Month: February 2020

In the introduction of the novel, Demons, Fyodor Dostoevsky gives a fictional account of a radical group that opposes the Russian government and church narrated by Mr. Govorov. Because Dostoevsky uses a third party narrater, he is able to more effectively introduce each character in the novel and in turn create a more complex and sophisticated narrative.

Mr. Govorov recounts the relationship between Stepan Trofimovich and Varvara Petrovna. By using a different character who is affiliated with both Trofimovich and Petrovna, Dostoevsky is able to give an accurate depiction of their relationship without allowing emotional biases cloud the true nature of their friendship. On pages 14 and 15, Govorov tells the story of how Trofimovich would write letters to Petrovna, even when they were living under the same roof. Through the use of a third party narrater, the audience is able to fully grasp the unique relationship between Trofimorich and Petrovna. However, if the story was recounted by either Trofimovich or Petrovna, it would be much more difficult to understand each character and why they act the way they do. Having this extra information on the characters gives the audience a more in depth understanding of the novel as a whole and helps make this novel more elaborate.

The audience is also presented with other characters in section VIII on page 28 and 29. Govorov not only gives a recount of their life stories, but explains how the other characters interact with them and describes their feelings towards one another. If the author did not use this third party narration, the audience would not have seen these further connection amongst the characters. With these further insights, the audience can more fully understand the actions of each member and therefore understand the novel more clearly. This narration is vital for the audience’s understanding of the work as a whole and is how Dostoevsky was able to create such a complex narrative.

In George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the main protagonist Winston joins the “Brotherhood,” or a secret society that commands its members to murder, commit suicide, or harm innocents in order to weaken and ultimately destroy the Party. Because of the violence involved with the resistance, and the minimal results that come from it, the “Brotherhood,” is not an effective resistance to the Party, or totalitarianism as a whole.

In this novel, when Winston meets with O’Brien, another member of the Brotherhood, O’Brien asks him a series of questions about how far he would go for the sake of the Brotherhood. One question he asked was, “If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to throw sulfuric acid in a child’s face-are you prepared to do that?” This question is so cruel and unnecessary that it makes me question the Brohterhood’s true intentions. The phrase, “you can’t fight fire with fire,” comes to mind. Why resist a controlling regime that uses violence and fear tactics by fostering an even more destructive and dangerous environment? Instead of liberating the people suppressed by the Party, all the Brotherhood is doing is putting these innocent people’s lives in danger. The supposed actions of the Brotherhood should not be acceptable and is not an appropriate means of resistance.

Also, the lack of information provided to Winston makes me question the legitimacy of the Brotherhood. O’Brien describes them as the “dead” generation, with which their only purpose is to serve the Brotherhood, get caught by the Party, and die. This only sounds vague and seems like an inefficient way of resistance. Most resistance units biggest goal is to resist without getting caught. Adding to that, Winston receives almost no information about the Brotherhood, for secrecy purposes, but how could Winston be sure it’s not just a ploy? This reason is most likely the reason for such little results, and why it most likely will take years and years to ever accomplish its goal. Without a controlled group of members, with an active communication line, and a clear action plan to accomplish their goal of destroying the Party, the Brotherhood can never truly reach a perfect form of resistance.

For my essay, I plan on writing on Whitaker Chambers, Witness. In his memoir, he discusses the huge case of Alger Hiss, in which he played a vital role. I want to debate that because this case was so popular, and how he wrote his memoir in a more self-focused style, he didn’t create the most effective piece for resisting totalitarianism. He focused too much on his own personal struggle with Communism and his own relationship with Alger Hiss, instead of resisting totalitarianism as a whole. Instead of resisting the Communist party, all Chambers did was resist Hiss.

Enthymeme thesis: In the memoir, Witness, Whitaker Chambers writes about his own personal struggle with Communism, and his part in the very publicized trial of Alger Hiss. Because of his more self-focused writing style and the publicity of the Alger Hiss trial, Chambers memoir was not the most effective resistance to totalitarianism. Chambers did not resist the Communist party as a whole, but only the figurehead Alger Hiss.

Two passages:

• Chapter 7, section 9, pages 303-308
  • Focuses on friendship too much (personal relationship)
  • Humanizes Hiss, people sympathetic towards him
  • Those focused on the case only focused on their relationship

• Chapter 12 pages 615-618 – Chambers decides to become a true witness
  • Focuses too much on his own conversion to Catholicism
  • Focuses too much on his decision to become a “witness”
  • Too self involved- pity him as individual, not as a survivor of Communism
• Chapter 11, section 29, pages 570-585
  • Focusing on a specific case does not lead to an effective stance against totalitarianism
  • Case focusing on Hiss as an individual rather than a case against toaltitarianism

• Bibliographic sources:
  • Compare to Ji Xianlin’s The Cowshed
  • Tanenhaus, Sam. Whittaker Chambers : A Biography. First ed., Random House, 1997.
  • Baehr, Peter. “The Informers: Hannah Arendts Appraisal of Whittaker Chambers and the Ex-Communists.” European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, vol. 1, no. 1, Feb. 2014, pp. 35–66., doi:10.1080/23254823.2014.909734.
  • https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/article_6dd5dd29-da51-52ad-b290-87fa3ad6457d.html

• Sections:
  • Use of memoir as writing style
  • Focus on one specific case study
  • Comparison to The Cowshed

In the memoir Cowshed, Ji Xianlin writes a chapter at the end of the novel called “Further Reflections.” In this chapter, Xianlin raises many important questions revolving around the Cultural Revolution, and if the ramifications of the revolution have been dealt with properly. By bringing up these questions, and providing solutions, the author is able to effectively conclude his memoir with reasonable hopes for the future.

One of the questions Xianlin raises is, “Is the Cultural Revolution a thing of the past?” I think this is a very important questions that not only limits itself to the Cultural Revolution, but extends itself to all great tragedies in our history. Like many catastrophes that appear in history, once the aftermath has been taken care of, people slowly start to forget that it ever happened. On page 140, Xianlin even goes as far as to describing the Cultural Revolution as a “fairy tale” for youths because of the lack of education on the subject. I know in my senior year history class, when we learned about the cultural revolution, I didn’t even come close to learning about the gruesome conditions people had to live in. Xianlin’s memoir definitely helps relieve the many gaps left by those who are unwilling to talk about the Cultural Revolution, but he is correct when asserting that the youths of China need to be educated on this manner because it is not, in fact, a thing in the past, but an integral part of Chinese history that affects its people of today, too. Also, if the Cultural Revolution is not taught to todays youths, the same mistake could be made again.

Another important question that Xianlin proposes is “have the victims of the revolution given voice to their bitterness?” This is followed by an evident “no.” This plays into the reason why todays youths know so little about the revolution: no one wants to talk about the horrible things they had to go through. One man was even quoted saying, “It used to be said that ‘the scholar can be killed, but he cannot be humiliated.’ The Cultural Revolution proved that not only can he be killed but he can also be humiliated.” He is definitely not the only one who feels this way. Even the author felt humiliated and states that he should have just killed himself because he believes his whole life is a humiliation. Survivors of the revolution need to be exposed to “true unity and harmony” in their community before they will be willing to share their stories. This makes sense, but that means that people will have to learn to be more open to others and the resentments towards each other need to be slowly healed. That is the only way people will start to open up about their lives and the youths will finally be able to learn about their countries history.