Department of English                               Gymnasium Steglitz Berlin

Contact

Home

Table of Contents

James Thurber criticizes the arrogance of Man

James Thurber’s fable “The Human Being and the Dinosaur” deals with the encounter of Man and Dinosaur. During their conversation it becomes clear that Man considers his own species to be much more superior and valuable than dinosaurs and even feels himself equal to God. In the meantime the dinosaur remains quite unmoved in spite of the insults Man says, and shows his contempt to Man in his short comments as well. In the end the prediction of Man is fulfilled, as the dinosaurs are indeed extinct. But nevertheless the dinosaur dies with a “curious smile of satisfaction” on his face, perhaps because he shares the dislike Man shows towards him and still thinks that he would rather be extinct than being one of mankind. So his wish is in some kind fulfilled as well. 

I don’t think that Man has the right to say that he is the most valuable and superior species existing. For who says that high-functioning brain cells and the ability to use one´s own hands leads to a high value? Is there one objective definition of value at all? I think that every species and perhaps even every human being considers their own qualities to be the ones defining value.

In my opinion Man is right in saying there is a reason why the dinosaurs have been extinct in the long process of evolution. But who knows whether sometime in the future there will be another species saying: “Once upon a time there was a species called Man that was only a member of inconsequent ephemera and therefore became extinct thousands of years ago…”

Although I agree with the author in criticizing the arrogance of Man, I don’t like the fable very much. For a fable is to deliver a certain message to the reader. But because James Thurber’s morals always tend to be ironic, which again is shown in this story, the meaning of the moral doesn’t become very clear but remains rather vague.

Phil Ochs protests against the moral decay in America

Francisco Jiménez, The Circuit

A Mexican boy yearns for a normal life. which within the circuit will probably never come true

The short story “The Circuit” deals with the Mexican boy Panchito, whose family belongs to the circuit. Season by season he moves from farm to farm with his parents and siblings to seek for admission.
At the beginning of the story the family is about to leave the strawberry farm they have been working on during the summer and to move to another farm. After meeting denial they finally find work and a preliminary place of residence on a vine farm. At daytime the older male members of the family have to work on the vineyards, which proves to be hard at first, as they are not used to this new kind of work. But eventually they conquer the difficulties and grow accustomed to the work.
When the season is over Panchito is allowed to go to school. At the beginning he is scared and nervous, but with the help of his teacher Mr Lema he gradually becomes comfortable with school. But one day Panchito comes home to find everything packed again. The family has to leave once more.

The circuit does not grant Panchito´s family a secure job and a home. They have no guarantees, but live an unsteady life.
Necessity forces them to move from farm to farm to search for a preliminary work. In doing so, they have to anticipate being repelled and denied admission at any time. They are dependent on the potential employers, who only regard them as cheap and willing labour. After each move they must get used to the new job, for they are not specialised on a particular kind. Despite all these difficulties the money they earn just suffices to survive. They are so poor that even the children have to work as soon as they are able to.
So Panchito and his elder brother Roberto cannot go to school, although they desperately want to. Their duty to care for the family is more important than their right to education. So already at their young age they carry big responsibility on their shoulders.
From childhood on Panchito and his siblings are used to a humble way of living. They have never had a settled home and always lived under minimum conditions. They are used to “walls eaten by termites” and a “dirt floor”. Therefore the colour “white” strikes them immediately, when they reach a farmer’s house. But sometimes they do not even have a shack to be accommodated in, but must sleep on the bare ground. They seldom get to eat a decent meal, so that Panchito has appointed a very common meal his favourite dish.

Panchitos family only possesses few belongings, among which there are the “Carcanchita” and a large pot. The car belongs to Panchito´s father, while his mother calls the pot her own. Despite their old and miserable condition the parents still consider those items to be worth their pride and attentiveness and guard them diligently. For them, who have barely enough equipment to survive, let alone a real home, the car and the pot represent something that they can actually call their own, that has accompanied them through every difficult situation they have experienced. So they cherish them beyond anything else.

Because Panchito´s family has to move to another place every three months, they never have the opportunity to integrate themselves. Each time they have got accustomed to a new surrounding, they must leave again. So their way of living in a circuit precludes them from contracting a friendship or any other relationship. The family is already used to their unsteady life und the possibility of being repelled. So they are not in the slightest shocked or even surprised, when they are told that they have to go somewhere else. Panchito accepts their way of living, but nevertheless he yearns for a normal life. But within the circuit this wish will probably never come true. (May 2008)

NPWA

I grew up in a company town
And I worked real hard ‘'til that company closed down
They gave my job to another man
On half my wages in some foreign land
And when I asked how could this be
Any good for our economy?
I was told nobody cares
So long as they make money when they sell their shares

Can you hear us? Are you listening?
No power without accountability!

I lost my job, my car and my house
When ten thousand miles away some guy clicked on a mouse
He didn’t know me, we never spoke,
He didn’t ask my opinion or canvass for my vote
I guess its true, nobody cares
'Til those petrol bombs come spinning through the air
Gotta find a way to hold them to account
Before they find a away to snuff our voices out

Can you hear us? Are you listening?
No power without accountability!

The ballot box is no guarantee that we achieve democracy
Our leaders claim their victory when only half the people have spoken
We have no job security in this global economy,
Our borders closed to refugees but our markets forced open

The World Bank says to Mexico,
We’ll cut you off if you don’t keep your taxes low
But they have no right to wield that sword
‘Cos they take their orders from the chairman of the board

IMF, WTO,
I hear these words just every place I go
Who are these people? Who elected them?
And how do I replace them with some of my friends?

Can you hear us? Are you listening?
No power without accountability!

WORDS: Billy Bragg (2002)     MUSIC: The Blokes (2002)

Billy Bragg blames globalisation for injustice and ruthlessness

The song “NPWA” was written by Billy Bragg and The Blokes in 2002. It deals with a worker’s fate, whose “company closed down” (v.2), which lost him his job (v.11: “I lost my job”). In this song the speaker denunciates the irresponsibility, injustice and even ruthlessness of those in power, which he blames on globalization. Especially the title being an abbreviation of “No power without accountability”, which also appears in the song itself, clearly shows the message of the song.

The song consists of altogether three stanzas of variable length separated from each other by two lines, which are repeated as a kind of chorus.

In the first two stanzas the speaker’s situation is described. When the company he was working for closed down, his job was given to another man in “some foreign land” (v.4). The indefinite pronoun “some” indicates remoteness, which contributes to the absurdity of the situation from the worker’s point of view. The economic phenomenon the line refers to is called outsourcing, which is to make production more profitable for the company (cf. v.4: “On half my wages”). The speaker reacts with incredulousness (cf. v.5-6), whereupon he is told that “nobody cares” (v.7), as long as profit is being made. So the speaker criticizes the selfishness and greed in gainfulness, which entails the disposal of humanity and replaceability of workers.

In the second stanza the speaker states that he has also lost his car und his house (cf. v.11). This enumeration clearly shows how globalisation can deprive some people of their immediate livelihood. And all that happens because “ten thousand miles away some guy clicked on a mouse” (v.12). The great distance indicates that globalization has turned the earth into a global village. The explanation that all misery was caused only by a click on a mouse emphasizes the easiness and flippany with which a man’s life can be destroyed nowadays. With the words “He didn’t know me, we never spoke” (v.13) the speaker implies that such a fate could affect anyone, however inconspicuous and innocent they might have been. He seems to fear violence might be a consequence of these recent developments (cf. v.16) and appeals for resistance before their voices are snuffed out (cf. v.18). So he seems to say “eat or be eaten” by the agenda in our globalized world.

In this world there is no guarantee of justice. Elections are merely illusoriness and on no account authentic (cf. 21-22). Additionally “our borders closed to refugees but our markets forced open” (v.24). This line holds an antithesis between “close” and “open”. Apparently it should be the other way round, which points out that it is all haywire. The mutual handling of associations seems to even border on extortion (cf. v.25-26). The speaker alludes to wielding a sword (cf. v.27). This expression conjures the image of a dangerous weapon that might be lethal, if brandished in wrong hands.

The speaker turns his attention to the big global organizations IMF and WTO (cf. v.29), both advocating open and free markets. He claims to be hearing these names “just every place [he] goe[s]” (v.30). This exaggeration is evidently contrary to the questions following: “Who are these people? Who elected them?” (v.31). The speaker seems to emphasize how little of the decisions within these organizations is known to the public, that there might be something mysterious behind this glorious facade. The speaker asks how to replace these people with some of his friends (cf. v.32). In doing so he implies that for those positions no competence and skills are required, which once again expresses the injustice lying upon him and his kind.

The chorus of the song consists of two lines: “Can you hear us? Are you listening?/ No power without accountability!” (e.g. v.9-10). In these lines the speaker directly addresses those in power, whom he considers to be irresponsible. The exclamation in the second part shows an ellipsis: The predicate is missing, which bestows a slogan- like character on the statement. So the keywords of the song are very catchy und present also after having listened to the song. This slogan depicts how reality should be: Power should always be accompanied by a sense of responsibility.

In my opinion the message of the song does not only apply to globalisation, but should be taken to heart in other positions of power and responsibility as well, for example by heads of state or patriarchs. But irrespective of the palpable case those in power should always keep in mind that they have the destiny of their people in their hands hoping to be led to a brighter future. This trust should by no means be abused. (Nov. 2008)

One-act plays portray the collision of different worldviews

On average a one-act play is  just twenty pages long. It only consists of stage directions and dialogues, that do not present a particularly elaborate and complex plot. If one wants to dive into a multilayered story full of suspense and action with the only purpose of pure entertainment, I recommend a voluminous novel, which in addition is easier to understand both in language and contents. Yet one-act plays are widespread as school reading. So where does the attraction of such literature lie?
In short plays not the superficial plot is the main issue, but rather what is hidden underneath the surface. With extraordinary characters the authors point out to conflicts, problems and abysses in human life und society.

The play “A Separate Peace” by Tom Stoppard for example deals with a man called John Brown, who pays for staying voluntarily in a private hospital, although he does not exhibit any health problems. At first sight the reader might develop the impression that Mr Brown is mentally deranged. But is he really?
Mr. Brown does not appear unusual at all: He is an inconspicuous man with undistinguished clothing and also his language and train of thoughts are adequate for a mentally healthy man. Even his name shows him as an ordinary anybody. The only aspect causing suspiciousness in his mental capacities is his unusual behaviour. But as it turns out, Mr Brown has his motives: He chose to stay in the hospital to be able to abstain from every duty and responsibility without being disapproved by society. After having endured war and imprisonment he longs for escaping the chaos of everyday life and taking refuge in a peaceful and ordered existence remote off society and restraints of any kind. This “separate peace” Mr Brown hopes to find in the hospital.
Society easily tends to condemn people for not behaving as expected, which is precisely the reason for Mr Brown’s withdrawal in the first place. This disapproval of any inconveniency is directly shown in the embodiment of the hospital staff: They inform the police and a psychiatrist and repeatedly question Mr Brown about his purposes. They simply refuse to accept his wish not to integrate, but instead to isolate himself. Exactly these restraints society is exerting on the people, the author criticizes in his one-act play. He shows how society is undermining the right of every autonomous individual to follow his own inclinations.
One key sentence of the play is “How do you know, what’s good for me?”, which can be transferred to many situations in everyday life. Most children for example have at least once complained about their parents’ claim to make decisions for them, although they feel perfectly capable of determining on their own. They are told that they do not know yet, what is good for them. This may apply to children, but does society have the right to stipulate adult people to follow its unwritten rules?

While in “A Separate Peace” society is criticized, in the play “A Slight Accident” the author James Saunders portrays different lifestyles personified by two married couples, both husbands ending up shot dead by their wives.
Harry shows a rational view of the world. He thinks life is perfectly logical and every single event has its meaning. Therefore there is no need for fear, anger, hope or despair. Roger on the other hand considers himself to be a “creature of habit”. In his opinion life is full of lurking dangers, which can only be prevented by living after habit and routine. Just to the contrary their wives  advocate the theory that life consists of an inexplicable, unforeseeable chain of events. Unexpected twists and turns could appear at any time.
In the end the accidentalist view of life seems to be superior: Both men seal their fate in handing their wives a gun, confident that they would never shoot. But as it turns out, they have been mistaken, for “life is by no means as straightforward as it’s supposed to be”.

Similar to “A Slight Accident” Harold Pinter’s “A Slight Ache” also provides an insight in a family that appears harmonic and peaceful, but turns out to be only a crumbling façade. In this play the married couple, Edward and Flora, is constantly fighting a silent battle, sometimes for positions, now and then between the sexes.
When a matchseller appears on the scene, Edward shows an open aversion towards him. He feels insecure, because he sees the matchseller both as a rival and as his own future self. He is afraid of ending as old, ill and lonely as him. With his paranoia and fear he gradually distances himself from his marriage and his wife.
On the other hand Flora shows an open affection and even desire towards the matchseller. She feels sexually dissatisfied with her husband and has grown tired of the boring routine of her marital life with Edward.
During the play the matchseller does not say anything. The conversation with Edward and Flora only consists of their monologues. And yet he plays the significant role of a catalyst leading to the decay of their relationship. This shows that Edward’s and Flora’s marriage would have broken apart by itself sooner or later. At the end of the play Edward’s greatest fear becomes true: He turns into the matchseller himself, while the matchseller claims his position in the family.