picture credit: Samiran Chowdhury

2022 was an interesting year for many reasons. One such reason that had the entire world hooked was the infamous Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial, which became a prime example of toxic relationships. Of course, anytime that we have a controversial matter at hand, the jury on the internet never fails to present their “woke” point of view. MUSE decided that it was important to use this issue as a window to reflect different forms of toxicity using a woke lens that exist both in literature and outside of literature. Six subeditors of MUSE have decided to present their perspectives below. null

Toxicity amongst Friends and Family: Entitlement

Kashphia Mimoza

Entitlement, the belief that someone is automatically deserving of special privileges, the assumption that they deserve special treatment and should not be questioned about it. A feeling that screams “I deserve it!” or “It belongs to me!”. 

Social media has captured many occurrences of especially bad cases of entitled people. Videos of entitled parents or especially spoiled children demanding they have their own way are not too uncommon. They often spread virally with people mocking their terrible behavior. In the west, women who display such toxicity have been mockingly named “Karens”, with hordes of people in online forums complaining about the “Karens” of their personal lives. People often associate such entitled behavior with these viral “Internet stars”, yet regular people living out their daily lives could display the same level of toxicity unknowingly as well.

Toxic behavior arising amongst close friends or family isn’t unheard of, but some examples are perhaps a bit hard to recognize. An example would be forceful invitations. Everyone has that one person in their lives that loves making plans for the whole group, whether they be a friend or a family member. As it is often claimed, Bengalis are a social lot and enjoying social events with loved ones are an integral part of our lives. In the spirit of friendliness, people can get carried away when inviting others to hang out in group meetings. Some don’t even think to ask, and automatically assume that anyone will absolutely come to their invitation! But what about the one being invited? Expecting people to show up regardless of their plans is also entitlement. People have their own lives and do not owe others special attention. It is important to keep that in mind when inviting others, as invitations are supposed to be a request, not a demand.

Entitlement is also present when giving unsolicited advice. Some people, especially some family members may think they have the right to poke their nose into their relative’s current affairs. While it is normal to be curious or show concern for a troubled member of the family, expecting him or her to fully open up about their troubles no matter what is unrealistic. Even more unrealistic is expecting them to follow every advice given, yet this occurs more often than not. People are not robots, and at times, even when given the supposedly “best solutions” to the problems they deal with, they may not be able to follow through. Unsolicited advice is also often associated with the elderly, but can come from members of the family belonging to the younger generation. Perhaps younger ones feel they have more knowledge on modern matters, including those related to technology or social media. Nonetheless, unsolicited advice can come from youth as well and they are just as capable of being entitled.

It is the nature of some people to be incredibly selfless; it comes natural to them. These kind-hearted individuals can always be found happy to help others in need. Sharing gives them joy and their kindness is loved by all. However, at times, the kindness of these people can be taken for granted by others. Other people may be led to believe that they automatically deserve their special treatment. This could lead to a toxic relationship between friends forming, as one person only gives and other only demands. Entitled behavior of this category can be hard to solve, as saying no to other might be difficult for especially soft-hearted individuals. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge and respect limits. A person can grow exhausted from serving others all the time, especially those who take their help for granted. Especially entitled individuals might lash out when not given what they believe they deserve. In cases like this, it is important to immediately acknowledge the toxicity of the situation and to take a stance against it. Only through respecting one’s boundaries and appreciating the kindness of others can a healthy friendship truly blossom.

At the end of the day, entitlement is yet another human flaw that many of us may come to possess. It is impossible for any person to become perfect, but by recognizing our flaws and toxic behaviors, as well as by respecting boundaries can we hope to improve as people and strengthen our relationships with the ones we hold dear.

Shakespeare’s Portrayal of Wokeness through Shylock’s Character in The Merchant of Venice

Sanzida Alam

Shylock is a popular figure in William Shakespeare’s 16th-century play The Merchant of Venice. The Jewish moneylender – Shylock is a tragic character who is well known for his brutality and cruelty in asking for “a pound of flesh” from Antonio’s body as collateral against Antonio’s loan. Even though Shylock is commonly treated as the antagonist of the play or a character that has excessive arrogance and hubris; Shakespeare’s intention of building Shylock’s character in such an exotic manner could be because Shakespear wanted to address the “woke culture” through Shylock’s character. The word “woke” has become a very popular word in the 21st century– that refers to being alert or having a sense of awareness against injustice, discrimination, oppression, and most importantly racial prejudice. Shylock throughout the play is shown to have a desire of seeking revenge on Christians because of the way he has been treated by the Christian people. Shylock’s desire of seeking revenge can be considered an act of “wokeness” towards all the maltreatment and injustice that he had received from the people in his society –making him one of the most complex and controversial characters of Shakespeare’s play. 

Shylock represents how a person can turn out when they are continuously oppressed and treated with unfairness – just because they belong to a group minority– that follows a different religion than the majority of the people. Shylock faces an extreme form of racism– to be more specific– anti-Semitism. Throughout the play, Shylock is continuously addressed as a “Jew” by all the people and not by his real name; in such a tone as if the word “Jew” represents all the misfortune and filthy things in the world. At the very beginning of the play in Act 1, Scene 3 it is stated how Antonio has mistreated Shylock in the past. Furthermore, Shylock also informs the reader that Antonio has addressed Shylock as a “misbeliever and cutthroat dog” and had “spitted upon his Jewish Gabardine” (1.3. 107-108). The only reason why Shylock is mistreated in such a manner is solely because he is Jewish in a community filled with Christian people. Antonio’s spitting on Shylock simply portrays how Shylock was continuously disrespected and exploited by the people. So when Antonio takes a huge amount of money from Shylock and fails to pay back the loan in the given period– shylock as compensation asks for a pound of Antonio’s fresh flesh. 

The way in which Shylock reacted or asked for a pound of human flesh may seem irrational and inhuman; but it represents how Shylock gave his answer to all the disrespect, mistreatment, and insults that he had received over the past years. Shylock was “woke” in other words, aware of the social and religious discrimination that he received from the people. Therefore, to seek revenge for all the ill-treatment and injustice he acts in a way that seems very inappropriate. Furthermore, Shylock still experiences racial prejudice at the end of the play during the court scene where the Duke himself calls Shylock an “inhuman wretch” (4.1.4) for asking for a human’s flesh; without having no idea of the treatment that Shylock has been receiving from Antonio or the people in the society. Shylock in fact was looked down upon by all the people that were present in the courts – an indication once again of how the people of the “majority” dominate or oppress the people of the “minority”. 

In The Merchant of Venice, it may seem that Shakespeare has portrayed Shylock as someone who is materialistic and driven by his desire of seeking revenge against Christian people. However, the way Shylock rebelled against everyone in the court at the end of the play also indicates he was aware and “woke” of the mistreatment and racism that he received from the people. Even Though Shylock’s demand was not very appreciable, and acceptable, but perhaps William Shakespear means to invite the audience to feel the opposite. Maybe he wanted to deliver the message to his audience that extreme oppression, injustice, and discrimination for a long time may result in the “woke” of a person – and just like Shylock–they may lose their sanity while making sure they receive what is called “Justice”. 

That toxic guy at Hogwart

Nusrat Fatimah Islam Maha

There are several characters that we all read in books that are toxic, especially within the DEH department. Some characters’ toxic traits are clear, while others have more hidden traits. However, some characters’ toxic traits are even forgotten or ignored, and the character becomes celebrated despite their toxicity. One such character is Severus Snape or better known as Professor Snape from Harry Potter.

The wizarding world of Harry Potter is something we all had entwined into our childhood and teen years, either from the book series or the movie franchise. It is a phenomenon that is known globally and has been translated into hundreds of languages for reading across the globe with beloved characters. One such beloved character is the character of Professor Snape, who plagued the thought of every child who had faced a strict teacher. However, eventually, he became a character known for his bravery and sacrifice in the end.

The character of Professor Snape has atrocious traits that have been clearly ignored due to the ending, but some of these traits will be discussed. At the beginning of this beloved series, Snape is introduced as a harsh, straight-to-the-point, and strict teacher in the first book (The Philosopher’s Stone). He enjoys undermining children and humiliating them in class, particularly highlighted is his relationship with Harry in the first book where he is seen as nothing short of a bully. To perhaps extract the beginning of his toxic traits, we should journey back to his childhood.

Severus Snape was born to a pureblood family (a family where everyone has magic). However, his experience at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is not the most pleasant despite his ‘pureblood’ title. He was born to a poor family and was constantly picked on by other children for his hand-me-down robes and his worn books (as seen by Harry in the visions within ‘The Order of the Phoenix). He particularly gets picked on by Harry Potter’s father, James Potter and even publicly humiliated. Now, usually, victims of bullying become empathetic to seeing others in the same position but not Snape. One part of Snape that is highlighted is his relationship with Lilly Evans, later to become Lilly Potter. Snape and Lilly were close during their first year, as they were both cast out as social pariahs and hidden between the lines of the book was his love for her. Contrastingly, as they drift apart during their growing years at Hogwarts, Snape hurls insults at Lilly, calling her mud blood, a derogatory term for those who do not have magical blood within their families, and thus, ending their friendship.

As he grew older, he became hostile and downright murderous as he willingly chose to join the antagonist’s bloodthirsty gang or otherwise known as the ‘Death Eaters’ led by Voldemort. The Death Eaters took pleasure in hunting weaklings for sport and found enjoyment in torturing ‘mud blood’ (witch or wizard whose family is not magical). As mentioned previously, his love for Lilly remained during his loyal years to Voldemort, during which time he murdered and tortured as he wished. The only time we’re shown his true regret is when Lilly & James Potter are murdered by his boss, but the source from which Voldemort had deduced who’s family to kill had come from none other than Snape himself. This leaves us to wonder, how much of his regret came from love and how much of it came from guilt?

Once he comes to Dumbledore (the headmaster of Hogwarts at the time) to try to step in and stop Voldemort from killing Lilly, it had already been too late. Upon the murder of Lilly and James Potter, Voldemort himself had been vanquished as well. Dumbledore offers Snape a job as Potions Master within Hogwarts, where, it seems his guilt for being the reason Lilly and James died didn’t get in the way of taking revenge upon Harry for what his father had done to him during his own childhood. Such behaviours from an adult, should not be tolerated no matter the circumstance. Especially, if those adults are our teachers who are supposed to encourage their students and push them towards greatness, not push them towards ridicule.

As the plot thickens, Snape is constantly seen to pick favourites within his own House of Slytherin (there are four houses the students are sorted into during their first year based on their personality traits). One of such moments where he ridicules his students is seen when he bullies Hermoine Granger (one of Harry’s best friends) as a favoured student of his and uses a hex on her to make her front two teeth larger than they already were. Instead of calling out his students, he took the opportunity to tell her that he ‘saw no difference’ in her teeth causing the girl to be reduced to tears. Another such instance is when during the book ‘The Prisoner of Azkaban’ where a creature called the boggart can turn into someone’s worst nightmare, and one student, Neville Longbottom’s boggart turned into Professor Snape. This shows how far the fear of him was rooted in his students. These are just a few of the instances where he behaved atrociously with his students.

By the end of the book, he had re-joined Voldemort’s army as they grew more powerful and his lasting ‘bravery’ wasn’t shown until the end of the book when he showed Harry he had been working as a double agent for Dumbledore the whole time. Due to this scene, he is celebrated as a hero.

To conclude, a lasting moment of heroism does not excuse the years of mental trauma he caused his students and his friends. His own acts lead to the death of Lilly and James Potter. His actions caused absolute fear and anxiety among his students. Therefore, Severus Snape is an example of a character, whom, we celebrate despite his excessive toxic traits.

Should Arts Be Punished for Artists’ Sins?

Isra Tahiya Islam

In the wake of #MeToo movement, when many activists called for a boycott of Roman Polanski’s films, the American critic and feminist Camille Paglia, responded to that in an article published in the Hollywood times,

“Great art has often been made by bad people. So what? Expecting the artist to be a good person was a sentimental canard of Victorian moralism, rejected by the “art for art’s sake” movement led by Charles Baudelaire and Oscar Wilde.”

This statement, quite predictably, ruffled some feathers as many believed such a comment not only glorifies “badness” in artists but also sets the notion that “badness” is required to give birth to great art. Setting such a notion, however, was, most likely, not Paglia’s intention. But it certainly rekindled the age-old debate of whether or not one should treat art for art’s sake, amplifying the chaos of “Cancel Culture” in the background. 

Arts often being the means of the artists’ commercial profit, fame, and honor makes it difficult to keep consuming them without contributing to any of these factors. Hence, an overwhelming amount of people vehemently oppose the idea of evaluating art separately from the artist, demanding that an artist must have a “clean record” in order to have their art appreciated.

While renouncing the art to prevent the artist from having any access to the gains he avails from it has a solid logical ground, the demand of sainthood from them, however, is rather too idealistic. Such expectations inevitably mystify and idolize creative individuals to an extent that only makes one lose touch with the blatant reality that artists are mere humans- an amalgam of good and evil- very much flawed and certainly not above human follies. 

The idea of creative people being these mythical creatures- the epitome of value and morals, ironically, empowers them to exploit their genius. This is one of the many reasons why the process of shattering the disbelief and disregard around the misdeeds of these “creative evils” and bringing them to justice is complicated and lengthy. And demystifying these figures is, therefore, essential to hold them accountable for what they have done as well as to make the attempts to isolate them from their art.

There is no denying the fact that Pablo Neruda was both one of the greatest poets of all time and a rapist. One cannot run away from the reality that Picasso was the same man who revolutionized the course of art with his approach to Cubism, and a misogynist with a desire to “burn” all the women that came into his life. We neither can pretend to unsee this darkness in them nor can we deprive the world of the light that their arts radiate. The world must face these unpleasant paradoxes as they are. 

The rapist Neruda should have been condemned and confronted, not his poetry. Hatred is what the misogynist Picasso deserves but not his art. We must acknowledge these abhorrent faces of these creative minds’ and destroy the mystic aura that protects these people from facing consequences for their misdeeds. But we should also come to terms with the fact that the art that they created was more often than not an attempt to escape- sometimes, even from themselves. 

When that art was shared with the world it became an escape for many more. If we refuse them that escape, if we refuse the separation of the sinless creation from its unholy creator, it perhaps will be a greater punishment for the world than the artist himself- for a burning candle that defeats the darkness and must not be extinguished. 

The toxic circle of life: toxic societal mindset

Sumaiya Swati Udita

We all know what toxicity is, or toxic behavior is, right? It is the type of unsettling behavior that makes one suffocated, unwanted, uncomfortable and pessimistic within the space they are in. situations can get even worse, if the space an individual is occupying is a larger space like the society, where one is the most vulnerable to hearing destructive comments, and prone to attacks of the hurtful behavior of unrelated members of the society, who literally trespass into those individuals’ lives and hindering their mental peace for no good reason. There are several instances present in front of us, where members of the society show symptoms of toxicity, instilled into their mindsets, in our everyday lives.

One such example includes, “if others can do it, then why can you not do it?”. This is one common question that everyone has to hear, at least one in their life. It seems like, without this question, our lives shall remain incomplete. A person does not have the same favorable condition in their lives. No one can predict what will happen now and a few moments later. Even though many people say that they find strength and inspiration from such questions, it cannot be said that this question can be asked every time someone is unable to accomplish something. For some, this question is equally potential in destroying them from the inside. They may feel helpless instead. Not everyone has the equal capacity to endure these words, find strength or be inspired by them. Such a question arises, when individuals are compared and contrasted with each other in a society by their friends, family members, colleagues, etc. It is very likely for those people asking this question, to be judgemental as well. Question of this te resent the judgemental attitude we hold against people we do not even know.

Another extremely common problem that has become prevalent is peoples’ unaccepting attitude towards their flaws. Whenever someone tries to point out one’s flaw to them out of goodwill, the person at fault misunderstands it and blames the other person, instead. Thus, the other person is made to feel guilty for their attempt to rectify and they often have to apologize instead. The person at fault would try to establish their excuse by hook or crook, and insult people and put their prestige into test instead. Furthermore, these people would try to play the victim and burden others with their difficulties. As a result, the truth is never fully able to come to light. These sort of people can also be very selfish and manipulative, and they can do anything in order to serve their purposes.

One more issue that has become very common is people measuring other people’s problems against their own and presenting their problem as the bigger one, which needs to be prioritized at first. As a result, it creates a feeling of void inside people’s mind and they begin to think that their problems never matter to anybody. They are made to feel alone and helpless, again, similar to the situations mentioned above. They feel that there is nobody to help them to solve their problems, and the will have to deal with the situation, with no one’s support for them.

An eternal problem that is yet to be solved is the gender role pressed on the individuals by the society. Society has its own toxic way of making sure that each individual is maintaining this so-called “code of conduct”. We have our own misconceptions, regarding a man’s “job” and a woman’s “job”. Women are always expected to take care of the household chores alone, while men are exeted to enter some tiresome job and earn money for their family, without any need for emotional support. Needless to say that the same is expected in case of women- that they can manage everything alone, without the support of others. If anybody is seen getting out or beyond this gender role, we promptly chastise them, and teach them their lessons, although we have no right to do it, nor are we entitled to this “job” of ours.  We cannot come to terms with the fact that we can exchange our roles “at times of trouble”, and help each other in doing these jobs, without making them feel helpless and worthless.

The last but not the least- poking hurtful jokes at others and not being able to accept the comeback. This is one serious issue that takes in any sort of relationship- be it within family, friends, colleagues, peers, etc. Making insensitive comments seems like a smarter approach to many, but when they are met with an even sharper reply, a fight arises. These comments simply show how low one can stoop.

Therefore, we must be aware of words and works, before executing them. Choosing the right words may not always be possible for us, but sometimes, it is rather better to be quiet than displaying misconduct from our sides. Supporting always does not require action; letting others speak and listening to what they have to say is a far effective deed.

Why are the Male Characters in Narayan’s The Guide so toxic!?

Afrida Lubaba Khan

Unsupportive and unpleasant behavior, as well as being manipulative, critical, demanding, and self-centered, are all attributes of toxicity. Toxicity is a thing that comes with the mindset of gaining something or an object ‘by hook or by crook.’ An object could be a trophy, award, or some sort of achievement, that most people would do anything and everything to get and after having that within their reach, that person loses his/her interest in that desired thing. In the case of R.K. Narayan’s The Guide, the trophy itself is Rosie. The competitors are Raju himself and Marco, who is holding the trophy as it seems. In the novel, there are several scenes and indications that thoroughly showcase their toxicity in misogynistic behavior.  

In the novel, Rosie comes from a family of temple dancers. Her mother had given her the chance to pursue formal education and she became an Economics postgraduate degree. Rosie’s education and beauty made her way to marry Marco, academic excellence, and a wealthy bachelor from a privileged background. Hence, a woman’s value is determined by her beauty. Marco views Rosie as a trophy that must complete all of his requests without complaint and at the appropriate times. Later she becomes an object for sexual gratification and a money generation machine for Raju. 

Marco, in the novel, is quintessential of hostile sexism. He viewed bringing his wife to work as “fooling around and wasting time.” (Narayan, 73) Rosie was never recognized and appreciated by Marco. As Rosie had become the wife of a so-called “prestigious man,” he had forbidden Rosie from dancing and even ordered her not to think about it. The two people, Marco and Rosie, were never a good match. Conflicts arise because of the incompatibility between the two. Rosie was treated like a possession by Marco. He saw Rosie as little more than a decorative item in his home. Even though Rosie had given up her traditional art to please Marco, he refused to recognize her sacrifice. In chapter 7, Marco left Rosie in the station and when Rosie attempted to enter the compartment, Marco said, “I have no ticket for you,” before shutting the door in her face. These actions give the reader an insight into their unhappy and toxic marriage.

Subsequently, Raju exhibited the stereotypical traits of the patriarchal worldview. Rosie and Raju were in an affair. He was a sexist and his attitude was evident when Rosie asked him to leave her alone, but Raju was offended and remarked, “I grew angry. This woman who had been in my arms forty-eight hours ago was showing off.” (Narayan, 119). Here, it is possible to observe Raju’s masculine ego. He was so self-absorbed by his ego that he was unconcerned with Rosie’s sentiments. As a result, he remarked, “Many insulting and incriminating remarks welled up in my throat”. (Narayan, 119) Moreover, it could be seen that Raju helped Rosie to become a famous dancer so that, he can become rich. Rosie is the victim of his lies and deception after all. Raju wanted her to be happy, but only while he was present. Raju’s toxicity becomes crystal clear when he began to think of her as his “ property.” (Narayan, 161) Furthermore, from the novel, the readers can clearly see Raju was insecure and desired total control over Rosie’s life as he mentioned, “I did not like to see her enjoy other people’s company. I liked to keep

her in a citadel.” (Narayan,165) When Rosie was with Raju, she herself said, she felt suffocated “like one of those parrots in a cage taken around village fairs, or a performing monkey” (Narayan, 174)

In conclusion, it can be said that the actions and behaviors of Raju and Marco are toxic, and toxicity can never benefit anyone.