AP Essay 1991

Many plays and novels use contrasting places (for example, two countries, two cities or towns, two houses, or the land and the sea) to represent opposed forces or ideas that are central to the meaning of the work. Choose a novel or play that contrasts two such places. Write an essay explaining how the places differ, what each place represents, and how their contrast contributes to the meaning of the work

Border Crossing

            In Muriel Spark’s The Mandelbaum Gate, the border restrictions and tension between Israel and Jordan exhibit the close-mindedness of people on the Jordanian side and their stubbornness to see a group in only one way, leading to a rift between cultures, cultural confusion and identity crisis. Throughout the book people are constantly classified by their religion, nationality or appearance and judged based on grudges and stereotypes defined by the split between Jordan and Israel.

            The action and drama throughout the novel is provoked largely by the bitterness between the two countries. This crossing of the Mandelbaum Gate to Jordan automatically brings danger, suspicion and discomfort to those who end up on the other side. Because of the prejudice it’s believed that “it is no life to be a Jew” (Spark 230) and there’s disappointment in the fact that people are persuaded to practice otherwise because of the poor reception of others. The intense judgment and crisis that occurs when crossing to the Jordan side, shows the difference in extremity between the two countries and stronger prejudice when entering Jordan. Barbara is advised to “hush it up” when she goes to Jordan, knowing that in Israel “you only risk and argument, but there you might get shot” (Spark 35). The sense of skepticism and judgment is so strong, raising an issue within society that is carried throughout the book by the contrast in location.

When Barbara’s Jewish blood becomes a hazard after she crosses to Jordan, the true reasoning behind the rivalry is questioned. This danger caused by her Jewish side doesn’t allow Barbara to discover herself regarding half of her heritage because of the strong and irrational divide. She says, “I am who I am” (Spark 36), but knows not who she is, unable to figure it out because of the pressure and “trouble from the Christians and the Arabs” (Spark 230).  Arabs living in Jordan were not allowed to “utter the word Jew” or “Israel”. Instead, they must be referred to as “ex-Jews and . . . Israel, so-called” (Spark 73). The common conception in both countries is that the others are bad people and to “be thought a spy” if recognized in the opposite country, restricting personal understanding and a mutual understanding between differently cultured people (Spark 151).

But these stereotypical and harsh criticisms are often silently questioned with the acknowledgement that “people - they are people” (Spark 147). Throughout the book each character seems to struggle with judgment, aware of an “element of false assumption” (Spark 160) and upset with the stereotypes that exist based on a certain side of the gate. Barbara is made to be kept in hiding with the assumption that her portion of Jewish heritage could land her in deep trouble in Jordan but readers realize that “it’s a damn disgrace that a girl can’t go on a pilgrimage . . . without fear of arrest” (Spark 151). Her motives are harmless, but because of the quick judgment and distrust she’s unable to enjoy her experience in the way that she should rightfully be allowed, along with being unable to find her whole self through the experience.

There is a constant grouping of people and a belief that those people share the same ideas. But as readers realize as they go further into the text, that stereotypical and one-sided nature is not at the heart of most people. When first associating with each other the English were believed to have “a small island of mutual Englishness” (Spark 76). But readers begin to see later, as “their island was beginning to disintegrate,” that their common nationality does not mean they share the same beliefs and hold the common stereotypes (Spark 80). This concept is difficult for each side of the gate to accept. Individuals slowly come to grips with the fact but their internal opinions are never shared, therefore letting the bitter rivalry continue.

The Mandelbaum Gate symbolizes that contrast in opinion and safety, making it difficult for an understanding and open-mindedness of one’s inner feelings and others’ to be prevalent. But in the characters’ journey to either side of the gate, they realize the truth in all people, leaving them in a state of confusion wondering what emotions they should act upon. But only this contrast in acceptance allowed them to make this final realization of the irrational and unfair division between Israel and judgmental Jordan.