer I was in a summer camp in NYC-a literature class- a girl was surprised at my English-my vocabulary more than my accent-and the knowledge I had of English. A few days later, I sat in the park of the University wearing a Miles Davis shirt. A guy walked up to me and said: Do you have jazz in Colombia? I answered that there was a small jazz scene but nothing special. Later that same day, the girl asked me if I knew how to salsa dance. I told her I did, but it still surprised me how salsa is associated with almost all latinos even though it is mostly Cuban or Puerto Rican.

            Everyone has certain perception-they may be derogatory or not-about other people. When they asked me if I could salsa dance-they were sure I did-it wasn’t with bad intention but it was a stereotype they had. Probably most of this stereotypes are cause by either a movie or book-through the means of globalization-or by a certain isolated event by an individual. Everyone has to stay away from creating misperceptions about others, particularly because anyone can be a victim of those veils of judgment.

Heart Of Darkness III

Darkness does not exist. It is merely the absence of light; which is normally paired with good and progress while darkness typically represents evil. In the novel Heart Of Darkness there is a paradox when it comes to the meaning of light and darkness. In the novel, light is a symbol of power and strength but not necessarily of good, then the darkness is a creation of the people who are allegedly the light. In this dichotomy-of good and evil, light and darkness-Marlow finds himself torn between the two sides of the spectrum.

            What is light? Typically it is progress, knowledge, power, good. Cities, which at a time were the hearths of culture and knowledge, were the lights of the world; places in a world-of brutality and savageness-that applied reason and humane policies were also referred to as the lights. In this novel, the light merely represents the power of certain people over others, an alleged superiority. Marlow demonstrates the irony and relativity of light with his first words in the novel, in reference to London: “And this too… was one of the dark places in the world”. The irony is that London-which was at this time the light of the world- was once a dark place in the world, controlled by an empire were knowledge and progress hadn’t arrived. What is most ironic is that light in this novel commits acts that aren’t pure or good at all. Colonizing through brutal means and entire population just for the exploitation of their resources (at this time the light is not only London but Europe). Daring to justify the acts through an absurd principle that says that the victims are inferior and need to be colonized. The darkness is therefore a creation of light, because Africa is not a place of darkness-at least no more dark than the rest of the world. What is dark is the actions commited by the light that does evil, inhumane acts.

            Really the light is the dark. Because even though the light is progress and technology, it uses its advantages to create hate and spread evil. The real light-which is supposed to do good-instead creates the darkness. In this novel, darkness is not the absence of light but the presence of it.

Heart of Darkness Blog Post 2

Two Novels, with apparently not much alike can have very similar aspects and at the same time have opposing meanings. Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey, are prove of this phenomena. They share a same view on a key issue, and yet have completely opposite meanings for a symbol.

One same object can have extremely different meanings depending on the perspective from where it is observed. Symbols, like other literary devices, too have that same property of ambiguity that any object has when seen under a different shade of light. Two novels share a same symbol: The Fog, yet this object-symbol in this situation-is very different under the particular light of each novel. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, by Ken Kesey, and Heart Of Darkness, Joseph Conrad, share a common element in the fog. However, it is very different the interpretation and meaning that it has in the two novel. In One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the fog, is a symbol of oppression, control and slavery-over the patients of the ward. In a practically polar matter, Heart Of Darkness the fog represents some sort of protection to the natives, who suffer the oppression of the colonizers, by obscuring the view of their aggressors. Not only by blocking the view of the oppressors is the fog present, it is also an extension of darkness and uncertainty; the main difference is that in Heart of Darkness fog is against the oppressors and an ally to the weak.

            Both Novels also plot a dilemma towards a situation were evil and wrongdoing is justified and accepted by society. In Heart Of Darkness the colonization of the Congo is justified by a common doctrine-or belief- around the European nations: The uncivilized inhabitants of certain continents need to be colonized, for their sake, and pushed-even against their will- to the modern world. In One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, the ward justifies their actions with a simple premise: Certain people aren’t fit to be in the world and thus must be isolated until they are fit for society.

            Chief Bromden-One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest-is a victim of the fog, a device created by The Combine-to isolate him from the world and keep his mind in shackles. The Combine-for those who haven’t read the book-represents societies’ oppressing institution that work to control everything and everyone around them, the lashers of the world. In Ken Kesey’s novel, the ward is the combine who uses the fog to manipulate the patients and repress their mind. The Chief, who is submerged in the fog, is finally freed by McMurphy and recovers his freedom of spirit and mind. Cruising the Congo River, Marlow is faced with a somber silence. The air is dense as the sun fades and the temperature decreases, the midst turns into a thick fog. The view of the boat riders is obscured, and their journey is slowed down. In the midst of their confusion, the pilgrims suffer an attack in hands of the opportune natives. In this case the fog serves the natives who take advantage of this distraction to launch their attack on the colonists. The natives-to draw a parallel-represent the oppressed group of people, the colonists represent the oppressive combine. Thinking that the fog is part of nature it is very reasonable for the fog to be helping the natives, as if nature were doing all it could to fight the inhumane acts of men.

            The two authors-Kesey and Conrad- criticize The Combine of their own novel. Of course each Combine represents a different time period and mean of oppression. Kesey shows a more modern problem-on a smaller scale and considered mundane in some cases-while Conrad’s issue is more global and repelled by current standards. Kesey criticizes the justification of the methods used to control patients. He deems the procedures-shock treatment, lobotomy- inhumane and finds no justification in them. The Combine would say it is necessary for the patients to endure the cutting off of their brains, in order to be able to live in society. The vindication of imperialism maintains that there are “savages” who need to be colonized and that the Europeans are their saviors, they need to live like Europe and the USA, because that is what is best for them. It is the “white man’s” duty to drag them-using force if necessary-into the light that is civilization. Conrad criticizes the hypocrisy of this thought and insists that this idea is merely a cover for the real intentions of the Combine: To drain the colonies and profit from them. This embarks slave labor, raw materials, the spread of European culture and Christianity, basically a place to enforce the will of the colonizers. While millions of people suffered daily of disease and starvation and abuse, the European nations justified this with a doctrine that is ironic to its core: “We have to make them change their ways to ours, even if we have to do it by force, it is our duty to save these people” The end justified the means.

            It is interesting to see how both novels share one same object as a symbol (the fog) and give it to very different interpretations around one same subject. The fog is on a different side of the same fight in each novel. In One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, the fog sides with the oppressor, in Heart Of Darkness it sides with the oppressed victims. As the fog drifts to either side of the spectrum, the conflict remains the same and the authors’ views side with the oppressed, despising the hypocritical Combines who feebly attempt to justify their inhumane acts.

Heart Of Darkness Part 1 Blog

It is easier to follow orders and to go with the flow, than to stand up for what is right and be rejected for it. When the British Empire reached it’s peek in the modern era and colonialism was extremely common among European nations, there was a believe that the “uncivilized” people, of nations outside Europe and USA, needed to be colonized in order for them to progress. Of course the colonizing nations would benefit from this “help” they were providing. In spite of this being the popular believe in England, there were-as in all oppressive regimes-certain people that did not share the view of the Empire. In Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, Marlow is one of those people. How he reacts to his environment and his time period shows us his confusion towards the issue, and towards himself.

Marlow rejects the idea of colonization, he in fact mentions he “can´t bear a lie” ironically he is participating actively in a great lie of human history: The affirmation that some people are superior to others and therefore have the moral obligation to colonize them-this of course is just a justification for all the exploitation of raw materials and people. He also sees the horrors of colonization and describes the black workers as “nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom”. He is clearly loathes the idea of colonization and human exploitation but he is still there working for who he thinks are the villains. One could argue that Marlow is not against the atrocities being committed in the Congo per se, instead he thinks that it is no use for the Europeans to be there and that the job they are carrying out in the jungle is ineffective. He doesn’t react in any abrupt manner to the violence and the misery being perpetrated there.

This confusion towards the image in front of him, reveals a lot about him, how his confusion is not only external but also internal. This book presents a dichotomy of good and evil. The dichotomy might be clear now but the line that separated good and evil wasn’t always so clear. At a time when there was a moral duty to colonize-according to the beliefs of the powerful countries-Marlow finds himself in the middle of his own personal dichotomy. According to the rulers of said countries, colonizing is not only right but a moral duty of the white man. Marlow-being a member of the British Empire, a seaman who travels the world-is drifting between his moral code of what is right and the doctrine of his nation and his culture. We see him drift in and out of both sides of the spectrum but he always tends to lean more with his ethics. Although sometimes for reasons that aren’t apparent, he despises colonization but yet doesn’t act on his hate towards oppression. Perhaps further on the book he will do something that confirms his feelings and makes them more than a mere reflection of what he sees.