Section B – Creative writing

He woke up slowly, his head pulsating and his arms stining slightly. Groanin, he opened his eyes, they were still havy with sleep. He looked around the room, the damp and musty smell infitrated his nostrils, it burnt slightly. He saw the faint outline of his friends. They appeared to be sat down, but the dim, almost non-existant, light wasn’t helping.

“Alicia, Max, Josh, Cindy” he muttered. His speech was slurred, so it took him a few seconds to say each name. “Guys?”, he asked, not sure sure if he was going to get a response. Suddenly, he saw some movement. The figures of his friends shuffled in their seats, “Guys, come on, say something…” He tried getting up. The chair screetched. Looking down he saw his hands and feet were tied to the chair. He started started chuckling aawkawardly “Haha, very funny guys(!) Come on, get me out this chair”.

Alicia groaned “James, w-what are you talking about?” She had recognised his voice.

There was an abrupt sound, what appeared to be a loud screetch fom a speaker. “I see you’ve started to wake up, how was the nap?” The voice was distorted, but the words were still easy enough to make out. “Oh my(!) You appear to be tied up right now, should I come back at a later time (?)” The voice laughed.

“What the hell is going!” Max shouted as best as he could.

Cindy still hadn’t said a word, she sobbed quietly in her corner of her room confused by what was happening. Only just last night had she had her first drink, and now this? “Is this some kind of joke?” she thought, still sobbing away.

“What do you want?” James asked the voice.

“Good question James. What do I want? What do I want? What do I want? James, the answer to that is simple really… An apology”.

“An apology?” They all exclaimed at the same time.

“What type of sick joke is this?” Alicia said, there was anger in her tone.

“JOKE?! The voice roared violently through the speaker. The room became deafiningly silent. “Does this look like a joke to you?! You know what Alicia, you’ve just pissed me off! I was having a nice day until I heard that…” The voice faded out again.

“He’s going to hurt us, isn’t he” Cindy whimpered

No one responded. Max sat there, struggling, trying to get out of his restraints, James jumped in his chair, trying to scoot closer to the others.Cindy went back to her silence with Alicia sat there, wondering if this was going to be the end of them…

Comparative Essay

In this essay I will explore how the theme of power is conveyed, in the poems ‘Remains’ and ‘War Photographer’. I’ll also analyse how the authors, Duffy and Armitage, use language and language techniques to do this, and the ways these might be similar or differ. The theme of power is explored in many different. It could, and has been, used to express how something one might not have seen to hold any power, might do so: such as indifference or ignorance. However, guilt in itself is a very powerful emotion, but when it has the power to control or destroy, as it is presented in both poems, the effect it has can be very damaging.

 

Within both ‘Remains’ and ‘War Photographer’, the power of guilt is presented to the reader using different techniques. In ‘Remains’ the speaker says that if he “blinks” he sees “him burst again through the doors of the bank. Sleep, and he’s probably armed, possibly not. Dream, and he’s torn apart by a dozen rounds”. This suggests that the speaker is haunted by the memory of that day, not able to remove the memory of the events leading up to/the killing of the looter. Armitage uses rhythm to present this idea. The words “blink”, “sleep” and “dream”, provide the poem some rhythm, with which Armitage suggests that these ‘flashbacks’ follow a similar flow to that of the words, presenting the reader with a feeling that these flashbacks never escape the speaker and almost follow a continuous loop. The War Photographer talks about how he ‘‘remembers the cries of this man’s [war casualty] wife’’ and how he ‘‘sought approval without word’’. What this shows is that the War Photograph felt guilty as he took picture of this man without providing help, watching as the woman cried beside her dying husband and how he also felt the need to be alleviated from this guilt. Duffy does this by using imagery. The image created by thinking of the ‘cries’ of a woman beside her dying husband, helps the reader understand why the War Photographer feels guilty after having taken the photos. This contrasts heavily to the way Armitage presented guilt as his was more direct, telling the reader how unable he was to forget those events, while Duffy’s use of imagery presented guilt in a more subtle way.

 

As well as the power of guilt, the power of indifference in the face of conflict is prominent. In ‘Remains’ it is shown through another character, meanwhile in the ‘War Photographer’ it is the speaker that displays the indifference. For ‘‘Remains’’ after the looter has been killed and his dead body lays on the ground, the speakers ‘‘mate’’ walks over to the body and ‘‘tosses his guts back in’’ before the body is ‘‘carted off in a lorry’’. By using words such as “tosses” and ‘‘mate’’, Armitage creates a jovial tone within the poem, this in turn, creates a harsh contrast with the theme of the poem, further pushing this idea of indifference. Armitage also creates a rhyme between the words ‘‘body’’ and ‘‘lorry’’.  Upon reading these words, the reader is almost meant to dismiss the seriousness of what has happened, which further presents the idea that indifference is powerful. On the other hand, in the ‘War Photographer’ we are shown that the speaker himself is the one that is indifferent to what he has done. As he is developing the photos, he lists off the countries where he has taken the pictures in: “Belfast. Beirut. Phnom Penh.”. When this is done, it gives the reader this idea of the speaker ticking-off the counties on a list, such as one would do with a bucket list. This laxity illustrates how indifferent the speaker was when he first took/developed the photos.

 

The power of ignorance is an idea that both poems play with, however it is not the speakers that show it, but the ‘general public’ of each ‘closed system’ that each of the poems exist in. In ‘Remains’ after the speaker has killed the looter and he’s back home, he says that the man is “here in my head” and not in “some distant … sand smothered land”. At first glance, this could illustrate the speaker’s mental condition, almost comparable to PTSD, but it could also be inferring to this man being envious of others for not having to live with the fact of having killed someone. When Armitage uses the phrase “some distant, sand-smothered land”, it give the reader a sense that the speaker is trying to distance himself from the situation, as if he was just another citizen, and not a soldier, which illustrates his  struggle to be ‘ignorant’ of what has happened. In the ‘War Photographer’ the speaker talks about how the “five or six” photos picked out for “Sundays supplement”, will make the “reader’s eyeballs prick with tears” before they back to their routine of a nice “bath” or “pre-lunch” beers. When Duffy uses the phrase “prick with tears”, it gives the reader the sense that the speaker is cynical of the reader’s reaction of the photos as they maybe be on the verge of crying for a second but they then forget it about it on the same day, going back to their ordinary routine. This change of attitude from ‘reader’, helps to understand why the ‘War Photographer’ maybe chase this type of ignorance.

 

To conclude, power is explored through both poems, by showing how powerful guilt, indifference (In the face of conflict), and ignorance (or more specifically the chase for ignorance) can be. The power of guilt, in Remains, is shown through the way Armitage used rhythm to show the fluidity it [Guilt] has, the way it can haunt a person. Duffy, on the other hand, used imagery to paint a picture of a suffering woman, who has lost her husband meanwhile all the ‘War Photographer’ has done is take picture instead of helping. The speaker also mentioned how he sought ‘approval’ for what he did, instead of being antagonised. Indifference was explored through the way the speaker’s friends/colleges deal with the man’s body. Armitage used language to create a jovial tone as the speaker’s “mate” “tossed” the dead man’s body into a “lorry”.  Duffy also uses language, but the indifference, this time, is shown by the speaker himself. The countries where he has been to take photos are listed off, almost as if they were part of a bucket list. Finally, ignorance was shown through the actions the ‘readers’ within both poems.

Summary: Manju

  • We are introduced to Manju, she’s currently studying as the sun blazes outside
  • A rumor starts that the coporator took part in a low-caste election even though he isn’t. He now going through every ward hoping to over-turn the paper work to overrule the vote by trying to gain the love of the people
  • Asha and Manju prepare a temple for the arrival of the Corporator.
  • By 8 the temple had been packed however the corporator never showed, they had to start without him.
  • Asha would take the fall for a the failure of the corporator
  • A ladyboy goes into the temple and draws a crowd. Asha decides this is better than having an empty temple



 

How is Mumbai presented through the perspective of Abdul, Asha and Sunil

Throughout this essay the different perspectives of Mumbai will be explored by looking into the thoughts of those who live there. In the ‘Beautiful foreverers’ Katherine Boo introduces three main characters: Abdul, Asha and Sunil. The protagonists, though living in the same slum (Annawadi), have incredibly different perspectives on what life can provide for them. Abdul is prudent with what he says and tends to keep his head down in his work, as the owner of a rubbish collecting service. Asha is a slumlord (an unofficial position) which has led her to the ideology that money is what makes the world go round. Sunil, a young scavenger, who has seen that people are deceitful and only want what others can give to them, even if it means using those less fortunate than you to get it. Seeing these different perspectives, this essay will cover how Katherine Boo presents this by analysing language and language techniques.

 

We are firstly introduced to Abdul, a boy who has lived all of his life in Annawadi, who has recently taken over the family business as a trade who appraises what the scavengers bring to him.  You are given the impression that Abdul is focused on his work and only cares about trying to provide for his family. His views on the world sink through into his perspective of Annawadi as his ‘work-focused’ ideology means that he prefers to arise in the morning “with minimal whining” as he understands how this would only cause more problems than solutions. Furthermore, he prefers this “gentle-going hour” of Annawadi as it projects this feeling of the “intimate and familial” as everyone arises to their daily jobs.

Katherine Boo illustrates this by personifying the morning. What this creates is a feeling of Annawadi coming alive and create a moment of ‘together-ness’  in which everyone is getting ready for another day of work, an almost endless cycle of the people of Annawadi. On top of this, we are also introduced to the idea of that the morning is “gentle-going” giving the reader to the impression that the morning is slower and more relaxed than the rest of the hectic, work-filled day.

 

After Katherine Boo presents Abdul, the reader is introduced to Asha, the Annawadi slum-lord. Though an unofficial position, the people of Annawadi know who has been chosen as the slum-lord by the local authorities and police officers that patrol the slum. Keeping this in mind, Asha is expected to do what is favourable for the people who keep her in this position. However, she has learnt many ways in which she can turn this opportunity into a window of business.  She has also learnt hate, is the main root of economic power, the power that fuels big cities (like Mumbai) which pushes forward the development and privatization of the cities resources. Asha’s views on the world make her feel that “everyone, everywhere hates their neighbours” because they feel that they are being robbed of their chance at wealth as the others take the opportunities that they could have had. Furthermore she felt that group identities were becoming “attenuated” as the “anger” they felt and they “hope” they tried to reclaim were becoming “privatized… like so much in Mumbai”. What Asha is trying to communicate to the reader is this idea of human emotion and identity being destroyed and captured to try and take out as much money out of it as possible. It is almost a commentary on how capitalism has absorb human emotion for this “hope” of becoming wealthy, yet we forget those around us and the way they have to try and prevail the same way we do. In addition to this, society has almost programmed us to exemplify this selfishness by causing us to hate anything we feel has stumped and prevented what ‘we deserve’. In this case, Asha points this out by making the statement that “everyone…hates their neighbours”, further proving my point of how Asha feels everyone this they should succeed, but think that they can’t because others take what is theirs.

Boo helped prevent these ideas by, firstly, personifying the idea of human identity and them creating a hyperbole of this idea of wide spread hatred. We see this idea of personification by the use of the word “attenuated”, a word which means ‘thin’ as is usually used to refer to a person. She uses this word as a way of expressing that these ideas of identity are what makes us human, and by them becoming thinner and harder to differentiate as we all fight each for this idea of ‘wealth’ that we are becoming less human every day and turning into this unrecognisable figure which only cares about becoming richer instead of helping others. Secondly, by using a hyperbole, we are introduced to an idea that not only transcends class but also culture, an idea that can be translated into any situation to explore these ideas of hatred, instead of peace and love, for personal economic sustainability.

 

Finally we are introduced to Sunil, a young scavenger boy, who was orphaned as his dad was an alcoholic and their mother died. Sunil has had to live through the deceit and lies, many of the ‘adults’ in his life have told to be able to use him and others in the same situation for economical gain. He has been kicked out of the orphanage as he can no longer grab the attention of the foreign that came to donate money to the orphanage. Sunil does “not get mad” when he finds out why the sisters at the orphanage used phrases like “AID’s child”. He felt that by knowing, it gave him a “shield” that many other children did not have. With Sunil, we are given this feeling of his innocence being destroyed step-by-step as he has to watch how others do not care about him, but only see him as another ‘street-child’.

Katherine Boo present these ideas by creating this feeling of innocence and not knowing by using phrases like “he understood” which presents this image of him understanding this concept but maybe not understanding other concepts which may have the same effects.

 

In conclusion, the ideas of perception change a lot from person to person. We see that Abdul’s ideology pushes forward these ideas of the “intimate” and the way people try and focus on their work, almost trying to block the outside world and provide for their family. This loosely ties in with Asha’s ideology as it encourages this idea of solitude and the way people fight for ‘what is theirs’. It also helps understand why some many people feel that money is the way forward and their reasons to blame others for their misfortune. And finally, Sunil, his perspective on the world shows the reader how innocence can be lost in a moment and the effect it can have on a young mind. It illustrates how people hope to be different and hope the world to treat them differently, but instead see that the lies people tell actually help them, instead of hindering them.

Katherine Boo has done all of this using personification to communicate ideas that are seen as human, yet generalise or exaggerate the ideas that seem to have no place in our society yet are still found in everyday life. Overall, what this has done is present Mumbai in such a light that it is not possible to find one answer but instead we are shown many with which present contradicting statements if read unknowingly but if looked through further we are introduced to this idea that Mumbai, and society in general, is trying to make everyone strive for the same thing, telling us that it is our duty to do so, yet kicks us down when we try. It also turns us against each other even though everyone is trying to acquire the same thing and makes us turn a blind eye those who need help or abuse of what little they have to offer to us.

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. – George Washington.

Summarise

Through out the review, Jan Breman, pushes forward the idea that Boo, the author of “The Beautiful Forevers”, is trying to illustrate the huge inequalities that Mumbai holds for the people living in the “under city”.

Summary of Chapter: Asha

  • We are introduced to Asha and her husband. We are told that Asha thinks that her husband has gone “batty and pious” as he has lost the want to be the slum lord. Asha sees an opportunity.
  • Asha manages to aquire the “Slum Lord” position as “The Corporator”, the main political figure in the Shiv Sena party, believed that she could handle the problems Annawadi had to offer, as well as, being able to meet the demands that the Shiv Sena party needed to push forward their campaign.
  • Asha realizes that being slum lord is a profitable position as she can feed of others “hopes and ambitions”. Through this she forms an opinion that all politics is corrupt.
  • We are then put through one of Asha’s ‘average’ day’s. Through certain actions, such as regreting the fact that she helped a woman secure a temp-job for free and rejecting a mans propsal of giving him a loan for a new heart valve, we she that Asha has now learnt to value money and power over humility and kindness.

Chapter Summary: Dr Lanyon’s narrative

  • Dr Lanyon received a letter, from Dr Jekyll, instructing him to retrieve a drawer containing some poweders, a phial and a note book. He is also instructed to give the drawer to a man at midnight who will come in Dr Jekyll’s name.
  • Dr Lanyon goes to house, breaks into the locked room and retrieved the drawer.
  • At midnight he meets up with the mystery man. This man is quiet anxious and seems to desperately want the drawer.
  • Mr Lanyon gave him the drawer. Now, the man warned Mr Lanyon that what was about to happen was of a strange nature and that it was recommended he left.
  • Mr Lanyon stayed. Now the man started to mix the powders and the liquid in the phial together. He bow drank it.
  • The once unknown man transformed into Dr Jekyll.
  • Mr Lanyon realised the mystery man was Mr Hyde, which meant, Dr Jekyll was a murderer.

Chapter Summary: The Last Night

  • Poole arrives at Mr Utterson’s house fearing that Dr Jekyll had been murdered.
    “I think there’s been foul play,” said Poole, hoarsely.”
  • Mr Utterson arrives at the house and finds out that Dr Jekyll has tried to order a drug from a pharmacy on the other side of the city.
    “The drug is bitterly sought after”
  • Mr Utterson and Poole find out it’s Hyde in the room; they break down the door.
    “Ah, that’s not Jekyll’s voice–it’s Hyde’s!” cried Utterson. “Down with the door, Poole!”
  • Once they enter the room they see Hyde committed suicide; no trace of Jekyll is found.
    “Right in the middle there lay the body of a man sorely contorted and still twitching. They drew near on tiptoe, turned it on its back and beheld the face of Edward Hyde.” “Or he may have fled,” said Utterson, and he turned to examine the door in the by-street. It was locked; and lying near by on the flags, they found the key, already stained with rust.”

Incident Of The Letter

  • Mr Utterson goes to speak and asks Dr Jekyll if he has heard about the murder Mr Hyde committed. ” ‘And now’, said Mr Utterson,…,’you have heard the news?’ “
  • Dr Jekyll swears that he has not made contact or seen Mr Hyde, however he admits that Mr Hyde has tried to make contact with him. ” ‘Utterson, I swear to God,’ cried the doctor, ‘I swear to God I will never set eyes on him [ Mr Hyde]’
  • … but there is on thing…I have received a letter.”
  • Mr Utterson then leaves Dr Jekyll’s house and as he is leaving asks Dr Jekyll’s servant if he say the messenger of the letter, however, the servant says there has been no messenger arrive at the house with a letter. ” ‘There was a letter handed in today: what was the messenger like?’… but Poole was confident nothing had come except the post.”
  • Mr Utterson then tells Mr Guest, his servant, about this mysterious ocurrence, Mr Guest then compared the letter Mr Utterson had in hand to and old letter of Dr Jekyll; the hand writing was identical.” ‘Well sir’, returned the clerk, ‘… the two hands are in many point identical: only differently sloped
  • Mr Utterson now feared the Dr Jekyll was covering for, the muderer, Mr Hyde. ” ‘ Henry Jekyll forged for a murderer!’ “