Literature review, Play on Off Centre

Character Analysis 

Character	SymbolisM
Vinod	Ambassador
Saloma	Change
Emily	Hope
Mak	Control freak
Razali	A normal human being is able to establish a friendship with the mentally ill. Provides hope. A ‘normal’ person who can care for the mentally ill.. Society needs to learn from him.
Charlie	Uneducated about Mental illness
Denise	type of society : Fearful of the mentally ill
Azman	Takes advantage of Saloma
Robber	Robber of Hope
PC	Ignorant/ Stubborn
Mr Chow	Misuse of Authority/ very demanding.

Literature Festival Debate

This house believes that Vinod’s death was unnecessary.

We freaking won the debate. We did it. We really did it. Yay! - 15th July 2017.

1st prop :  

You are so beautiful Vinod, you who has the potential to change minds, change opinions and even change lives. Emily Gan saw so much potential in Vinod, a person she saw as having the power to change the world. Yet he died. Just so that society can keep its control over the mentally ill. His death is completely pointless and never should have happened!

As the first speaker I will be dealing with the fact that Vinod’s death could have been avoided had society been better educated in terms of how to treat someone with a mental illness. I will go on to argue that Vinod had the potential to bring CHANGE to how the mentally ill were viewed. My second speaker Barani will argue that Vinod’s death does not hold society to account for everything it has done to him. It is not his death we should be focusing on, but his lack of life. Society ruined his life and that’s the real tragedy.

Vinod’s death was unnecessary because society was uneducated and simply did not know how to deal with mental patients. Now let’s look at our friend Charlie. Charlie keeps on saying ‘sorry’ because he is afraid of offending him. Vinod does not want reminders all the time that he had depression. He wants things just to be the same with his friends. Charlie is awkward, but we must give him credit for trying to reach out and show genuine concern to Vinod. He does not stare at Vinod’s scar, unlike Denise, and he stays and talks to him even after Denise leaves. This is a person who can be educated! And so can the rest of society, given time! But once Vinod is gone, Charlie does not need to learn how to deal with Vinod. Out of sight, out of mind. Charlie could have fully learnt to relate to Vinod, but Vinod’s death puts a stop to any form of education for Charlie. He never needs to learn because society can just move on with one less mentally ill person to worry about.

Opposition would be more fixated on his death and stating the reasons why our beloved Vinod had to die. But think about why he should have lived. Vinod was a visionary. He wanted to change society. He wanted the mental patients to be part of society. Vinod is intelligent, articulate and charismatic. These are qualities that are prized by society BUT because he has depression, he is treated like a pariah. Vinod’s death is unnecessary because he had the power to redefine the centre but he was not allowed to do so because society is scared to lose control. What are we scared about? Are we scared to learn something new from a mentally ill person? Where’s the harm in that? Society can do better. Society must do better. Let the man’s vision have a chance. Listen to Vinod. Keep him alive!

2nd prop :  

Hi Hi Hi! (improvise based on whether or not people say hello to you)

Hmmm, now I know how Vinod felt when he tried to connect with the audience at the beginning of the play. I’m not mentally ill, I know that I have a place in society, yet even I feel a little uncomfortable, as if I don’t fit in, as if I don’t conform. Vinod says hi to 87 people but only 12 say hi back to him. Society rejects Vinod from Page 1. He already starts dying from the first page of the play. His life is basically a living

death and even though he experiences some happiness in the play, he is slowly crumbling and withering from the rejection. Ladies and gentlemen, we the Proposition argue that his death has no meaning in terms of fulfilling the social function of the play. If we were to take out the scene where Vinod dies, the play fulfils its purpose of criticizing society and making them understand how they have been treating those with mental illness. It is far more painful for Vinod to be alive than to be dead and society must feel the guilt of inflicting such suffering upon him if we hope for positive change to happen.

Before moving on to my substantive, here are _________ points of contention.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________.

Coming back to my point. Vinod’s death was unnecessary because society did not allow him to reintegrate to society. whenever Vinod gets the opportunity to reintegrate into society, the past haunts him. Vinod could have dealt with his past but how could he if he's living the same life as the past?  Of course he could have taken his pills but what would that have achieved? Look at his monologue! He is stuck with the label society has given him. He is unable to move forward. Life is all about moving forward. If he is not able to, then life is like a death to him and there is dramatic power in this. The social function of this text is achieved in the portrayal of Vinod’s life (or lack thereof) and not his death. His death is unnecessary because we say that the text more powerfully conveys the damage society has inflicted on this man while HE IS ALIVE. He is a man with no balls, a man who has been possessed by the devil, a disappointment of a son. Try living with that. The death removes Vinod from society’s sight...sure we feel guilty and ashamed because he had to take his own life, but how long will that last? Vinod’s life haunts us more because we can only ignore a man who says hi to us for so long…

And that is why we as proposition believe that society murdered vinod by leaving him to die by not allowing him to live. Bring him back to life.

3rd prop :  

*Add Rebuttals

Both Opposition and Proposition made very substantial points. However, I’m going to show you why every point  Proposition has made is true/valid and why side Propositions case is better.

As what my first speaker has mentioned, Vinod’s death was unnecessary because society had no means of connecting with people like Vinod because they were uneducated on that matter. However, it’s not that society does not want to connect with Vinod, it’s that they don’t know how to . Just like Charlie, society might have good intentions but they were unable to appropriately connect with Vinod

• Furthermore, Had Vinod lived , he would have been an ambassador and the voice of the mentally ill.

We proposition focus on Vinod’s life not his death and therefore we believe that Vinod’s death was unnecessary.Him living has so much more meaning be it the social function of the book or moral lessons imparted. Besides, Society is the cause of Vinod’s death it would not have happened  if society been better educated.

Summary:

1.Rebuttals(most probably rebuttal against opposition’s rebuttal of the living death point)

We agree that the purpose of this play is to criticize society for their mistreatment of the mentally ill. The play without Vinod’s death would mean that: 1. Vinod has manage to control his depression which would send the message to society that the mentally ill can take the treatment they are given,that their behaviour is acceptable thus not fulfilling its purpose to criticize society 2. The play does not send the message that mistreating the mentally ill may end a LIFE.

Vinod DOES NOT get over his depression. He is already labelled and forced to live in a society that makes life incredibly difficult for him. How is he going to take care of himself when society shuns him and ignores him? He was already on the road to death the moment he was diagnosed with depression. There is NO WAY that Vinod is going to live in a society that is like this. He is smart enough to know what the pills represent - to make his mental illness go away rather than think about making society a more caring place. Society must change and it is not up to the mentally ill to accommodate the prejudice of society. Their lives are a reminder of that, much more than their deaths. It is not possible for Vinod to get over his depression. However, we must remember that it was society that put Vinod in this position in the first place. Had society been better educated, Vinod would not have died. Another way to rebut: If Vinod gets better, who will benefit more? Society or Vinod. For Vinod to get better is for him to conform to society’s views, to fit in by being ‘normal’ which is defined by society.Shouldn’t Vinod be getting better by being himself? Firstly, let us think about the meaning of being recovered from one’s mental illness. It is to be ‘normal’ , ;normal’ being defined by society. For Vinod to be recovered from his mental illness and be ‘normal’, Vinod will have to conform to society’s views. Opposition you are contradicting yourselves. How can Vinod be recovered from his mental illness when he is not being himself? E is not centred

2.Summary:

Both parties have raised valid points. We proposition believe that Vinod’s death was unnecessary while opposition believe that Vinod’s death was necessary. To us proposition,Vinod living has so much more worth then when he dies.

1.Vinod could have been an ambassador for the mentally ill.If he continued to live , he could have done so much more, educate society on how to deal with the mentally ill and help reintegrate the mentally ill into society. Vinod’s death is one we could do without. his death was unnecessary as he could have done so much more were he alive.

2.Vinod’s death was unnecessary as his life itself fulfils the social function of the play which is to criticize society for their mistreatment towards the mentally ill

3.Besides, society caused Vinod’s death due to their lack of knowledge on how to deal with the mentally ill. Vinod’s life itself is worth saving. He would not have died had society been better educated and therefore his death was unnecessary as it could have been prevented.

3.Clash between proposition and opposition:

1.Opposition believes that Vinod had no other choice but to die because his life was so crap that he had no way to keep living and therefore he died.

We have to remember that it was society that caused his death. As my first speaker said, Vinod died because society did not know how to interact with him.It is not that they do not want to, they just do not know how to. Society is uneducated in dealing with the mentally ill. Vinod’s death was unnecessary because his death could have been avoided.

Rebuttals    for the whole team to use where necessary. Chino,  you can shape your third speaker speech using the most obvious opposition points so that you already know where the clashes are .

Opposition argument	Our response
Death gave him freedom from society’s views and prejudice. He had to die because he is stuck and can no longer find a way to function in society.	He needs freedom from society’s discrimination? Why must he seek freedom? He should not have been in that position in the first place! Society should not have pressurized this man! They should have been more understanding and sensitive towards him. The lack of such attitude from society has caused the downfall of Vinod. Had well-meaning people like Charlie been better able to reach Vinod, he would never had needed to die. There are people in society who can help, there is hope! We need to focus on finding a way to reach those who are mentally ill, not leave them to find their own solutions in death.
Vinod’s death is necessary because he was dragging Saloma down. He was suppressing Saloma’s growth and was trying to make her regress to her former introverted self. He had to die as he became a burden.	It is made amply clear in the play that Saloma, the one who is positively impacted by Vinod, wants him to LIVE. After all, she would not be in the strong position she is now without Vinod’s help. Even if he is the person that chose to turn his back on her after helping her( all those scenes where Vinod hurts Saloma because of religion and all that) Saloma still wants to be with Vinod because that is what a friendship is. That’s common humanity. How can we say that Vinod is a burden when Saloma herself does not even see it that way? Before we can even criticise Vinod for keeping Saloma away, we need to question ourselves : how did he get there? Did saloma bring him to this state? No. did his parents? Yes. did society ? why yes of course. Society had caused his depression to be out of control. Is this valid? Are we saying that we discard  people who outlive their usefulness? Are we saying that if someone proves to be a burden to society, we simply make them disappear? The whole point is to help Vinod live, not help him die! Vinod’s death should never have occurred because he matters. He is a crucial part of our life, of our society so his death is unnecessary and society could have done better.
We agree that the purpose of this play is to criticize society for their mistreatment of the mentally ill. The play without Vinod’s death would mean that: 1. Vinod has manage to control his depression which would send the message to society that the mentally ill can take the treatment they are given,that their behaviour is acceptable thus not fulfilling its purpose to criticize society 2. The play does not send the message that mistreating the mentally ill may end a LIFE.	*CHINO could USE THIS AS HIS SUMMARY regardless whether opposition brings up point:) Vinod DOES NOT get over his depression. He is already labelled and forced to live in a society that makes life incredibly difficult for him. How is he going to take care of himself when society shuns him and ignores him? He was already on the road to death the moment he was diagnosed with depression. There is NO WAY that Vinod is going to live in a society that is like this. He is smart enough to know what the pills represent - to make his mental illness go away rather than think about making society a more caring place. Society must change and it is not up to the mentally ill to accommodate the prejudice of society. Their lives are a reminder of that, much more than their deaths. (linked with top point.Vinod’s recovery from depression is not plausible) I disagree, opposition with your views. Almost every good fairytale has a happy ending along with a moral lesson to be imparted to the reader. Fairy tales such as Cinderella,Snow white and Rapunzel all have happy endings.Happy endings are more memorable as they give happy closure that is rarely seen in real life. (in accordance to your 1st and 2nd point. 1.Vinod getting over his depression is implausible 2.Society treats Vinod better=what i will be touching on ) As i see it, if Vinod were to live, the moral lesson of the book ‘Off Centre’ will be that society CAN change their treatment towards the mentally ill and that their actions WILL improve the lives of the mentally ill. I believe that the readers will remember the message about the mistreatment toward the mentally ill in ‘Off Centre’ the book better because of its sweet ending.-rebuttal or point. As my first speaker said, society is willing to have positive interactions with the mentally ill( as seen with Charlie) but lack the education. The moral lesson that our actions affect the mentally ill will be the first step in the education of society. Just as Saloma pointed out, “i know you very busy. Got a lot of work to do”, society is caught up in the rat race to be the best, to be the richest (which is the view of Vinod’s therapist) and they forget about what others feel . Especially the mentally ill.  Mak also said “This country no good. People no good.” and “i cannot laugh. I cannot cry. Because i only know how to smile”. Society forgets about emotion.They forget about sympathy, sympathy to the off centre.Society only smiles out of politeness, there is no meaning behind that smile, society became insensitive.Society expects that everyone is the same as them, as uncaring and they forget about the mentally ill.By bringing up the point that their actions have effect on the mentally ill, ‘normal’ people will think twice before treating the mentally ill and treat them better.(at least some of society is decent.Charlie) -this is half rebuttal, half summary Vinod living has so much more worth than when he dies .He could have been an ambassador for the mentally ill. He could have sent a meaningful message to society that they can change their ways and that the mentally ill are affected by their views.He could have had a bigger impact on society that their treatment towards the mentally ill is hurtful. We proposition focus on Vinod’s life not his death and therefore we believe that Vinod’s death was unnecessary.Him living has so much more meaning be it the social function of the book or moral lessons imparted. Besides, Society is the cause of Vinod’s death it would not have happened  if society been better educated.  -this is summary Better for himself is being homage inside by he never got the chance to do.
Vinod dies in the play because he feels he is fighting a losing battle with society. Society is far ahead while Vinod is far behind, his past coming back to Haunt him preventing him from moving forward in life. Society does not even look back to see if he is there or not. While society is evolving every day and ultimately getting further and further away from him, Vinod is trapped in his own little bubble oblivious to what is going on around him no matter how intellectual he may be.	Vinod did not have to die in the play. Death is not an option especially for an intellectual person like Vinod but rather a last resort. Vinod would have worked out the fact that every second that passes, his options for reintegration into society is diminishing rapidly. He chose death because there was no choice and the only option left for him to pursue. Vinod died under the circumstances he was in. If society had treated him better , he would have made better use of the other options he had ( Mr Chow and NS scenes) and his death could have been easily avoided. He could have been on the road to recovery. Vinod did not just die. Society murdered Vinod. Society left him to die. Society knew he need help. BUT no. they watched him die. love this-abraham Awww thanks man-vicnan
We agree that the past haunts him but Vinod should have dealt with it. And how did he deal with it? He died. It was too much for him. He has reached a point where the past is to painful for him to deal with. Yeah he cannot move forward. Then do what?
But Vinod died/society is uneducated .( opposition’s answer to our point on society being uneducated)	I agree.So, must we wait until somebody dies to change?.After Vinod died, it's too late. Society should have changed when Vinod was still alive.As my first speaker said, Vinod’s death is therefore unnecessary because it could have been prevented had society been better educated.