Category: ELP

Considering our recent texts of interest: the Greek play Antigone by Sophocles, the French play Antigone as well by Jean Anouillh and Home Fire by Kamila Shamsie; each of the texts can be compared and contrasted in a variety of ways.

One interesting point to focus on is the contexts in which each of the texts were produced and how they impacted the ultimate messages conveyed by the writers. For example, Sophocles wrote the original Antigone in 441 BC in ancient Greece during a period, ‘bookended by turmoil, from wars to revolts’ according to Court Theatre. Essentially, during this period, there was skepticism regarding the rule of potentially authoritarian leaders causing the political instability. This informed Sophocles’ depiction of Creon in his original playwright as an exploration of the psyche behind cruel leaders with a desire to establish grand control and create chaos.

On the other hand, Anouillh premiered his retelling of Antigone in 1944 around the time of the second world war. Anouillh’s intention behind his interpretation of Antigone was centered more on the French resistance against fascist leaders like Hitler; interestingly, the equivalent of the fascist leader in Anouillh’s Antigone, Creon, is depicted as more rational and less of a tyrant than in Sophocles’ version which is fascinating given the similar focus on exploration of almost dictatorships.

And then, in Shamsie’s version, there is grounding in the contemporary 21st century context exploring a more specific setting regarding British-Pakistanis. Shamsie is critical again of Karamat Lone who is a mirror of other depictions of Creon, but instead explores this through the lens of race and religious relations.

Returning again to Anouillh’s retelling as well, unlike in Shamsie and Sophocles’ depictions, he makes Antigone seem more foolish and naive unlike with Sophocles and Shamsie who portray the central character as a martyr and heroic figure. This comes back to the literary intentions of Anouillh given his historical context to somewhat critique those going against the French resistance unlike Sophocles and Shamsie who are more skeptical of the people in the positions of power causing instability and turmoil.

Coming to the idea of femininity, I find it interesting how in Sophocles’ version, women are matriarchal in the sense that the men feel their power over them whereas in Anouillh’s retelling, the women are painted less in this light. Shamsie’s retelling also adds an interesting spin to the narrative by exploring the implications of Aneeka’s relation to Eamonn in a contemporary world where women face slut-shaming. Shamsie’s incorporation of different text types within the novel like newspaper extracts powerfully calls forward the modern day connotations that sometimes are relevant to womanhood.

Through studying both Antigone and Home Fire, I have come to understand that a lot is lost but also preserved between retellings. Specifically, I would say that ultimately, the core values and meanings within the text were kept such as the theme of loyalty to the state vs. family. I do think that Shamsie changed certain meanings and impacts within the text through differently developed characterisations within Home Fire. Most notably, with Karamat Lone and his parallels to Creon. I find it interesting how at the end of Antigone, Sophocles explores the guilt and shame that Creon feels about the fate of his son and wife. Creon takes accountability for his wrongdoing; although too late. However in Home Fire, Shamsie made the creative decision to end the novel with just the death of Eamonn and Aneeka. There is no mention past this moment of Lone’s reaction to the death. The effect of this choice was to me, a less nuanced character and also less understanding for Lone. Creon’s final guilt humanises him and portrays him as just another flawed individual with a greater magnitude of mistakes. Lone does have a moment of self realization too wherein he agrees to attend to Eamonn and attempt to make amends upon realising his mistakes. However, I believe that the shock of realizing the true consequences of his actions through witnessing the death of his own son would have been an even more humanizing moment like in Antigone with Creon. The element of karma would have made Home Fire seem more like a fable or cautionary tale as with Antigone.

Although, both characters do ultimately share the same wholly unshakeable and disgreeable stance throughout the novel. Both men remain firm in their choice to prevent any proper burial for Parvaiz/Polynices but also don’t put a stop to their sons to running off to Aneeka/Antigone; eventually resulting in the respective deaths. This is exemplified by comparing two extracts from Antigone and Home Fire. Both texts show Karamat/Creon acting stubborn and therefore, having to pay for the costs of their actions.

Another interesting point to consider is the increased emphasis on feminist themes within Antigone with some references as well in Home Fire. It is fascinating to recognize Sophocles’ acknowledgment of gender roles and the role of a woman in society through Antigone even in 441 BCE. This is particularly notable in the ways in which Creon speaks about Antigone to Haemon as someone of whom he should not be into the ‘traps’ of given her womanhood and societal inferiority in the traditional context. Karamat Lone does degrade Aneeka as well to a degree in Home Fire but more in the context of modern-day shaming. In criticizing Eamonn for his loyalty to Aneeka, he asks him to not, “develop a spine.” insinuating that Eamonn is weak at the knees of Aneeka. Lone also asks Eamonn, “Did she give you your first really great blow job, Eamonn? Is that what this is about? Because trust me, there are better ones out there.” essentially degrading Aneeka and her sexuality in the process. The impact of Shamsie’s written dialogue between Karamat Lone and Eamonn is a more modern, contextualized view of feminism.

I don’t think that there is a right answer for where Isma’s loyalty should lie. Regardless of the decision she made, Parvaiz would have faced consequences. Based on conventional ethics, her decision to turn in Parvaiz was the most logical. Regardless of Parvaiz’s remorse for joining ISIS, he ultimately still committed an illegal act that instigated harm and injustice. Based on laws, Isma did what was right. Nonetheless, she had to sacrifice her brother’s potential status and treatment by the government in order to be complacent with conventional ethics. Teleologically, I don’t think she wanted things to turn out so horrific for her younger brother. But at the same time, she felt that she had no other choice based on the difficulty that pre-existed for her as a Muslim individual and the potential trouble it would further cause her based on the huge stigma already surrounding her community. There was no correct moral decision because regardless of the decision, one aspect would have to have been sacrificed for the other.

Looking back to citizen ship, I believe that it is a human right. A stateless individual becomes entirely displaced without the right to legal protection or any other human rights. I do not believe this is fair or just under any circumstance; in the case of Shamima Begum or Parvaiz in Home Fire, both people deserved at the very least a trial or some protection from the UK government. State governments are the actors with the power to make these decisions and unfortunately, they can be blinded by their prejudices.

In my opinion, I can feel sympathy with those who leave their homes to join terrorist groups abroad after reading Home Fire and hearing the story of Shamima Begum. If I had been asked this question before hearing more perspectives, I would have automatically answered ‘no’; but my thinking has changed a lot since beginning to cover this topic. With Parvaiz’s story, I would not say that he was an entirely good individual by any means. But considering the mental abuse that he suffered at the hands of Farooq and his insecurities and loneliness, I think that I developed some sympathy for him as a character. Of course making the choice to join ISIS was very extreme, however through hearing about the path that led him to that decision, I came to feel bad about what he had suffered through. And with Begum, she was 15 and essentially groomed by an older man online who likely took advantage of her. Neither were perfect, but the circumstances under which they entered ISIS were worth some sympathy.

In terms of what should happen to them, they should face the necessary consequences without being left stateless. Regardless of the bad actions they committed, the British government should take responsibility. There was a good quote from Isma in Home Fire talking through how the government refuses to account for or recognize certain non-white, British nationals such as in cases of terrorism. Isma says, “if you look at colonial laws you’ll see plenty of precedent for depriving people of their rights; the only difference is this time it’s applied to British citizens, and even that’s not as much of a change as you might think, because they’re rhetorically being made un-British […] The 7/7 terrorists were never described by the media as “British terrorists.” Even when the word “British” was used, it was always “British of Pakistani descent” or “British Muslim” or, my favorite, “British passport holders,” always something interposed between their Britishness and terrorism.” This quote demonstrates that clear divide and ‘otherness’ assigned by the government to minority groups specifically in the UK.

Reading Home Fire and watching the two videos about the Muslim identity in the UK taught me a lot about contemporary Islamophobia. One of my main takeaways was how often with the Muslim identity, there is little awareness of the distinctive subcultures and ethnicities within the religion. As the speaker was talking about her reaction to 9/11, it was interesting to hear about her similar reaction in fear of what would happen to her home in Meqqa. I feel that from a Western stance, most Arabic speaking, Muslim individuals are lumped into a giant group when there is so much ethnic diversity within them. These types of generalizations and stereotypes ultimately created lots of hate and discrimination towards all Muslims. I found her recollection of that memory to be impactful and deepen my understanding of the lived experience of Muslims during that time period.

And from these generalizations resulted harmful media representation. A baffling statistic that was included in the TED talk was that 80% of the national coverage of Muslims in the US was negative. Like how governments can use propaganda to control the views of their people, news headlines and phrasing can also negatively impact the perceptions of specific groups.  A good book that also opened my eyes to the way that news coverage of Muslims affected the community was A Very Large Expanse of Sea by Tahereh Mafi; it was incredibly insightful. It also touched on the similar concept of Muslim families in the US being forced to relocate post 9-11 due to the tense atmosphere.

Finally, another captivating point raised by the videos that we watched and Home Fire was that in many cases when people are radicalized, a place of loneliness and isolated is targeted. In Home Fire, Parvaiz is sought out by Farooq as he was in a state of isolation and insecurity about his job, masculinity and his paternity. In the TED talk, the speaker similarly mentioned how lacking a space to direct anger and rage can create greater vulnerability to cases of radicalization. In this lens, a greater understanding  can be developed for individuals who have been sucked into some of these groups; that is not to say that they are justified in their actions, but it does provide a rationale for why some people become susceptible to entering for example, a terrorist group. It adds important nuance to the discussion surrounding terrorism and policies regarding this topic; can they be viewed instead as ‘victims’ do a degree?

Overall, I think that the resources helped me re evaluate and deepen a lot of my perspectives on Islamophobia and how states handle collective issues like terrorism that extend beyond their power at times. It’s given me a less black and white lens to view this issue from.

Working through the long artistic portfolio of Carol Ann Duffy has been an eye opening experience. However, through learning more about Duffy, I’ve come to understand that Duffy herself did not live through any ‘hot war’. Duffy was born in 1955; this was 10 years post second world war. The subject of her collection of poems that we looked through was solely war and conflict. In that collection, Duffy managed to convey the pains and grief that came with death in horrific instances using beautiful language and the employment of a number of poetic techniques like: asyndeton, repetition, imagery, allusions, etc. However, considering that she never fully lived through the time periods that she wrote about, was it morally just that she imposed her views on what it meant to fight through a war? Was it right for Duffy to talk so personally about her non-lived experience?

One can argue that given the universality of war experiences, Duffy was in no place wrong. For example, when it came to writing her poem ‘War Photographer’, Duffy recalled a friend of hers who was a war photographer. The poem stemmed from her curiosity of her friend’s ability to report on such atrocious occurrences without affording to act in other ways. It can be said that, even though Duffy didn’t live through any war herself, she was allowed to talk about it in this instance as she had direct communication with someone who had. She was simply sharing their story. If anything, one can argue that Duffy was doing good by giving a voice through her poetry to those who had lost theirs in war. Specifically, it was not inherently wrong as she was simply amplifying a voice that she had talked to.

Through reading her poems, I came to the conclusion that she was well intentioned in her approach to the topic of war. I believe that Duffy wanted to instill remembrance for a past that must not be forgotten. Through having heard the lived-experiences of others, she wanted to signal through a wider platform, using her voice, what not to repeat in conflict. Art is inherently political and can be used to express and sway opinions. Through Duffy’s work, she purposefully wanted to tell her readers about what wrongs occurred in the past; hence trying to make a difference in future generations. It’s almost like being a historian; historians write about what happened previously in spite of not having necessarily lived through the subject of their reporting. Historians come to conclusions based on the information they have circulated to provide analysis and content for more generations to pass on and also consider. Essentially, that is all that Duffy was doing in her work except in a different form; poetry.

So in conclusion, I do think that someone who hasn’t lived through war can write about it so long as they: pay the topic the due respect it deserves, use primary sources and research, etc. because ultimately through art, large social change and justice can be achieved.

This photo was taken during the Vietnam war. The story behind this photo was that children were fleeing from a Napalm attack wherein the chemical warfare of Napalm gas was afflicted upon them likely by the Vietcong from North Vietnam. South Vietnamese soldiers aided by the United States follow behind the children in the photo. It is officially called, “The Terror of War” from photographer Nick Ut taken in June of 1972. However, most people are struck by the young girl in the center running naked designating her the title Napalm girl; a name of which many use to refer to the photograph.

This photo captured the attention of many individuals outside of Vietnam who were horrified by what this was saying about the conflict. I would say that it wasn’t the most ethical to capture the image of these children at their most vulnerable times without their initial consent. Often times the capturing of images leads to the creation of a spectacle around war. It can be argued that it was exploitative of the photographer to take these childrens’ worst moments and use it for potential notoriety and profit.

However, in the grand scheme of things, this photo did alarm people internationally about the nature of the Vietnam war and became a symbol of how badly war can damage people. The Napalm girl and original photographer are also in contact even long after the photo was taken as the photographer did help out the child victims after snapping the image. I think that war images are necessary even if not always the most ethical because ultimately in the bigger picture, they create empathy and more compassion for war horror and urge people to take action.

As a consistent consumer of translated works in the form of songs, TV shows and sometimes books, I truly do enjoy being able to get a glimpse into the cultures of other nations through watching what media they have to offer. I think that when it comes to casual viewing solely for entertainment purposes, the complexities of translation matter less to me so long as I get the gist of the events. It would be pleasant to be ‘in’ on some of the cultural connotations and inside jokes, but I think that for the most part, I get what I want out of those types of translated works regardless of the quality of the translation.

However, when it comes to poetry, I do think that the preservation of the original work is quite significant and can easily be botched. Poetry as an art form is more abstract and contains many subtle and hinted meanings which may get carried away in the process of translating say linguistic phrases which don’t have direct translations per se. I don’t think that we can ever translate completely accurately because there will always be some topics that can’t be fully understood unless the person is aware of and intuitively connected to the direct reference.

One way in which I think that I’ve seen works come closer to not losing its beauty and meaning is by the keeping some of the words from the other language and using footnotes to give the term more explanation. For example, when I was reading the Government Inspector last year during English, I noticed how the edition that we read contained many footnotes at the bottom of the page explaining what some of the slipped in Russian words meant; hence giving greater cultural context. Essentially, the translated work keeps just some of the cultural references in the original language and only translates the other words in between.

I acknowledge that this is more difficult when it comes to TV shows and movies, but I think that at least for literature, it is a feasible solution. Finally, coming back to the quality of the translation and whether it matters, I think that it really depends on the intentions that one has when going into consuming the content. If it’s just for fun, then I don’t think it matters the most. Though a counter to this point is one that I read in an article about the TV phenomenon that was Squid Game. Despite the show not being overly complex on the surface, some small mistranslated details actually heavily impacted the english portrayal of some of the character’s backstory and intentions. But overall, I stand with my point that as long as you can still emotionally connect to the heart of the characters and experience their emotional journeys and turmoils, then I think that it is ok if the translation is not 100% accurate.

I believe that it’s easy to want to separate ourselves from the evils of nature. Like in movies and tv shows, the evil villains are usually portrayed as being ‘other’ and inhuman. We want to believe that we are incapable of committing such heinous acts that we disregard said evildoers having similar origins to us. They too are ultimately human beings. But at the same time, despite being human, Hitler succeeds in being a gross person even from the beginning. The statement, ‘Tyrants are their own first victim’ I think that the article’s given information does reflect that. We use family as somewhat of a self-identifier, seeing family as part of ourselves and us part of our families as a collective. The fact that Hitler grossly interacted and harmed his own half-niece proves that he was hurting almost himself. No one becomes evil overnight, things will change over time. Our morals and ideas can vary for better or worse. Hence in Symborska’s poetry, she demonstrates that Hitler was once a blank slate like anyone else. He had an endless number of future possibilities in front of him, and yet overtime he became worse and a danger to himself and eventually the rest of the world.

In terms of issues and pressures relating to housing and land use in Singapore, En Blocs have been taking place since 1994 beginning with the sale of Cosy Mansion. That event in particular set off a chain of ‘collective sales’ that continued into the oncoming years. The certain demand for development land from developers, changes in plot ratios and the hope for ‘economic prosperity’ all can trigger ‘en bloc fevers’. However, there have also been higher Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) and lower loan to value (LTV) limits making it more difficult for buyers to obtain loans for home purchases.

On a more individual and community level, en bloc sales can mean that people have to let go of their longtime homes that they may have built their whole lives around. Considering that en blocs can take place as long as 80-90% of the homeowners are on board, there will always be a population of individuals who are strongly against selling the private property to a developer or to the government. When thinking about the elderly population as well, they can lose touch with their go-to hawkers, activity centers and relationships by being forced to relocate from their long term residences. The history and community that gets torn by en blocs can be daunting. The conflict between those who are on board for the en bloc and those are not can also create tension. But in terms of gains, en blocs can be financially gratifying. The money to be gained from collective en bloc sales is much greater than individually selling a unit.

What might PM Lee mean by an ‘evolving identity’?

By ‘evolving identity’, I believe that PM Lee is referring to the unfixed nature of the Singaporean identity as a result of its rich secularity and heritage. Evolving implies change. From PM Lee’s speech, one can gather that he is talking about two distinct experiences: how mindsets have changed over time between generations, but also in terms of lots of migrants entering Singapore to work and becoming engrained into society. In terms of generational differences, PM Lee says that the younger generations are even closer to the Singaporean identity through having more formative, shared experiences like attending local schools, some going to NS, living in HDBs, etc. Older generations will have grown up in a different version of Singapore where Singapore was still trying to find its own unique identity after gaining independence. The sides of Singapore that they’ve seen have impacted their own individual Singaporean identity. On the other hand, PM Lee also refers to the modern day evolving identity in terms of immigration into Singapore. Lots of foreign workers little by little begin to ‘meld’ into the Singaporean identity as they spend more time in the country. Interestingly, PM Lee also raises the idea that the inherent experience of having lived in Singapore or abroad from your motherland can change your relationship with the culture. A person may still strongly identify with the label of being Tamil Nadu and with roots in India but return and be told that they aren’t exactly that anymore but a mix of different cultures; somewhere in between. Eventually, PM Lee conveys his belief that Singaporean culture is still going to continue to change as even more people come into Singapore and meld increasingly into society here.

The response refers to a collective Singaporean identity – what constitutes collective identity?

Collective identity refers to the shared experiences and journeys that link the community together. When PM Lee talks about collective identity in his speech, he refers a good deal to the formative circumstances that many young Singaporeans have undergone that connect them to one another. Said shared experiences include: attending national/local schools, for young men specifically, doing national service, growing up in HDBs, etc. Collective identity is about the shared traditions that Singaporeans celebrate and practice. Through these shared traditions, Singaporeans are brought closer together through similar upbringing and links in identity.

Which aspects of the response do you agree – or possibly disagree with?

I agree with a good chunk of PM Lee’s response. I liked the fact that he mixed his response with references to differences between the past and now, as well as how Singapore is only going to continue to evolve as it diversifies as a result of immigration.  The evolution of a collective identity is shaped by current and past experiences. Also, as a filipino who encounters lots of other Filipinos living in Singapore as well, there is comfort in having that shared identity. It is always relieving to know that there are people who share the same language and other cultural aspects who are also engrossed in the secular culture of Singapore. I’ve also experienced the other side of that experience that PM Lee refers to in his talk in terms of not exactly ‘fitting in’ with the other culture that you may still identify with after moving abroad. I definitely feel a slight difference in my filipino identity when I return home as a result of living in Singapore and also being a third culture kid going to an international school. I am still relatively connected as I know the language and am more or less caught up on what is going on there, but there is definitely a small barrier between myself and my filipino family and friends who have spent their whole lives in the country.

How does the dominant discourse of Singaporean collective national identity make use of the concept of home?

This is an interesting question. I think that the discourse over collective national identity makes use of the home concept to the best of its ability. One way is in that it reminds the community of the idea that they belong in Singapore. Regardless of their ethnicities and cultural heritage, it is adamantly upheld that all ethnicities belong under the Singaporean umbrella and play equal parts in society. It encourages unity and belonging.