My UWCSEA Learning Journey

How does Blades named Delilah explore how culture is used as a tool of mechanic subjugation and liberation?

* What do YOU think went well?

I think I was able to get across most of my points across and was quite clear on the overall thesis and the thesis for each of the texts and the overall bodies of work. The evaluative points for the Spring in the Trenches were also quite strong and I thought that I was able to present them in a logical structure.

* What parts of the IO were less convincing?

I think that the evaluative points for Carol Ann Duffy’s poem War photographer were weaker in comparison to the first text, both in terms of quality and the connections between the point and the succeeding. I also think I need to develop my conclusion further in the context of the relevance of the global issue. I also need to balance talking about the text and the body of work for Carol Ann Duffy.

* Were your bullet points helpful? If not, do you need to change/adapt them?

I think my bullet points were largely helpful except for the ones on Carol Ann Duffy’s because they were not structured well. Instead of writing out evidence, I will include the techniques and 1 or 2 pieces of evidence.

* How did you feel about the questions? How can you prepare more?

I feel quite confident about the questions because I know both my extracts really well. My knowledge of the body of work is also quite solid so I should be able to answer questions related to the knowledge and understanding of the extract. I would just work on ensuring that I give coherent answers for the questions. I would do this by practicing the question answering process with a peer.

* Review the peer examiner sheet: do you think your partner was accurate? Too generous? Why?

I think my partner was accurate in the understanding that my understanding of War photographer was weaker than my understanding of Spring in the Trenches. I think my partner was too generous while marking me for the connections between points because I think that is something that needs to be improved.

* What are the three key things you need to work on next week?

• War photographer evaluative points
• Connections between the evaluative points for War photographer
• Develop the conclusion

Segregation in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s was the lawful marginalisation of the black community from the dominantly white American society that existed at the time. It was an effort to still subjugate and discriminate against them after the abolishment of slavery, limiting them to the fringes of society where they could be treated as second class citizens. The result of this was a society controlled by a hierarchy purely based on white supremacy, with the blacks finding themselves in truly destitute conditions. Seeing that their hopes of a new life would not be fulfilled by the slavery ban, they chose to resist society’s desire to limit them to roles of servitude by actively fighting racial discrimination, while also “yearning” for a more hopeful future. This was a prominent theme in Langston Hughes as well as Gordon Parks’s work who were both path breaking artists of the 20th century. In I, too, Hughes uses the voice of a black speaker to narrate the lived experiences of the unfair treatment of the black community in the general American society, as well as to illustrate the resilience that they show in continuing to make strides forward in order to achieve equal rights. On a similar tone, Gordon Parks chooses to photograph a child dressed in shabby clothes “yearning” for a new dress, unattainable to her, just as integration into American society was to the black community.

In I, too, Hughes uses subversive symbolism to emphasise how the black community is shunned to the outskirts of society, ensuring that they remain hidden from the white community. The speaker of the poem asserts himself as an important member of the American society by calling himself the “darker brother”,which others him from the very same society simultaneously. Through the use of this metonym, Hughes serves to illustrate how one’s skin colour can be the sole determinant for how they are treated, highlighting the society’s shallow perception of race. Then, Hughes subverts the traditional image of a kitchen as a place of warmth and comfort by depicting it as a place where the speaker is “sen(t)” when “company comes” over. A sense of helplessness in the speaker’s choice of where to eat is denoted by the verb ”sen(t)” as it implies an authoritative tone whereby the speaker has no choice but to comply. In addition to that, Hughes’ depiction of the speaker as an unwanted and unaccepted member of society shows that the members of the black community were not allowed to interact with the white community even if they lived in the same house. The speaker ,however, is unfazed by this prejudiced treatment as he proclaims that he “laugh(s)…eat(s) well….and grow(s) strong”, taking this exclusion in his stride, reinforcing the message of continuing to move forwards despite obstacles in one’s path. Here, it is possible to draw parallels to Hughes’s poem “Mother and Son” because of the use of symbolism to emphasise upon the hardships that the black community faces, comparing their struggles to “tacks” and “splinters” and illustrates how they continue to persevere on despite that.

In the latter half of the poem, Hughes uses a literal metaphor in conjunction with repetition to signify a shift in power which will allow members of the black community to enjoy a better life “tomorrow”, when these racial barriers cease to exist. The speaker’s claim that he’ll “be at the table” tomorrow is quite a literal metaphor, as it signifies that the black speaker will have a seat at the table with the others or that he will be assimilated into American society with no racial prejudices in the future. When this happens, members of the black community will have equal rights and will be able to freely voice their opinions as opposed to not having a seat at the table or being voiceless. Then, Hughes emphasises the relinquishing of a social hierarchy and the elevation of the status of the black community as the speaker says that “nobody’ll dare” to tell him to “eat in the kitchen”. The inversion of this repeated phrase signals a shift in the tone of the poem, as it becomes more more defiant. There is also an implicit threat of violence present in “dare” to, suggesting that the black community has had enough of the discriminatory treatment that they are subjected to. The use of the arbitrary “tomorrow” however, highlights that there is no certainty as to when these things will happen. The poem ends with the black speaker mentioning that white America would “be ashamed” because of their heinous acts and will finally realise how “beautiful” the black community is, when they are finally accepted as equal.

Gordon Park’s photograph:

• In an untitled photograph taken in Mobile, Alabama, Parks uses body language to communicate a sense of despair and anguish present in the black community as a result of their forced exclusion from society.
• With hands on the window and her head buried within them, it is evident that the young girl longs for a new dress just as her white counterpart has one. Through this, Parks could be referring to the Brown vs Board case, which illustrated how the there were significant disparities between their communities even as they were meant to be equal but separate.
• The bowing of the head could also be a reference to the subservient role that they are meant to play in their life. Thus, showing how this is ingrained in their brains from early childhood, another allusion to the doll test in the landmark Brown vs Board case.

• Parks’ use of symbolism encapsulates the segregation that was prevalent at the time, ensuring the continued trivialisation of their community’s social standing, while also illustrating how they were hopeful despite that.
• The mannequins dressed in the shop were all white which depicted the superior lifestyles they led, which afforded them the best of the luxuries that were available. The mannequins facial expression revealed a sense of happiness and contentment which Parks juxtaposed against the young girl’s “yearning”.
• The window, then, becomes the barrier between this happiness and unhappiness, representative of the idea of segregation itself.
• The mother’s facial expression becomes a symbol of hope the black community’s hope for bridging the racial divide and creating an equal society, as she looks on and dreams about the day her daughter will have access to the same rights and opportunities as any other citizen of America.

• Both the poem and the picture echo the same message about segregation and hope through depicting the lived experiences of members of the black community at that time.
• They both explain the life of despondency that black people have to live, yet how they choose to emerge out of it stronger, so that the next generation can enjoy a more fruitful and hopeful living.

Global Issue: Power, Politics and Justice

How does the manifestation of power influence the lives of the characters in The Great Gatsby and The Human Acts?

A concept with the ability to change entirely the lives of people, power manifests in societies in various ways. This manifestation may be systemic, with groups that have been influential traditionally, maintaining control over multiple generations or it may be the result of the actions of an individual over the course of their life. Whatever its source may be, this abstract idea is an important determinant of the way an individual acts and is perceived. In Human Acts, a polyphonic novel about the experiences of those present during and after the Gwangju massacre, power rests in the hands of those that support the tyrannical government that oppresses its own citizens. Here, characters with power decide who lives and how they live. In the Great Gatsby however, power belongs to those who have had it in their family for generations. The novel, set in the jazz age in New York, depicts how this community serves to preserve itself by oppressing others, which ultimately leads to the death of the titular character: Jay Gatsby. Both texts illustrate the consequences of the unequal distribution of power prevalent in society, by delving into the lives of those that are most affected by it, whether it be victims of the massacre or Jay Gatsby.

In the Human Acts, Han Kang illustrates a world that functions on the caprices of soldiers, by focusing on the distortion of the lives of their victims. By focusing on their mental as well as physical agony, Kang emphasises on the multifaceted manifestations of trauma that remain with the victims long after the physical violence ends. Meanwhile, the people that inflict this pain are left with no guilt nor are they held accountable for their actions. In this manner, Kang illustrates the breakdown of society as children are shot in the head, the youth are left to die in rotting conditions and dead bodies flood public places, as soldiers realise the extent of their power and the vulnerability of the citizens. The portrayal of the prisoners with disparaged hopes and dreams in the chapter which entails the physical torture that the youth undergo in prison cells defines this dystopian world, where whoever goes against the establishment, is reduced to an animalistic state. Perhaps the extract that most exemplifies this idea is the one where all the prisoners are forced to share morsels of food amongst themselves while they are beaten for being “violent elements” who rebelled against the establishment.  

Being rendered voiceless, they become nobodies in a country that they call their own, ironically because they stood up to a government that they had deemed would be too powerful for anyone’s good. The physical distress that they undergo in these prisons shakes the ideologies of many, with the narrator believing that the soldiers wanted to “make (them) realise how ridiculous it was, the lot of (them) waving the national flag and singing the national anthem”. Here, Kang highlights the fact that these prisoners were all patriots and wanted the best for their country, despite the soldiers labelling them otherwise, which brings forward the point that the nation is different from the government and in a world with such an intense imbalance of power, it doesn’t matter whether the prisoners shared the same values about the nation, as the soldiers. All that mattered was that they had dared to speak against the government, for which the establishment had duly punished them. In this very extract, Kang also presents the magnitude of the  implications of such punishments whereby people were left with little memories of who they were before all of this happened. As Kim Yong Chae recalled what his favourite food was with tears in his eyes, while his “eyes stayed dry while he told the story of his dead cousin”. This instance depicts how desensitized they all became to deaths around them but past happiness seemed unattainable, therefore painful.

In the Great Gatsby, F Scott Fitzgerald constructs a world with clear distinctions between those who have the ability to influence society’s proceedings and those who do not. Even though the novel was set in a time when consumerism was at its peak and those who had money had access to absolutely everything that was accessible, true power rested in the hands of those who belonged to the group that had never known what it was like to not have money. As the novel progresses, we see Gatsby’s futile attempts to achieve his idea of the American Dream, which is to be seen as a pivotal member of society which would then enable him to be reunited with Daisy, by throwing regular larger than life parties at his mansion. However, what comes out of these parties is a general suspicion as to who Gatsby really is. As Gatsby’s meetings with Daisy become frequent, he believes that he will be able to recreate his past relationship with her. However, just as Tom restricts him from climbing the social ladder, his relationship with Daisy becomes a hurdle in Gatsby’s path. As Gatsby revels in the realisation that he is incredibly close to achieving his dream, things take a different turn.

Fitzgerald reinstates the idea that the upper class all had an alliance which protected their power from being taken away by people like Gatsby, by showing how Daisy remains with Tom so as to not lose the place she occupies in society. This is characterised by Tom’s statement that“there are things between Daisy and me that you’ll never know, things that neither of us can ever forget.”. In this manner, Fitzgerald tells the readers that power has always belonged to a select group of people historically and this group would never give it up, even if it had to do certain things to preserve itself. Lastly, even as Daisy tells Tom that she would be leaving him for Gatsby, his statement that she wouldn’t leave him and “Certainly not for a common swindler who’d have to steal the ring he put on her finger” reinforces the concept that Tom and Daisy were both very fond of how they were perceived by society. This fondness would never enable them to leave each other, even if that meant they were to remain unhappy, showing how power can sometimes lead to a person ensuring their own unhappiness.

To conclude, both Han Kang and  Fitzgerald illustrated the unequal distribution of power in society across different time periods by focusing on the behaviour showcased by people possessing power. Even though the source of power was different in both cases, there was always a sense of oppression, whether it be explicit as in Human Acts or implicit as in The Great Gatsby, showing how power corrupts people and leads them on a path of self preservation through oppression.

Reza’s “God of Carnage” is a play set in modern day Paris that entails a meeting between two middle class couples, the Vallons and the Reilles, after their children get into a physical altercation with each other.  Reza explores the “bourgeois respectability” ideals that both the couples share and strive to maintain throughout the play by focusing on the artificial facades put up by them and the performative element in their interactions.The play is centered around the dynamics between the characters, especially Annette and the others, as their ever changing quality leads to conflict throughout the play. As the play is set in one of the couples’ home, the staging and the props become a defining feature and greatly contribute to these shifting dynamics. Reza illustrates the breakdown of the facades and the solidarity that exists between Anette and the others at various points in the play through the use of tulips as a prop, amongst others, to showcase her physically destructive nature and her questionable moral code.

At the beginning of the play, Reza presents Annette as an affable and courteous woman who is genuinely concerned about solving the situation peacefully, by presenting Annette’s attempts at befriending the Vallons through the use of the tulips and staging, alongside others, in order to showcase her apparent co-operative nature and values, ideas she is not able to maintain for long. Annette’s remark to Veronique, “Those tulips are gorgeous.” exemplifies the efforts that Annette puts in to befriend the Vallons, which could be a signifier of her friendly nature. However, this remark can also be representative of Annette’s shallow mentality, because of which she tries to develop an urgent allegiance with Veronique to solve the crisis as soon as she can without really understanding the gravity of the situation. Reza’s use of the tulips here demonstrates the initial facade of friendliness that Annette revels in. Nevertheless, the pressure of maintaining this facade gets to Annette quite soon as Alain becomes absorbed in his phone calls and the others remain fundamentally opposed to her. She starts to panic and pace the room which creates a very tense dynamic between the characters due to the small scale stage. Some time later, she vomits on Veronique’s art books after which Veronique reveals her true face by focusing all her attention on the books and exclaiming how the books were invaluable because they“ went out of print years ago” . Perhaps instigated by this reaction and realising that she cannot hold up the facade forever, Annette declares that Ferdinand wouldn’t have injured their child “without a reason” thereby adding to the uneasy dynamic between her and Veronique. Her initial amiable nature thus disappears and is replaced by her true self. The use of the art books by Reza contribute to the breakdown of Annette’s inhibitions by breaking down Veronique’s.The situation here truly represents Annette’s duplicitous nature, which shows itself with the slightest provocation. 

The use of one of the couples’ home by Reza as the stage creates a claustrophobic environment which helps the audience notice the dynamic shifts brought about by Annette’s changed demeanor when she returns after cleaning up, showing how she does not have the sense of morality she pretends to possess. The most significant instance where this idea is displayed is when Michel implies that their son’s reference to the Reilles’ son as grass may have been justified. Annette’s response that theirs “ is as well”  is a direct result of the flaring tensions that were arising between her and Michel due to being stuck in the small room for an extended period of time. This meaningless bickering also marks Annette’s weak moral code as it demonstrates how she is willing to insult someone else’s child in a tough situation which signifies how she can stoop very low when pressured. The development of this uneasy dynamic between her and Michel reveals how they are quite like children themselves, who argue aimlessly and in an unreasonable manner. Later, Annette’s remark that Michel “murdered the hamster” hints at the return of the facade that Annette had revelled in at the beginning of the play. Perhaps, she was trying to put it up again and claim moral superiority over the other characters. Nevertheless, this comment furthers the conflict between her and Michel.Here, Veronique agrees with her and reprimands Michel. At this moment, a brief allegiance forms between Annette and her over their shared disgust at what Michel did. For a brief moment, the dynamics shift pitts the women against Michel, but even as the women claim moral superiority, they aren’t any better than him. Reza’s careful use of the staging creates an environment that builds up tension and induces feelings of entrapment due to which the characters all reveal their true selves.

Towards the end of the play, Reza makes use of the alcohol to break down Annette’s inhibitions which lead her to revealing who she truly allies with and what she actually understands about the entire situation, which ultimately illustrate the significant changes that Annette’s personality goes through and the emergence of her actual nature. After drinking the rum, Annette seems to have lost all her reservations and begins to react impulsively. Reza uses the alcohol to portray Annette’s destructive side as she throws her husband’s phone in the vase of tulips exclaiming, “So there” after being infuriated due to his constant phone calls.  This incident reveals her hypocritical nature as Veronique and her were the ones arguing with Michel over the hamster’s death, an incident seen as a huge act of cruelty by them. Alongside, her casual dismissal of the matter, as she and Veronique go about laughing at Alain alludes to how she behaves like a child in tense situations. This incident breaks up the familial allegiance that existed between the couples, and momentarily, it is the men against the women. However, this does not last long as  Reza presents the final straw that breaks down all the false respectability ideals that the characters pretend to posses by Annette’s remark, “That’s what I think of your pathetic flowers.” to Veronique and Michel ,after tearing up the tulips, which contrasts strongly against what she had said at the beginning. By showing how Annette had put up a facade in the beginning where she appeared to be very agreeable, Reza comments on all the false image that all the characters hold up, as they all shared very similar ideals of “bourgeois respectability.  At the end of the play, the character allegiances are back to square one, with the couples pitted against each other. Ultimately, the readers are able to discern that Annette aligned herself with whoever agreed with her at that specific moment in time, not who was morally right. She also did not care about doing something to solve the situation, she just wanted a “quick fix”.

To conclude, it is apparent that one of the central themes in The God of Carnage is the hypocritical nature of the characters and their weak moral values, exemplified here by Annette’s character. Annette’s breakdown is caused by the lack of support that she receives by her husband due to his emotional unavailability and the lack of empathy that she receives from the others. Her breakdown shows us how facades can only be maintained for so long and that these “ideals of respectability” are of no use since all they do is build up an artificial exterior that cannot even resolve a conflict between children. Reza also makes a strong comment on the inherent nature of human beings to be unreasonable in tense situations and act like children, through the strategic use of the props and staging to aid in creating a pressurising environment that the characters have to interact in.

How do the extracts from The Great Gatsby explore the fundamental dichotomy between old and new money through social attitudes and values?

The Great Gatsby, written by F.Scott Fitzgerald, is a tale that explores Jay Gatsby’s futile attempts at trying to fulfill his version of the “American dream”.  By portraying details of Gatsby’s life and his untimely death due to the meddling of the upper class, the novel showcases the wide gap between “old money” and “new money”.The novel is loosely based on Fitzgerald himself and depicts that the idealised American dream is in fact unattainable as it tries to replicate past events in the present. The novel follows the chronological events of a summer with frequent interruptions with details of Gatsby’s life, presented as revelations made to the narrator. The novel is retrospective and uses analepsis. Fitzgerald employs the use of juxtaposition, symbolism and metaphors amongst other literary devices to showcase the contrast between the way the traditional upper class is perceived with how the nouveau rich are perceived. He also illustrates the importance of the customs and social behaviours prevalent within the upper class of the time that distinguish them from everyone else to construct a tale that presents the chasm between old and new money.

At the very beginning of the novel, the defining contrast that is present between the two aforementioned groups is established through the depiction of the houses characterising East Egg (residence of the upper class) and the houses present at West Egg (residence of the newly rich). The narrator: Nick describes Gatsby’s house in West Egg as a ” factual imitation of some Hotel de Ville in Normandy, with a tower on one side, spanking new under a thin beard of raw ivy” and the houses in East Egg as ” the white palaces of fashionable East egg glittered along the water”. Nick’s reference to Gatsby’s house as an imitation helps readers discern that the houses in West Egg are imitations of classy places but the class has not made it through the translation. The mention of raw ivy is quite significant as a symbol as it is usually associated with colonial aristocratic mansions with history. Here, a thin beard implies that all the construction is new and thus lacks historical value. Fitzgerald uses juxtaposition to contrast the living situations and thereby the lifestyle of both the classes, as the houses at East egg are presented as “white palaces’ immediately after. Ultimately, the disparity prevalent leads the reader to understand that even though Gatsby’s house was “colossal” it could not be seen as an equivalent to the houses in East Egg because it lacked class.

Later, Fitzgerald presents the attitude and behaviour shown by the upper class towards the newly rich by displaying the interactions that occur between them. Firstly, he depicts an interaction between Sloane, his wife, Tom, Nick and Gatsby. Here, Sloane’s wife “invites” Gatsby to dine with them, an invitation he hastily accepts due to his desperation to be a part of their class. However, as Tom soon clarifies when Gatsby is out of hearing range, “She doesn’t want him” and that “she has a big dinner party and he won’t know a soul there.” The reader understands the duplicitous nature of the upper class as they illustrate themselves as welcoming people but are quite the opposite. Alongside, it is also revealed that they value old connections over newly formed bonds. This is due to the fact that even though Sloane had a large dinner party, none would have known Gatsby there as they only interact with whoever they deem suitable in terms of class and not money. Through this interaction, the reader also understands that Nick would have been more accepted than Gatsby due to his family status even though he is not nearly as wealthy as him. A few scenes later, Fitzgerald also reveals that there are unwritten rules that “old money” follows by showing an interaction between Jordan and Tom. Jordan tells Tom that Gatsby is an Oxford graduate to which he replies by saying, “Like hell he is! He wears a pink suit.” The reader understands that even an innocent mistake like wearing a pink suit could be seen as a grave offence by the upper class. Through these interactions, Fitzgerald portrays the idea that there are certain rules that the upper class has been brought up with which they would never go against and that they never allow someone of supposed inferior birth to be a part of their group. These features make them appear quite a lot like cliques.

Towards the end of the book, while Gatsby awaits Daisy’s acceptance of going away with him, he speaks at length with Nick about the time he met Daisy. Here, Fitzgerald again presents the contrast between the newly rich and the upper class by juxtaposing Gatsby and Daisy’s house. Firstly, Nick while looking for cigarettes, describes Gatsby’s house as ” innumerable feet of dark wall” and the rooms in it as “musty”. The descriptions of the house are significant as it shows the reader that even though the house was enormous it had a dark quality to it as opposed to being a place that provided comfort. In addition to that, the fact that Nick remarked how the rooms were musty shows that Gatsby could not maintain his large estate well despite his wealth, at least in the eyes of Nick.  Then, as Gatsby and Nick continue to converse, Gatsby speaks about Daisy’s house. He remarks, “There was a ripe mystery about it, a hint of bedrooms up-stairs more beautiful and cool than other bedrooms”. This remark is pivotal to the readers’ understanding of the fact that the houses of the upper class could be distinguished from the rest as even though Gatsby’s house was very grand, it had a dark aura around it while Daisy’s house seemed ethereal. It also leads to the conclusion that being aristocratic was an experience which could not be had with wealth alone.

In conclusion, the fact that a central theme in The Great Gatsby is the clear distinction between new money and old money is exceedingly shocking because America as a democratic country is not supposed to have an “upper aristocratic” class as it is considered to be the epitome of a “merit based” system, wherein if someone works hard, they receive the benefits. The fact that all the houses shown are grand but have dissimilar qualities attached to them and that certain colours are not be worn amongst other values, show how being “old money” is an idea that cant be bought by wealth. The values and the presentation of old money as a clique showcases how the upper classes had long suppressed the lower classes and had continued to do so. It did not matter how much wealth someone outside the clique had acquired, they would never be allowed to climb up the social ladder. Eventually, all of these details make the reader question how merit based America really is.