“It is easier to love humanity than to love one’s neighbour (Anonymous)”

Summary

In the Toronto Star article “Many Canadians are made to feel like strangers in their homeland”, Shellene Drakes has touched on a sore subject of racial discrimination, as well as the impact of the term ‘visible minority’ on people of colour.  The reporter concentrated on the experiences and feelings of three Canadians of different ethnic descents.  The heroines of the article have a lot in common: all of them are females of the same age group, all of them were born and raised in Canada, and most importantly, all of them belong to visible minorities.  Their experiences are, however, different.  Shellene Drakes pointed out that the blacks, especially of Caribbean descent, do not share the same feeling of belonging as the Indians (from India) and the Chinese.  The reporter mentioned imperfection of Canadian educational programs in history, which failed to recognize the contribution of people of colour to the historical and economical development of Canada.  Nevertheless, Shellene ended her article on an optimistic note by saying that contemporary Canadian society is becoming more acceptable of different races and nationalities.  This fact might bring about the day when we will not ask each other the usual question, “Where are you from?”

Analysis

Even though, the article by Shellene Drakes does not provide an in-depth analysis of the subject, it touches on quite a few sociological issues, such as systemic discrimination of visible minorities, – especially of blacks, – multiculturalism as a defining characteristic of Canada, Canadian identity, and the globalization of today’s world.  The article can be analyzed from the symbolic interactionists’ point of view, as it focuses on the experiences and feelings of three different people.  The looking-glass self theory of Charles Horton Cooley can provide sufficient explanation of why the black lady Dayo Kefentse internalized the prejudice of white Canadians against the blacks, and how it became part of herself.  She is offended by the innocuous question “Where are you from?”, because she perceives it as an implication that she is either not a Canadian or not quite enough of a Canadian.  The prejudice against blacks has such a long history in Canada that, unfortunately, it has become now part of blood and flesh of the whites. One of my classmates (a white Canadian) said quite a mouthful that he sees difference between systemic and individual discrimination is that one is logical and the other is not.  The significance of this can hardly be overestimated because it shows that this person is completely unaware of how little the idea of racial discrimination has to do with logic.  As a matter of fact, prejudice and discrimination are neither logical nor rational, and this is exactly why it is extremely difficult for minorities to surmount them.

The author of the article and all the three heroines confirmed that Canada’s pattern of intergroup relations was multiculturalism.  “People wear their cultures on their sleeves here”, says Sehrab Grewal.  Multiculturalism is very favourable for recent immigrants, because they do not have to strip their ethnic identity right away.  They do not have to cut all their roots and ties the moment they land in Canada.  On the other hand, for the children of the immigrants, multiculturalism provides an opportunity to decide for them to what extent to maintain their original ethnic identity or not to maintain it at all, and become a Canadian instead.  Out of the three ladies, two were able to identify themselves as Canadians.  What is Canadian identity after all?  It makes sense (at least to me), to determine the national identity of a person by that person’s culture.  If an individual was born in Canada, and raised in Canadian culture; if he/she lives in Canada, speaks English or French and most importantly does not speak the language of his/her ancestors; if he/she does not share the cultural values, and does not breathe the same air with the people of his/her ancestry (speaking both literally and figuratively), then he or she is a Canadian.  Then there is no need to look at skin colour or eye shape, or calculate the blood percentage that you inherited from your parents, grandparents and so on and so forth.  Or if your last name (for the sake of argument, let’s say Kovacs) is neither British nor French, should it make you less of a Canadian then?

Although defining ethnicity by culture sounds quite reasonable, it does not eliminate grounds for discrimination.  After all, the original and first meaning of the word ‘discrimination’ is ‘the act of making or recognizing the differences and distinctions’.  It does not have a derogatory nuance to it.  Rather it describes an essential characteristic of the human mind.  We, as human beings, cannot think without symbols.  We have to define everything that surrounds us.  If the definition of an object or an idea is incomplete, then we are no longer comfortable with it and we start adding modifiers (such as an adjective), or simply creating new words (terms, symbols).  This is exactly the reason why we came up with the term ‘visible minority’.  Currently, whether we like or not, Canadian means white.  If a Canadian does not happen to be white, then we need a hyphenated definition, such Afro-Canadian or Asian-Canadian.  In order to distinguish between whites – native born and immigrants, – sooner or later we can create the term ‘audible minority’.  Being an audible minority can easily transform you to an invisible minority, where people simply ignore you because you are a recent immigrant. (Why bother?  He/she is not one of us.)  To demonstrate that our creativity has no limits, let me give a couple of examples.  In the last 10-15 years, Russians created the term ‘person of a Caucasian nationality’. What is the reason for that?  We have no ability to tell between Armenian, Georgian, Chechen, Dahestan, Azerbaijani or other numerous Caucasian nationalities.  The best we can do is guess that a person is from Caucasus, hence the term.  This classification hurt a lot of people, especially those who only bear a resemblance (arguably, though), but in fact are not Caucasians at all.  In 1997, one of my relatives was mistaken for a Caucasian, was stopped by militia and brought to the militia station because he did not have his passport with him (note, that our passport contains a nationality record).  Knowing “the friendliness” of the Soviet militia, and being full of premonitions, the poor fellow died right there from a heart attack.  There is another incomparable socially constructed term Homo Sovietikus (compare with Homo Sapiens) used to describe the results of evolution of people under the Soviet regime.  Though it is a joke, but as in every joke there is a part of the truth in it.  Or rather the other way around – there is a part of the joke in every joke and the rest of it is the truth.  It is questionable, whether we will be able to eliminate discrimination in all of its aspects.  Again, retournons a nos moutons, your name can cause a question to pop up.  Let’s say, your name is Dieter Kramkowski.  How many people will be able to resist the temptation to attach a tag, either by simply guessing (hmm, Dieter must be German, no, hmm…Kramkowski must be Polish) or by asking the notorious question, “Where are you from?”

The final accord that closes the discussion in the article gives us a glimpse at the very important characteristic of today’s world – globalization.  No longer can we live in the shell of our own nationality, because it is a small world after all.  The immigration – emigration and migration processes have become an everyday reality for so many countries.  This trend shows that we have to learn to coexist in the multicultural continuum because the probability of our neighbour, colleague or friend being of our own nationality is decreasing every day.  However, the recent resurgence of xenophobia in Europe, Russia and also in Canada leaves very little space for optimism.  Often immigration only exacerbates the antagonism between in-groups and out-groups.  To a larger or lesser degree, we are all ethnocentric.  Will the era of cosmopolitanism ever come?  We are yet to see[1].

Many pairs of words imply each other. Finish implies complete, so completely finsish is redundant. So are many other pairs of words:

1. past memories

2. various differences

3. each individual

4. basic fundamentals

5. true facts

6. important essentials

7. future plans

8. sudden crisis

9. terrible tragedy

10. end result

11. final outcome

12. free gift

13. past history

14. unexpected surprise

Example: Before the travel agent was completely able to finish explaining the various differences between all of the many vacation packages her travel agency was offering, the customer changed his future plans.

Revised: Before the travel agent finished explaining the differences between the vacation packages her travel agency was offering, the customer changed his plans.

How to survive a stupid job

In his article “Stupid Jobs are Good to Relax With”, Hal Niedzviecki delivers a touching eulogy for part-time jobs that can provide you with just enough income for living and yet do not require a lot of effort and time on your part.  Despite popular belief, stupid jobs are an unhappy lot for many young educated Canadians.  Many students have to work in stupid jobs in the first place in order to be able to pay their tuition, which increases all the time.  However, when new graduates finally arrive at the workforce, they find that the “real” jobs are already taken by people of older generations.  Then left with little choice, these newly fledged specialists have to return to stupid jobs again.  For a person, who is overeducated for a stupid job, the author recommends developing some strategy in order to avoid disappointment and even keep his/her sanity.  Niedzviecki proposes a new “culture of anti-work”.  Do as little as possible, slack here and there, avoid responsibility, and the reward will be freedom of mind and revitalized creativity.  I agree with the author that a“culture of anti-work” is acceptable in some situations, but I think it has to be approached with great caution, and full awareness of its possible devastating consequences.

I agree that a “culture of anti-work” can be a good idea for students.  If they are lucky enough to find a “relaxing” job that does not require mental or physical exhaustion, yet brings enough money to pay the bills, I do not see a problem in not working very diligently for little pay.  For students, this “culture of anti-work” is not very likely to become second nature, because studying is their first priority, and it is a hard job.  However, I disagree with Niedzviecki that the strategy of “having no attitude” is a good idea when new graduates just land in the marshland of stupid jobs.  My friends and I went through the nightmare of having stupid jobs, and at that time I learned that what strategy you choose at the very beginning is crucial.  Before accepting this “culture of anti-work” – which signals admission of defeat – I would recommend that you try all possible ways to get out of this deplorable situation.  It is important because first of all stupid jobs are very degrading.  When I think back on my numerous stupid jobs I cannot remember any freedom of mind and hardly any surges of creativity but instead long-lasting depression and sheer detestation.  Stupid jobs are dangerous not only because they undermine self-esteem and engender feelings of worthlessness, but also they lead to acquiring learned helplessness.  Working outside the field of the acquired profession for a prolonged period of time “makes null and void” academic knowledge.  I always say that I am an engineer only by education, because I graduated from the university seven years ago and never worked as an engineer.  My professional knowledge has vanished thanks to stupid jobs.  The danger of relaxing in a stupid job recommended by Niedzviecki is that the process of degradation will occur at a higher speed.  I felt it myself, and I resisted it in every possible way.  I had the misfortune of seeing my friends giving in to “passivity” too soon.  It was especially heartbreaking to see the corrupting results of this passivity, because I knew that my friends did not lack ability and that there was hope for them.  After all, the advantage of higher education is that it provides enough knowledge and ability to approach a problem intelligently and find a solution.  It is a pity when people cannot make best of their intelligence.  If a second education is required, it is better to go for it, than to be stuck being a deliveryman with a diploma in French literature.  However, I understand that it is not always possible to overcome circumstances.  If nothing seems to work, no matter how hard you try, then it is better to accept the recommendations of Niedzviecki.  I agree that it will keep you sane.

“Culture of anti-work” is appropriate for students and for those who tried all possible combinations to find their way out of the realm of stupid jobs but failed.  It is never too late to take the path of least resistance, but it might be too late to win your way back to real jobs.  Therefore before giving up, it is better to try to change the situation which led you to having a stupid job.  Only if you cannot change the situation, then it might be wise to accept the philosophy of Niedzviecki and change your attitude.

Any of you who have been asked to produce a letter of recommendation might find yourselves wondering how to describe your subject’s less-than-sterling qualities.

Here are some phrases you might find useful.

It was given to me by Julian Craft, my instructor for ENGL 225 (Professional Writing) course at DeVry.

For an employee who is so unproductive that the job is better left unfilled:

“I can assure you that no person would be better for the job.”

For an employee with no ambition:

“He could not care less about the number of hours he had to put in.”

“You would indeed be fortunate to get this person to work for you.”

For a stupid employee:

“There is nothing you can teach a man like him.”

“I most enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no qualifications whatsoever.”

For a dishonest employee:

“Her true ability was deceiving.”

“He’s an unbelievable worker.”

For a employee who is not worth further consideration as a job candidate:

“I would urge you to waste no time in making this candidate an offer of employment.”

“All in all, I cannot say enough good things about this candidate or recommend him too highly.”

For the chronically absent:
”A man like him is hard to find.”

“”It seemed her career was just taking off.”

For the office drunk:

“I feel his real talent is wasted here.”

“We generally found him loaded with work to do.”

“Every hour with him was a happy hour.”

Decisions that I made:

1. Choice of first profession: 1986 – The Moscow State Technical University named after N. E. Baumann (in 1993 I received Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering (Major: Physical Metallurgy).

2. I chose to learn German: 1990 – 1992 – I spent a lot of time and effort – my skills were good, but I never used them.

3. I chose to get married: 1993.  We were married for 16 years and now we have a son who will turn 6 in August.  My inspiration – little Leo.

4. I chose to get pregnant: 2002 -  I did not have a job.

5. I chose to get second education: 1999 – I became a student at DeVry – Information Technology.  I received my Bachelor degree in 2002.

6. I decided to immigrate: 1995.  We landed in Toronto, Canada on March 4, 1997.  Now it has been 12 years.

7. When I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, I decided to get help MY Way.  The theory is “Crime and Punishment”.

Date:  Thu May 30 2002 11:55 pm

Author:  Bill

Subject:  Re: Counting Electric Sheep

——————————————————————————–

Thank you for your kind words, Svetlana.

You are correct; you did not say that fiction was useless! I did, however, get the impression that you had little use for science fiction. You are also correct that there are not any science fiction writers with the stature of Shakespeare. I will agree that there is a lot of pap out there. However, even as relatively young as the science fiction genre is, some “classics” are beginning to emerge. If you have not come across them, let me point you in their direction. The original “Foundation Trilogy” by Isaac Asimov is considered a classic, and was written in the 60’s and early 70’s I believe, and so does contain some dated outlooks. For instance, computers are not very prevalent in the trilogy, as Asimov had no way of knowing how pervasively computers would invade our lives.

I respect your decision that science fiction is not for you. Many works of science fiction are not for me, either. I pick and choose which ones I read, and I enjoy the selections I do make.

I, too, enjoyed Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. It was immensely funny, and I was disappointed that the library did not have the video version of it in stock, or that would have been my selection for the presentation.

If I may ask, from which book did you get your quote? It doesn’t sound like something I’m familiar with.

I agree as well with your last statement. I do not like gloom and doom, either. It is a chore for me to read books like that, because I do not enjoy them. It is one of the reasons I do not like Kurt Vonnegut’s style of writing.

Thank you for making me think, Svetlana.

Cheers!

Bill

——————————————————————————–

Current Forum:  Bonus Assignment Forum

Date:  Fri May 31 2002 9:35 am

Author: MIKE

Subject:  Re: Counting Electric Sheep

——————————————————————————–

I would just like to interject that the best science fiction starts out as quality fiction. It is the story that matters, and what makes great science fiction great is that the story could be moved to Victorian times and still be a great story. Science fiction serves simply as a backdrop to a good story. Poor science fiction is akin to movies that are big on special effects for the sake of the special effects. Good science fiction is like a film where the special effects are simply the icing on the cake.

Mike

——————————————————————————–

Current Forum:  Bonus Assignment Forum

Date:  Fri May 31 2002 9:58 am

Author: SVETLANA

Subject: Re: Counting Electric Sheep

——————————————————————————–

The book I quoted from is “Moscow 2042″. If you go to www.amazon.com it will let you even read about 12 pages of it. I think you would enjoy it even without knowing many of the references as I do simply because I know what exactly Voinovich makes fun of. It is about a possible scenario for the Soviet Union. Ironically, there would be a sort of Kutz at the end, but the immense sense humour of Voinovich makes it a great and pleasurable experience. You do not have to force yourself to finish the book, as I did with “Heart of Darkness”. And Voinovich never fails to make the point.

——————————————————————————–

Current Forum:  Bonus Assignment Forum

Date:  Sat Jun 8 2002 5:59 pm

Author: Vernon

Subject:  Re: Counting Electric Sheep

——————————————————————————–

Not to jump on the bandwagon, but I have to disagree with Svetlana on the merits of Science Fiction. Like BIll said, there are many books that are considered classics like Asimov’s Foundation and I, Robot series. They have stimulated the minds of thousands of children who went on to become some of the best scientific minds for that very reason. Science Fiction is also the first glimpse we get on what political and social issues may arise with the advent of new technologies and helps many people see the issues before they even become a problem in society.

Well-written science fiction is as stimulating and sometimes even more stimulating than many of the good fiction books out there. It allows us to not only visualise what we know today, but also perceive of a place that doesn’t exist. A place that could possibly become reality one day, for better or worse.

Like other fiction, there are a lot of works out there that are not worth reading. However there are as many titles in science fiction that have merit as there are in other fictional categories. You should give them a try.

——————————————————————————–

Current Forum:  Bonus Assignment Forum

Date:  Tue Jun 11 2002 10:07 pm

Author: SVETLANA

Subject:  Re: Counting Electric Sheep

——————————————————————————–

I agree with you and Bill and Mike. Mike probably put it the best that science fiction is only a backdrop for a good story like decorations for a stage play. And it is not the genre itself that makes it good or bad, but the talent of the author. Maybe, science fiction is a more difficult genre to succeed in because a writer needs a fertile imagination to make it interesting and substantial and not stupid and outdated in a few years after publication. Somehow, Philip K. Dick did not make it for me. Although I must admit that he hit on many good ideas worth of exploring. Too bad, he did not give himself enough time to develop those ideas more thoroughly.

But you know in light of our discussion of science fiction and literature in general, I came across the very interesting statistics. A couple of weeks ago, BBC (?) published the data that 40% of the population of Britain does not read books at all. And some 20% have not read a whole book (even once) in their whole life. I am quite positive that the same could be said about North America. So, soon the debate about literature in the “beer garden”, which I quoted, could be changed to saying that not only realism but also the whole literature is the thing of the past. It would not matter then, which genre is the best and what books are worth reading if they are not read at all.

Current Forum:  Bonus Assignment Forum

Date:  Thu May 30 2002 11:33 am

Author:  Bill

Subject:  Counting Electric Sheep

——————————————————————————–

P.K. Dick wrote this thing back in 1968. The world was a different place back then, with a different political and social climate. The cold war was at its height. The genre of science fiction was still trying to find its way. Many of today’s sci-fi fantasy authors write merely to entertain and for escapism, but back in the ’60’s, many Sci-Fi authors felt they had to convey some sort of social message in their works. The times, they were a changing, and all that.

By now, we’re pretty well familiar with some of the major issues that Dick was portraying in his novel. He wrote of the subjugation of an entire race of people. It was taken for granted back in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness that the Europeans were just inherently superior to the natives of Africa. That did not need to be explained. Likewise, in Dick’s novel, it is assumed that of course androids aren’t real people. But he still toyed with the idea that ok, they aren’t people like us, but they still go through the motions. I’m not sure that the message that Dick was trying to convey was that the androids were equal to humans, but more as a metaphor of attitudes that people have regarding their own humanity.

Today, people are more willing to see and accept a fuzzy area between intelligence in any form. We are having theoretic discussions about artificial intelligence, and if that constitutes a valid life form once it evolves to the point of self-awareness. The human race’s consciousness as a whole has progressed beyond what it was back in 1968, and is more able to accept certain ideas and concepts.

The evolution of ideas is what will define us as humans in the future, more so than the evolution of biology.

I leave you with perhaps the most memorable quote from the movie Blade Runner: “more than anything, shows that androids have Soul”.

I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

-Roy Baty

——————————————————————————–

Current Forum: Bonus Assignment Forum

Date:  Thu May 30 2002 6:48 pm

Author:  SVETLANA

Subject: Re: Counting Electric Sheep

——————————————————————————–

As for the equality between androids and humans, I thought they might be unequal in life, but they are certainly equal in death. Fear of death is their strongest emotion.

About science fiction (I am pretty positive that everyone will disagree), but I happen to like and agree with this excerpt:

“Rudi is so fascinated by all this technology that I don’t think he reads anything but technical journals and science fiction. He hasn’t even read my books, although he does display them prominently and always brags to his horse-world friends about having an unusual friend, a Russian writer.

He tells me (even without having read me) that I write too realistically, realism being the thing of the past. To be honest, such ridiculous opinions infuriate me, and I am always telling Rudi that his horses are also a thing of the past. But if some people still have need of horses, there still must be some use for a literature that depicts life as people really live it. People are much more interested in reading about themselves than about robots and Martians.

I had just said this to him in the beer garden where we were sitting. With a condescending grin, Rudi replied that we should compare the sales of my books with that of the average science-fiction writer. “Science fiction,” he said self-confidently, “is the literature of the future”.

That statement exasperated me. I ordered another mass and said that science fiction, like detective stories, is not literature but tomfoolery like the electronic games that induce mass idiocy.” (Voinovich, “Moscow 2042″)

——————————————————————————–

Current Forum: Bonus Assignment Forum

Date:  Thu May 30 2002 10:49 pm

Author:  Bill

Subject Re: Counting Electric Sheep

——————————————————————————–

Thanks for your response, Svetlana.

Now… Where to begin… First, I agree with your first statement about humans and androids being equal in death. And they do have a strong survival instinct. I’d say you’re right on the mark, there.

Regarding your next statement and quote concerning the uselessness of science fiction, I would have to strongly and completely disagree with that viewpoint. And no, it’s not just a knee-jerk response. I happen to believe that if you thought about it the right way, you too would come to see the value that fiction has in our society.

First, the person whom you are quoting… I don’t get the impression that he has read much of the science fiction that he chooses to so readily relegate to the Trash Heap of Useless Things.

Let me say a few things about fiction. Not just science fiction, but all fiction. Virtually all the great works of history and society are… you guessed it… fiction. If fiction was so useless, why has only it endured through the centuries when more “useful” things have not? Perhaps, then, it might not be that useless? Rarely can we have a conversation without some reference to literature of some sort. The English language is rife with phrases lifted directly from Shakespeare that even today are still in common use. Phrases like “something is rotten in the state of Denmark”, “pure as the driven snow”, “at one fell swoop”, “in the twinkling of an eye”, and the list goes on and on. How plain and poor would our language be today without the contributions of people like William Shakespeare?

Fiction has enabled our culture and many other cultures to attain a depth and richness that often is the only thing from that time period which endures. In ancient Greece, the Parthenon and other structures are in ruin. Yet, the ancient Greek tragedies are still performed for audiences all over the world. Homer’s The Odyssey and the Iliad are a part of every well-rounded library. In pre-Roman England, very little is known about the people that lived there or their culture. Yet from that time period, the epic ballad of Beowulf has endured.

Edgar Rice Burroughs, creator of such works as Tarzan and John Carter of Mars, has this to say about fiction, “highly imaginative fiction, such as I write, demands the retention of a youthful and elastic mind, to achieve which one of my principal aims in life is to keep my body physically fit and my mind responsive to a diversity of simple stimuli.”

Or, to quote someone a little more modern, according to renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, “science fiction is useful both for stimulating the imagination and for diffusing fear of the future.” Interest in science fiction may affect the way people think about or relate to science.

Fiction, and by extension science fiction, is not useless. There is value to be had. I enjoy the journey my mind takes to far off worlds and universes that I could not have begun to imagine on my own… To feel my mind stretching as it wrapped itself around a concept that had never before occurred to me. As existing social issues were displayed to me in a new light, and my understanding of them deepened as a result. As I became less aloof from the humanity about me and came to understand and even love the diversity the people I interact with each day.

I would never say that “mere fiction” is useless. It has real value, and ultimately, as history has proven time and time again… Perhaps the only enduring value.

You can’t discover new oceans until you are willing to lose sight of the shore…

All the best!

Bill

 

What makes it so unique? … the fact that Remarque does not spoon-feed his reader page by page with ready-made attitudes, but leaves him to draw his own conclusions from the book.

from “Die Welt am Montag”

(quoted in Barker and Last, page 38)

Introduction

Erich Maria Remarque’s “All Quiet on the Western Front” is a book about German soldiers at World War I.  When the war broke out, the whole class of schoolboys joined the Army a few months prior to their official draft date.  These young boys are swept away with the patriotic rhetoric and cannot wait to go and fight for their country.  They are so engulfed by war romanticism that all they can dream about is uniform, victories, glory, popularity with the weaker sex and all other nonsense that used to portray the war in the most attractive way.  Although the infatuation with war decreases during their training days in the camp, a bitterest disillusionment is yet to come.  When the boys are sent to the front, they realize that war is nothing but mud, pain and death.  The story is told in the first person by the main character and protagonist, Paul Baumer.  It is important to notice, however, that the narrative is told from “I” as frequently as from “we” to emphasize the collective nature of the war experiences.

Erich Maria Remarque had the first hand experience of the war: he was a young soldier on the Western front.  And he wrote “All Quiet on the Western Front” because “he had […] been suffering from serious bouts of depression, the underlying cause of which remained a mystery…” (Barker and Last, page 33).

It was through these deliberate acts of self-analysis that I found my way back to my war experiences.  I could observe a similar phenomenon in many of my friends and acquaintances.  The shadow of war hung over us, especially when we tried to shut our minds to it.  The very day this thought struck me, I put pen to paper, without much in the way of prior thought.  (Erich Maria Remarque as quoted in Barker and Last, page 33).

The novel begins with such words:

This book is to be neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it.  It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells, were destroyed by the war.  (Remarque, page 6).

The major theme of the novel is futility and senselessness of war.  Remarque offers such a graphic portrayal of war horrors that it seems unfathomable why people still engage in such activities.  Why two countries have to send their men to kill each other when all they want is to live in peace.  When Paul seeks forgiveness from the French soldier that he killed, he says: “Forgive me, comrade.  We always see it too late.  Why do they never tell us that you are poor devils like us, that your mothers are just as anxious as ours, and that we have the same fear of death, and the same dying and the same agony – Forgive me, comrade; how could you be my enemy?” (Remarque, page 191).

For all the clarity, immediacy, authenticity and convincingness of the major theme of the novel, it is not very simple.  Remarque was blamed for all sins possible: misrepresentation, misconduct, desecration of the war and its heroes, partiality, emotional imbalance and pacifism.  The book was treated as a political manifesto, which it was not, and was banned in Germany in 1930 and was publicly burnt by Nazis in 1933.  (Barker and Last)

The novel was published in 1929 and soon after in 1930 the film “All Quiet on the Western Front” followed, which was a faithful adaptation of the novel.  “The landmark, epic film, made on a large-scale budget of $1.25 million, was a an Academy Award winner for best Picture and Best Director (Lewis Milestone).  […]  It was a critical and financial success, and probably the greatest of pacifist, anti-war films …” (Dirks).

Being a faithful adaptation of the novel, the film manages to convey the major theme very skillfully.  The film seems to be very realistic and authentic.  Of course, the film cannot include all of the details of the book, so there are some modifications of the original that do not distort the main message.  However, the major difference between the novel and the film is that the film does not offer such graphical portrayal of the unspeakable war horrors as the novel.  The only episode where we see such detail is the hands of a French soldier hanging on the wire.  Another difference is that the film tries to compensate the lack of descriptiveness that we see in the novel by adding more action that characters take.  For instance, in the novel, Paul never delivers a “Peace speech”, yet it does not distort Remarque’s themes because Paul’s speech is consistent with his character.

Language and Grammar of Film

In the most dramatic battle scene which helps immensely to convey the meaning of Remarque’s work there are two distinct uses of the camera: both high angle and low angle.  The battleground is being shown from the high angle: we see soldiers from both sides running around like crazy and the impression is unmistakable that they all are helpless and doomed.  They die en masse.  But soldiers are both victims and death instruments, for death is not only inflicted by inanimate objects such as shells, but also by the hands of soldiers themselves.  In order to convey this duality, the director alternates the use of high and low angles when showing individual soldiers.  We see death from the high angle when one soldier stabs another and the next scene the same content (different people) shown from the low angle.

In one of the most significant sequences, when Paul stabbed a French soldier, Gerard Duval, with a bayonet, but failed to kill him to completely, the alternate use of high and low angles is most remarkable.  Unable to escape from the shell-hole and unwilling to finish the dying man, Paul is suffering from the bouts of guilt and self-accusation.  The scene is shot from the low angle, where the French soldier lies elevated above Paul, who pressed himself against Gerard boots and implores for forgiveness.  Given the low angle, the body of Gerard fills most of the screen and he is the mute and unbearable accusation for Paul.  When Gerard finally dies and Paul gets a chance to escape, the angle changes.  Gerard is no longer important, he is just a corpse lying in mud, and for Paul, looking from above, he is small and insignificant and this experience has to be put behind.

Mise en scene

Since one of the major themes of “All Quiet on the Western Front” is comradeship, there is frequent use of circular arrangements of figures on the screen.  The distance between soldiers is shortened in comparison with what we would normally expect the friends to keep between each other.  Soldiers are often in the intimate zone of each other, holding hands, embracing and protecting each other.  In the scene, when Paul Baumer comforts his dying friend Franz Kemmerich, he puts his face against Franz’s with almost motherly tenderness and this scene looks very authentic and heart-rending.

There are also a number of motifs in the film, as well as in the novel itself.  One of them –a butterfly– was used very skillfully.  Paul used to collect butterflies in his childhood and they represented to him peace and beauty of the world that only existed prior to the war.  At the end of the film, as the war is almost over, Paul was sitting in a trench and saw a butterfly.  He reached for it as if it were the personification of coming peace and at this moment a French sniper shot him.

Editing

The director used a chronological order in the film as opposed to the novel, where Remarque used flashbacks.  However, there was moment in the film that provides logical correlation between the beginning and the end.  It was used to connect the scene where the boys went to the front line for the first time and the scene of the epilogue.  “The young men, marching in a column, look back (with a haunting, sad look) at the retreating vehicle that brought them there” (Dirks).  They all turn back one by one clinging to their escaping past and terrified of their nebulous future.  They do not know what awaits them, but we can see on their faces that they are not optimistic.  In the epilogue, the same scene is superimposed with the view of a cemetery covered as far as you could see with simple sepulchral crosses.  This artistic touch makes a very strong emotional impression and very effective conclusion of the film.  There, where the soldiers are going, the only thing they will meet is Death.

Cross-cutting is used in the film very skillfully, especially in the major battle sequence.  The action takes place simultaneously, the French attack, the Germans try to defend their lines, then the situation changes — now the Germans attack, and the French are on the run.  The director used shots separately first to depict one side and then the other to separate visually two major forces in the battle.  Often, cross-cutting is used to separate and at the same time to connect logically the event and the emotional reaction to it which helps add more expressive impact.  “When one of the [French] soldiers is annihilated by a hand grenade upon approaching some barbed wire, only his hands are left, oddly still gripping the wire.  Paul turns away in disgust, recoiling at the unspeakable horror” (Gee).  The remaining hands and Paul’s reaction are shown in separate shots thus focusing audience’s attention equally on both events and connecting them logically together.

Conclusion

The screen version is a true adaptation of the novel, which was done masterfully.  I believe that faithful adherence to Remarque’s novel together with the talent of the director and the star performances of the film cast make the film watchable even today.

However, I believe that the book has a much stronger emotional impact on readers.  So, my recommendation would be to read the book first and then watch the film.  And better yet, read the whole trilogy, comprised of “All Quiet on the Western Front”, “The Road Back”, and “Three Comrades”.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“All Quiet on the Western Front.”  June 3, 2002  <http://www.allmovieguide.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=A1579>

Barker, Chirstine R., and R.W. Last.  Erich Maria Remarque.  London: Oswald Wolff, 1979.

Dirks, Tim.  “All Quiet on the Western Front.”  May 27, 2002  <http://www.filmsite.org/allq.html>

Gee, Rick.  “The Great Anti-War Films.  All Quiet on the Western Front.”  May 27, 2002  <http://www.lewrockwell.com/org/gee5.html>

Remarque, Erich M.  “All Quiet on the Western Front.”  Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1987.

Often the settings are locations of transience, like grubby rented rooms, piers, bus terminals, and railroad yards. The images are rich in sensuous textures, like neon-lit streets, windshields streaked with mud, and shafts of light streaming through windows of lonely rooms.

Characters are imprisoned behind ornate lattices, grillwork, drifting fog and smoke. Visual designs emphasize harsh lighting contrasts, jagged shapes, and violated surfaces, the tone of film noir is fatalistic and paranoid. It’s suffused with pessimism, emphasizing the darker aspects of the human condition. Its themes characteristically revolve around violence, lust, greed, betrayal, and depravity. (Taken from DeVRy Literature Course, author unknown)

So, back to writing.  I already took some courses at DeVry Institute of Technology, in particular.  Even though, my specialty was computers (Information Technology), I had to take general educations courses.  That included writing.  So, there.  Checkmark.