If you read the entire thing, you win a prize!

-----
What I like about An Enemy of the People

I remember when I first saw the book list for year 2005, under full literature the text was ‘An Enemy of the People’. I also remember thinking it sounded like some Hollywood movie and has visions of this refugee child (?!) escaping in some train. Go figure. Now back to 2006 and my O level exam is tomorrow!

Most people hated studying An Enemy of the People (EOTP). It was something they just didn’t feel for, couldn’t understand. Compared to the other text of The English Teacher, I was one of the few who preferred EOTP in a poll taken by Miss Bong the beginning of this year. I didn’t understand a man reduced to weirdness by his wife’s death, but I sure as hell understood the passion and desperation showed by the protagonist in EOTP.

The issue at the heart of the text was that newly opened Kirsten Springs, a spa sort of tourist attraction with a medical aim, had poisoned water. In order to replace the water intake system, the plumbing would have to be redone over 2 years, “costing three hundred thousand crowns”. Imagine Singapore’s IRs having to be rebuilt again, and you’d get an idea of how much it would cost. (Play was back in the early 1900s). Dr Stockmann finds out that the water contains biological wastes and tries to press for change.

What I enjoyed about the text was the underlying theme of moral courage, the idea of such courage and strength to stand up and fight against the opposing odds for a good and just cause. Despite all the betrayals from his brother and his ‘friends’, the media men, not once does Dr Stockmann bow to their desires. In Act III, when the mobs are closing in on him and his family, their lives possibly in jeopardy, he is still defiant saying “and the strong must learn to be lonely!”

The text also featured the oppositional ideas of money vs morality. As a Christian, this issue is often brought up, so it was nothing new to me. However the way it was presented in the play, that in the people’s desire for money, to improve their impoverished circumstances, they were willing to forfeit the health and safety of others. Yes it was reprehensible that they made such selfish choices, but the idea of “fine carriages”, “schools bigger and better”, “first class stores” a better standard of living was such a strong motivating factor and not many posses this ‘moral courage’.

Abuse of democracy was also another issue brought up. The town is supposedly “democratic”, yet the essentials of the political system like voting and free speech are clearly abused by the people. Things like voting are used by the people to quash free speech and to turn a “talk” into a “meeting” as seen most clearly in Act II Scene 2, which is of course, highly ironic.

Suppression of truth is also by the media’s refusal to print the truth under threat of monetary loss to the “meeting” where the truth is not allowed to be said. Many like Peter Stockmann and Morten Kill, not to mention the ‘overwhelming majority’ all go out of their way, to suppress the truth. Truth can be manipulated by selfish means as seen from Act II Scene 1 where the main purpose of the media’s alignment with Dr Stockmann was to publish the “controversy” in order to sell more papers.

The power of the media is also a theme of the play, albeit a minor one. I read somewhere once that newspapers often take the political slant of the owner, which is very true. Fox News in the USA often takes the Republican side and makes the Democrats seem insipid – their owner, Rupert Murdoch, is a Republican. Unfair editing, one sided reporting, all corruptions of the basic principles of journalism are all used, but I digress. In the play the media men, Hovstad, Billing and Aslaksen switched sides from Dr Stockmann to his brother, the mayor, Peter Stockmann because they feared a backlash from the readers. Peter Stockmann has threatened to install a municipal loan, for which the citizens would be taxed for. The media “print(ed) the Mayor’s statement and not a word about (Dr Stockmann’s) report”, which is of course one-sided. This led to the people being prejudiced against Dr Stockmann even before hearing what he had to say.

The power is again shown in the last Act when Aslaksen and Hovstad appear once again. They go to Dr Stockmann, pandering for money. I quote Hovstad exactly: “The People’s Messenger (the paper) can put on such a campaign the in two months you will be hailed as a hero in this town” and “without a paper behind you, you will end up in prison.”

The tyranny of the majority is also seen clearly. They abuse democracy in Act II Scene 2 and coerce others to conform to their wants based on threats. The glazier refuses to come, a petition to not call the doctor is passed around and not “a single family will dare refuse to sign it.” Petra and Capt Horster are both fired from their jobs as well. Towards the end of the play then even turn into an unruly mob which throw stones and surround the house of the Stockmanns, calling out ‘enemy enemy!’

Also the play features my favourite kind of ‘bad’ guy, the amoral, ruthless man. In this play it is Morten Kiil, Dr Stockmann’s father-in-law. Out first encounter with him sees him stealing apples and tobacco from his son-in-law and declines his daughter offer of the pilfered items later on, presumably to save face. He also states the only reason he dropped by that day was because “the butcher told me you bought roast beef today”. The introduction to his character is “the man with the rat’s finely tuned brain” and “likeable because he is without morals”. He is also quite miserly. He first offers to donate “a hundred crowns, right here”, to charity during a discussion with Dr Stockmann but in the next line changes it to “fifty crowns, by Christmas”. In the last Act he too, betrays Thomas by using his daughter’s intended inheritance to blackmail his son-in-law into dropping the fight for the truth in order to “preserve my family’s good name”.

While there were some other aspects of the play that I enjoyed, the above are the main points and things that most struck me during my study of the play, helping my truly enjoy what I felt, was a political play.