Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 08:27:29 am

Author Topic: comparative essay practice piece  (Read 1668 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pneaux115

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Respect: 0
comparative essay practice piece
« on: November 07, 2020, 10:31:27 am »
0
yo, i wrote this up for my 1 hour and 30 minute comparative english sac earlier in the year. the books are Stasiland and Never Let Me Go. i got 100% for this submission, but i'm just wondering if there are any imperfections that my teachers couldn't identify? cheers. also, a score /100 would be brilliant :)

it's ridiculously long (~2500 words), but we were able to type it up as the sac was conducted under quarantine conditions, so i was allowed my notes and all. no way i'll write anything close to this on the actual exam.


Topic: “A Soul Bucked Out Of Shape Forever” (Stasiland) “I just waited a bit, then turned back to the car to drive off to where I was supposed to be. (Never Let Me Go).

Oppression, in all forms, erodes the humanity of its victims. Compare the ways these ideas are demonstrated in the texts.

‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said… ‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first - verdict afterwards.’ Anna Funder’s piece of literary journalism, Stasiland, encapsulates the essence of its tyrannous epigraph, heralding back to Lewis Carrol’s Alice in Wonderland through its portrayal of the oppressive East German regime. Comparably, eponymous to the fictional song in the novel, Kazuo Ishiguro’s dystopian fiction, Never Let Me Go depicts an alternate reality to 1990s England where Hailsham’s ill-fated clones seek to validate their humanity against a mysterious power that has reduced them to mere objects. Despite their differences, a simple common thread emerges as both texts contain divided worlds where one group has fewer rights than the other. Both author’s detail this similarity by encouraging their reader to consider what it means to be human, what rights does that inherently offer and whether these rights are inalienable if they improve the lives of the wider society. Both texts present how innately oppressive regimes are able to decimate one’s humanity by challenging the fundamental qualities of what it means to be human. Funder and Ishiguro both endeavour to portray this concept by illustrating societies that attempt to obfuscate what it means to be human in order to continue their abuse of power. Furthermore, inherently oppressive regimes are capable of eroding one’s humanity by retracting their rights to freedom from prejudice and persecution as well as the right to the ability and agency to make informed decisions and determine one’s own fate.

Both austere worlds encapsulated in Funder and Ishiguro’s narratives attempt to disguise the inhumanity of their oppression in order to cloud the understanding of what it means to be human. By befogging one’s perception of what it means to be human, the principles of each world erode the individual’s ability to determine whether they are human or not.  In the former GDR “information ran in a closed circuit between the government and its press outlets”, the media was used as a vehicle to simultaneously glorify the regime and bury the truth of its actions. Funder establishes Karl-Eduard von Schnitzler as the mouthpiece of the regime who presented a television program called The Black Channel in which in an episode from 1965 he defends the shooting of two men trying to escape over the Wall and argues, “Human it is, to make peace for all men on earth.” Here, Funder describes how the regime conditioned its citizens to the belief that their actions were not disintegrating their human rights. The GDR achieved this by manipulating the perspectives of its citizens to persuade them that the governing ideology and methodology is in the best interest of its citizens. Similar to Von Schnitzler’s attempts, Miss Emily cultivates a faux environment, conditioning the children to allow the idea of organ harvesting to be “internally normalised by the donors themselves”. Blurring the reality of their inhumane fate is further emphasised as students are prevented from comprehending the truth in which they have “been told and not told”, becoming indoctrinated into a reality in which the clones become completely impervious to feelings of indignation towards their future. Miss Lucy’s repetition of the word “you” further places the lack of awareness the clones have due to their indoctrination, befogging their concept of humanity and cementing their secondary place in society. However, where the authors diverge in delivery is in their expression of the extent of the inhumane treatment of the victims. Funder’s outsider status to the GDR as an Australian causes her account to become subjective towards western democratic understanding of concepts such as the universality of human rights. She highlights this viewpoint in her use of deep ironies and contradictions in order to expose how the GDR tried to blur the line between humanity and inhumanity in order to erode their individual sense of agency. Her portrayal of Von Schnitzler as a bully, whose shouting is followed by bouts of calm reason, is symbolising the mouthpiece of the regime as irrational. This elderly man who switches from one view to another with frightening ease attempts to convince Funder that Erich Mielke was “the most humane human being”. Funder’s deliberately biased recount of the interview intended to highlight how the Stasi regime fundamentally suppressed what the true meaning of just treatment is in order to corrode the understanding of what inherent rights belong to a human. Whilst Funder deliberately brings to light the GDR’s attempts to cloud the definition of altruistic governing, Ishiguro diverges in that he exploits ambiguity to conceal the sinister nature of his text. In fact, unlike Stasiland, Never Let Me Go never reveals how “the entire donations programme was run”. Was the clones’ fate determined by the state like the victims of the GDR? We do not find out. Moreover, Ishiguro further employs a motif of haziness throughout the novel to create a greater sense of uncertainty. The clones were provided “the haziest notions of the world outside”, whilst the reality of the system was “kept deliberately hazy”. The repetition of the word ‘hazy’ and words synonymous throughout the text emphasises that the lines in Never Let Me Go are blurred, and by using a fictionalised setting of the real world, Ishiguro is commenting on the true ambiguity of what it truly means to be fully human. Both texts oppressive regimes in which their victim’s realities are deliberately masked in order to erode their understanding of what it means to be human. However, while Funder overtly attempts to uncover the truth to bring justice to the victim’s inhumane treatment, Ishiguro does not reveal that the central characters are clones destined for organ donations until half way through the novel. He employs this level of ambiguity in order to allow his reader to determine what they believe it means to be truly human.

The text’s perpetual emphasis of gross inequality between those with power and those powerless suggests that such regimes deny the inherent human rights to freedom from prejudice and persecution. In Never Let Me Go, it is the clones who, like the items they treasure at Hailsham, are “second-hand”. Ruth claims that they are “modelled from trash”, highlighting their abysmal existence as she suggests to “look down the toilet” as “that’s where you’ll find where we all came from”. Furthermore, by comparing the "dark byways…that existed just for the likes of [them]" in contrast with "the big glittering motorways with their huge signs and super cafes…for everyone else.", it serves as a reminder of the secondary existence bestowed upon the clones by their oppressive regime. The belief that they are not human, although human enough for their organs to be used by ‘normals’ is employed to justify their arguably inhuman status and subsequent treatment as being for the greater good of society. Similarly, after being imprisoned Miriam felt she was “no longer human”. Funder captures the pain in Miriam’s voice as she recalls the dehumanising and claustrophobic prison experience that left her psychologically wounded for life. This continual use of torture in both texts illustrates how both worlds deny human rights to their victims as clear distinctions of their view that they are somehow less than human and thus not deserving of the normal treatment. Kathy describes Ruth’s final donation as “scarily unnatural”, elucidating the inequality of treatment as she completes her “ghastly battles” in order to better the lives of the ‘normals’. In a similar way, Frau Paul describes  the “wooden yoke” contraption that can result in prisoners “los[ing] consciousness’ or “drown”. The extent of the torture the Stasi men have inflicted on its people are not limited to physical pain but long lasting trauma too; resulting in “soul buckled out of shape, forever.” The mention of ‘souls’ signifies a divergence in the two texts in which Funder and Ishiguro present differing societal views on the humanity of their victims. Whilst the Stasi use brutality against one’s ‘soul’ in order to protect the state, Ishiguro suggests that the “higher ups” didn’t perceive the clones to have souls “at all” when Madame had to use their art to “prove [they] had souls”. This difference elucidates a distinguishing feature between the texts where Funder champions the human spirit, Ishiguro constantly pressures his audience to question whether the clones are human at all. And thus, can one’s humanity be eroded by oppression if one is not fully human. Furthermore, both Funder and Ishiguro employ the motif of animals as descriptors of victims in order to dehumanise them. Whilst Funder states that the Stasi treated their victims “worse than animals”, Ishiguro similarly describes the clones as “creatures” and “pawns” as a device to demote their humanity in order to justify their inhumane treatment. By calling them ‘creatures’, Madame confirms the idea that the “higher ups” see them as lesser beings, able to do no more than mimic human emotions. However, the two texts provide deviating portrayals of the wider world’s views on their unequal treatment. Whilst the victims in each text are isolated from the outside universe, the West promote the democratic liberties for all Germans, whereas Miss Emily suggests that returning to “the dark days” when these diseases were incurable required the ‘normal’ people to convince themselves “that [they] were less than human, so it didn’t matter.” Ishiguro makes us question whether we would embrace a “world that has come to regard cancer as curable” if it means some must be sacrificed for the community. Both Funder and Ishiguro present the unequal treatment of victims as a clear distinction by their regimes that they are less than human whilst challenging readers to evaluate whether providing for the perceived greater good of the community can truly be a factor in eroding one’s humanity.

Funder and Ishiguro suggest that lacking individual autonomy erodes one’s humanity, however both texts also offer accounts of individuals who maintain the ability to make informed decisions and determine their own destiny despite oppressive powers. Nowhere in the texts is this concept more profoundly illustrated than by Frau Paul who “decided against [her] son” in order to maintain control in her own life. Michael Hinze says admiringly of Frau Paul that “there are not many people who have the courage she did” when she “behaved with such great humanity” in refusing to act as a “tame little rat” for the Stasi. Frau Paul defying the Stasi is a symbol in the texts of humanity, a luxury in these worlds which can only be achieved through great courage and resilience. Similarly, the rumour of the deferrals provides an opportunity for the clones to take control of their lives, something that is suggested to be a human quality. Prior to Kathy and Tommy learning the demoralising truth behind their existence, Kathy reflects on how she and Tommy are able to become “close again”, as they firmly believe they can achieve “three years just to themselves” if “they could prove they were properly in love”. Their belief in the power of love to protect them from their fate, by means of the rumoured deferrals, temporarily unites them and enables the clones to escape their passive automaton shells. However, where the texts diverge is in the fact that the citizens of the GDR, such as Frau Paul, are physically able to maintain control and recover their human spirit, whereas the clones’ fate of “completion” is inescapable. Funder highlights the citizen’s ability to rebel through the perspective of Klaus Renft whose music was “banned outright” due to Stasi censorship of their lyrics. However, unlike how Klaus is able to maintain his humanity as his repressive treatment “evaporates off him like sweat”, the clones seem to accept their secondary existence and lack of autonomy in their lives. Whilst the reader of Stasiland is clear about the regime in control in the GDR, because Funder introduces us to some Stasi operatives, the reader of Never Let Me Go is never quite sure who are the “people higher up”, nor whether Madame and the Hailsham guardians were conforming or challenging the regime that might have been overseen by these “higher ups”. Ishiguro employs this level of ambiguity in his writing to highlight the untouchable quality of the prevailing power structure in his text compared to the East German government. Moreover, unlike the more triumphant conclusion of Stasiland, Never Let Me Go ends with Kathy’s individual agency completely eroded by the donation program in which she has lost all her meaningful connections and symbolically “drives off to wherever it was [she] was supposed to be”. By recounting this event with such a vague description of her fate, Ishiguro is conceding to the idea that a lifetime of oppression disintegrates an individual’s agency and sense of humanity, enabling the regime to utilise them as a vehicle to achieve their aim of providing organs for the ‘normals’. In comparing these two views of the human condition, what it means to be fully human is often convoluted. Julia says, “It’s hard to live in society if you can’t subordinate yourself to authority…particularly German society”. Oral testimonies such as hers and Miriam’s suggest that, contrary to their experiences in the GDR, being maintaining their humanity involves having control over one’s own life, being free to make choices, to travel, to get work, and to have privacy and relationships of one’s own choice. Ishiguro’s clone characters may have a few of these freedoms, but they lack the freedom to have control over their own body and to remain alive for the term of their natural life.

Both texts present how innately oppressive regimes are able to decimate one’s humanity by challenging the fundamental qualities of what it means to be human. Funder and Ishiguro both endeavour to portray this concept by illustrating societies that attempt to obfuscate what it means to be human in order to continue their abuse of power. Furthermore, inherently oppressive regimes are capable of eroding one’s humanity by retracting their rights of inequality, freedom from prejudice and persecution as well as the right to the ability and agency to make informed decisions and determine one’s own fate. Whilst Funder clearly highlights the acts by the Stasi that destroy an individual's humanity, Ishiguro’s ambiguous portrayal of his world obfuscates the reader’s ability to clearly define what it means to be truly human. Through comparison, the acceptance by the clones towards their inevitable ‘completion’, in contrast to the disdain of the regime by many citizens of the GDR, is horrifying for the readers and makes our perception of what it means to erode one’s humanity unclear to such an extent that what it means to be ‘normal’ or ‘human’ is even more convoluted than ever.


pneaux115

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Respect: 0
Re: comparative essay practice piece
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2020, 10:32:25 am »
0
oops, i majorly screwed up the formatting lmao... i'm not used to this website's functions haha