Hamlet by William Shakespeare and Movie version of Kenneth Branagh

• My interpretation about the movie screening of Hamlet is as follows.
• Before watching the movie Hamlet there was  lot of question about it in my mind that why people are debating too much about this play rather than any other play ? Why critics are calling Hamlet Mona Lisa of literature? And so on….
• But after watching movie my  interpretation about it totally changed. It creates far better understanding of the PLAY than it was ever before.

• Kenneth Branagh’s film  Hamlet is the faithful version of the original play so we won’t find much changes in it. for the most part  they  have tried to be faithful to the original though there are points in which we find changes like setting and  costume. Original play is located in 11th century Denmark so we cannot expect much thing same  from it but while making movie they have changed setting  and costumes to make movie more interesting and as per taste of the contemporary audience.

• It really enriches and flourished my understanding about the play. The is typically Shakespearean play with his contemporary  expressions . so some times as a second language reader it becomes difficult to catch exactly what writer wants to say by this. Or rather sometimes reading of the play needs more concentration so it becomes difficult to read the original. At this juncture screening of the movie  is like heavenly elixir  to us.
• Yes sir, we feel aesthetic delight while watching the movie.  literature has tremendous capacity to give us delight which  we can’t explain in words. Character of hamlet is more attractive. When we observe him closely at that time his soliloquies, apparent madness, his mental struggle (conflict), his ambiguity, split personality, intrigues in the play, sequence of action, light but satirical laughter, character of sweet Ophelia, love of brother and sister (leartes and Ophelia), play within play, appearance of ghost, mirror scene, grave digging scene , gives me wonderful delight. Hamlet’s word “ forty thousand brother cannot equal  to my (lover’s)love” is superb. his  speech to horatio “there are many thing in this world which is not in our book of philosophy my friend” is looks like universal truth. Claudius’s word “ Madness in great ones should not be passed unnoticed” is full of wisdom. This great speeches and wonderful scenes gives me boundless joy.

• CATHARSIS
• Movie was so interesting that it catches our attention at every moment and we feel ourself  closely intigrated with the play and characters. We start to feel pity, love, sympathy, compassion, hate for the characters. And that is I think this is the greatest achievement of the artist that he creates fabulous world of imagination in which we lost intentionally.  Among all the characters I have sympathy for sweet Ophelia, because all the characters are suffering because of their own fault but Ophelia is the one who has to pay price for the thing which she hasn’t done. She is victim of the dirty politics. Her only fault is that she loves Hamlet and her father whole heartedly. she  was used as mere pawns or puppet. She lost her caring father and also rejected by his lover prince Hamlet. Hamlet tells her to go to Nunnery. Now only just try to think her condition!!, tThere is no one present who gave her love. She is all alone!!!!!.Psychology also says that every one needs love in this sort of condition and when one fails to get that he/she becomes mad. Same thing happen with her. I have great sympathy for her. And when Laertes comes back and saw that his dear sister is mad at that time brother’s expression was also tragic.
• Even in the beginning when hamlet was following the ghost of his father at that time he talks with him. at that time father hamlet explains that how he was killed by his own brother while sleeping in the orchard for the throne and queen. how  his brother Claudius was seducing to the queen before his death. And spirit also explain that how painful death is given to him by his own brother!!!!. All this description creates sympathy for him and terror of painful death.
• And after Ophelia the catharsis happen to me for our tragic hero hamlet. A rather good man comes to a bad end , because of her error of judgement. If he had killed Claudius when he  was praying then he might have able to take his revenge and save his life. But great student of philosophy, a prince  comes to a tragic end. At the end of the play stage is full of dead bodied.  And this creates catharsis .
• The play is rich in  beautiful scenes. There are many scenes which are still floating in front of my  eyes.  Appearance of ghost, ophelia’s poetry  in madness, hamlet’s death scene when he was taken by soldier at that time he was in position of Jesus Christ,  That I will never forgot.
• Kenneth Branagh’s  movie is very good, faithful  presentation of the shakespeare’s  original play hamlet so  there  is no more scope(need) to make changes  in movie . first of all let me make clear that I don’t think that I can make a movie like Hamlet. And this movie is also included in top three best movies made from play of Shakespeare. So it is the best, But sometimes while watching movie , we feel tired. Because it is so long so it needs lot of patience, so if I was  or I will be a director then I will make it a bit shorter so that interest of the audience  is kept. I am not telling that length of the movie is unnecessary, they have tried  to be faithful to the original so it is okay.
• Symbolism plays vital role in understanding  of any  thing, whether  it is literature or movie or T.V. serial. Through symbolism creator tries to show the things which we cannot express through words. As it is saying that ‘pen is mightier than sword ‘ and ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’  so I will say that symbolism is  greater that words . words gives us limited, specific, particular image or  meaning  but symbols express more. It expands the horizons of our thinking. The same thing is interwoven in the play wonderfully. The play opens with the name HAMLET written on the wall of the castle of elsinore, and ends even with the broken statue of the king HAMLET. It has significance, it shows the END of every thing, the circle is complete. From where it begins it ends at the same point. As in DR. FAUSTUS he throws the cross (CHRIST)and holy books. it is symbol that now he rejects god. Similarly HAMLET is also full of symbolism which flourishes the play. Fall of statue shows end of ‘HAMLET-PARIVAAR’. Now there is no one left to reign into the kingdom. We can say it also gives message that revenge, fight, intrigues never gives fruitful result. We can compare the end of HAMLET with MAHABHARATA that it is also concerned with family war for the throne. And fought for it and died. But what is the use of it .ultimately all died, there is no one to rule in the kingdom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.  this play proved our gujarati proverb true that “ be (two) ni ladai(fight) ma trijo fave”. Finally fortinbras gets everything.
• To evaluate play any one approach is not enough, we should check work from the different perspectives. As HAMLET is the MONA LISA of literature so there are many critics who have applied vivid approaches on hamlet. If we want  to get answer that whether Gertrude’s marriage was  morally good or bad, then we have to do feminist reading . the same approach can be applied for the character of Ophelia also. We can also apply psychological approach for understanding of the ambiguous hamlet. There are cultural, biographical, and other approaches also but I think most perfect approach is Formalist one. This one says that for understanding of any work TEXT itself is best source. We have no need to study biography of writer, or society, history or anything. Whatever written in text that is the  best source for the evaluation for work. If we want to criticize hamlet play then we should study the words used by writer to understand it. And that is the best source. The true beauty of play lies in the words arranged beautifully by the writer.
• we can write so many things about this but I am  concluding  this.
• Thus from its premier at the turn of the 17th century  hamlet has remained shakespeare’s best known , most imitated and most analyzed play. 

Tradition and Individual Talent- by T.S.Eliot

"Tradition and Individual Talent" by T. S. Eliot

Eliot’s concept of tradition:-

First of all he begins with general sense, the dictionary meaning of tradition. He talks about the English society that they consider tradition in negative sense or sees this term derogatorily. It means that modern automatically means good and traditional means not so good. But it is not so. Eliot sees it in very positive sense. He says that tradition is not something which is dead but it is something which is already living. Tradition does not mean the blind adherence of the past or slavish imitation of the past. He criticizes Romantics with their great emphasis on individual. He says that writer should write with History in his bones. Eliot demands wide reading from the artist. So he says that writer should be aware about his as well as whole European literary tradition, and not merely imitate the tradition but fit in and contribute to the tradition. Eliot clearly says that tradition cannot be inherited, but acquired by labour. It means that if you born in that tradition it doesn’t mean that you have knowledge of that tradition but one has to work hard( labour and erudition) for the knowledge of that tradition. Yes, at some extent I agree with him about his concept of tradition at the same time I am not agree with his narrow concept of tradition.( that I will discuss in conclusion)



Historical sense-


Eliot talks about historical sense. He says that writer should have historical sense. Let us illustrate this by the following quotes “ the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of the presence” and “ this historical sense, which is a sense of a temporal and of timeless together, is what makes a writer traditional”. He says that historical sense helps a writer to understand what was in the past and among that what is living today? What are the relevance of that past at the present day? For example work created before many centuries are still existing today, so which are the elements in the book that it is still existing. Which are the universal appeals in that work?. All this knowledge will help the poet/writer to write his /her own work. Today’s popular writing may be died tomorrow, then how can an artist be immortal through his work? One can get his answer if he /she has a historical sense. If we study the past then we will find the Love and Death has universal appeal, And this elements we find again and again in any work. He talks about pastness of past- if we take an example from our Indian myth then it is not the Ram and Krishna was in the past but how Ram and Krishna are still alive today that is the pastness of past. It is temporal and timeless means Tradition never dies, it goes on.

• Relation between Tradition   and Individual Talent -

Individual talent does not cut himself away from the tradition. Tradition for Eliot is an already an existing monument and the individual can only marginally add a bit, extend a bit. According to Eliot Individual is adding a brick in the minarates. Tradition is not dead but a living thing and every new artist extends a bit in the tradition. And individual makes his /her own place in the long history called tradition. At this time he is criticizing the Romantics because of their great deal of emphasis on individual. So Eliot was carrying a thread forward from Matthew Arnold that no individual has sense of his own, One has to compare with the best that is available. Thus Eliot explains the interdependence of the tradition and individual talent.


"Some can absorb knowledge, the more tardy must sweat for it. Shakespeare acquire essential history from Plutarch than most men could from the whole British museum."


T.S.Eliot demands wide reading from the poet as well as from his readers because he himself was the very scholar, highly intellectual and well read person.( Nobel Prize winner!!!!!!) he says that everyone should be well read but what he finds is Shakespeare is an exceptional. If we study Shakespeare’s biography then we will find that there is no mention that Shakespeare went to any university. And dr. Samuel Jonson also says that it seems that Shakespeare was not knowing any other language than English. But then even his works, characters, theme has universal appeal. So what Eliot anticipated is that some body will question him that you are telling that poet should be well read but Shakespeare is not fitting into the principle what you are giving, so he says that he is an exceptional. It seems that Shakespeare has absorbed the knowledge, lived through his age, not through the systematic learning. This is how he is a individual talent. If he (Eliot)can’t do like that then Shakespeare might have become true individual what Romantics were speaking about. So what he does, he says Shakespeare is an exceptional. So he says some can absorb knowledge, And others (tardy) must sweat it.

• 
  

Honest criticism and sensitive should be directed upon the poetry , not upon the poet.
















Earlier it was believed that to understand the work of art one must take help of biography of the author, its setting(time and place), history, etc. so what he says is that CLOSE READING OF TEXT is everything. If you want to get the meaning of the text study WORDS not the author. So he says honest criticism and sensitive appreciation directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry. If you like the poem then praise poetry, not the poet. Poet is not present in the poem. Eliot uses the words like ‘Surrendering’,’ sacrificing’ one’s own self. So poet is not important but the product poetry is important.

• Depersonalization-=

During the 20th century, science was predominating in every field. So Eliot takes help of scientific analogy to prove his point- the theory of depersonalization. He says that when Oxygen and Sulphur Dioxide are mixed in the presence of the Platinum, it forms the Sulphuric Acid. But the newly formed Sulphuric Acid have no traces of platinum. Similarly poet’s mind is the catalyst. Without it poetry cannot be created but when we read the poem it has not the personal emotions and feelings of the poet. So he says the more perfect the artist the more separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates.(for example…. We cannot find Shakespeare in any of his great works)(where is Shakespeare in his plays????) this is how he elaborates his theory of depersonalization. Like Arnold we can say Disinterestedness or Detachment.









Eliot discussed that poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion. It is not the expression of personality but an escape from personality. Means that when artist writes he does not write only about his feelings and emotions. Means poem is not expression of his own feeling, but an escape from that. We cannot find biographical elements in the poetry. Poetry is universal. Feelings, ideas, thoughts, experiences of the poet concretized and creates the poetry, which is not expression of himself.

Thus, T.S.Eliot puts a foundational brick for the New Criticism, which gives more stress to the CLOSE READING OF THE TEXT. Though this essay has many limitations that it is Elitist, conservative, orthodox, backward looking and Euro- centric






It seems that out side the Europe there was not tradition at all. He talks only about Homer means European literary tradition. And also not giving importance to the feminist literary tradition etc. and Harold Bloom also says it Anxiety of Influence- under the influence of the great writer it becomes difficult to write for new poet. It harms his individual ability.

This was my interpretation of this essay.

Thank you.




The Birthday Party (Movie screening- review/ experience) by Harold Pinter

v  The Birthday Party is a play by Harold Pinter. Genre of the play is Theatre  of Absurd or Comedy of menace.

v  Menace:-

v  -a perceived threat or danger

v  -the act of threatening

v  -an annoying and bothersome person 

v  -To make threats against (someone);

v  To intimidate.to a country with war

v  To threaten (an evil to be inflicted)

v  -To endanger (someone or something);

v  Comedy of menace is a term used to describe plays of David Campton and Harold Pinter by critic Irving Wardle.

v  The Birthday Party is full of a kind of fear, danger which we cannot explain. It is funny as well as frightening. We feel uneasy all the time even when we are laughing or smiling with amusement. This dual quality gives play uniqueness. Play is full of uncertainty and insecurity.

v  There are two silences in Pinter's plays. One when no word is spoken. And the other when perhaps a torrent of language is being employed. While the play sometimes there is long pause, total silence, not a single word is spoken. At the same time there are moments in the play, where there is torrent of dialogue that we do not have even time of thinking or comprehending what is going on. Our mind goes blank. Example of torrent of dialogue is Nat and McCann’s questioning to Stanley- that frustrated Stanley shouts and kicks him.

v  Oxford English Dictionary defines “Pinteresque” as “of or relating to British play wright, Harold Pinter, or his works”. “Pinter’s plays are typically characterized by implications of threat and strong feeling produced through colloquial language, apparent triviality, and long pauses”

v  The Birthday Party as an Allegory- means having more than one meaning. It is very much open for various interpretations. We can read Stanley as an artist in exile. And artist is in danger because of his radical, free thinking. And threatened by underworld. So he is living fearful like that somebody will come and caught me. There is reference of him as pianist, and at the end of the play he is not able to speak and is well dressed and clean shaved which mean that he has conform to Nat and McCann (Underworld or society).

v  Political reading leads us to think Stanley as smaller Nations and Nat and McCann as bigger nation like U.S. etc.

v  Characters like Petey symbolize impotency of society. In spite of knowing everything, they can’t do anything. Meg forgets everything which symbolizes large number of people, generally forgets things. Broken glasses of Stanley symbolize breaking inspiration, vision of artist.

v  Although Harold Hobson declared that ‘no one can say what precisely it is about ‘and albeit Pinter’s assertion that “I can sum up none of my plays, I can describe none of them …’ the play has a pertinent and poignant theme for it deals with the subordination and marginalization of women characters. Pinter’s symbolical and allegorical play The Birthday Party is concerned with how the women characters like Meg and Lulu are relegated to insignificance, how they are treated as inferior to male characters like Stanley, Goldberg, McCann and even Petey, how they are deprived by men-folk socially, economically and culturally. Thus a feminist reading of the play is obvious.

v  Apart from a very good writer Pinter was very good screen play writer also. He himself has written screenplay of movie version of The Birthday Party. If we compare film and movie, then movie gives far better experience what Pinter wanted to say. In stage performance all the things are not possible, which is in movie. Film communicates better dramatic experience. For example apart from outdoor shooting, many scenes are suggestive. We see through the mirror of car, which signifies many things- that where car has been rather than where it is going.

v  In play we cannot see the kitchen of Meg, but in film camera focuses on untidiness of kitchen. The camera records and magnifies the trivia. Magnification technique is used very well in the movie. For example tearing of newspaper by McCann, Goldberg’s threat to Stanley. And Stanley’s weakness in the face of the threats against him is also emphasized through camera angel. In the movie, deliberately to create menacing effect background music is not give. It is not interesting to watch. It becomes unbearable. But this itself is the texture of the play & movie. They wanted to transfer the experience, which they have done through far better objects in the movie.

v  There are many scenes in which knocking of door happen and it creates menacing effect. For example when Stanley wakes up and washing his face there was knocking of door,

v  When Nat &McCann were threatening to Stanley suddenly there is loud knock on the door. It frights characters as well as audience also that what will happen? Who will be there behind door? Etc.

v  Silence and pause is special characteristics of Pinter’s plays. It is used in such a way that it creates dangerous, frightening effect.

v  Things like mirror, toy drum, newspaper, breakfast, chairs etc. symbolically significant in the movie. In the beginning of the movie, camera focuses on mirror of car, and through this we see what is passing by. In other scenes it can be interpreted as it shows self-reflection to character who they are.

v  Newspaper is widely used. Petey is reading in the beginning. We can read that behind newspaper he is hiding his impotency. Untidy, tasteless breakfast Petey takes and appreciates also, which may be interpreted as husband wife’s dull, loveless, tasteless relations.

v  Interrogation scene is very interesting, in which there is not even space for taking breath. It is like torrent of dialogue. Nat & McCann asks plenty of questions, and frightened Stanley starts sweating, starts shouting and kicks him.

v  Birthday Party scene is set in very small room, where is no space –occupy by too many objects, symbolically signifies characters narrowness and unable to move kind of situation. Interesting thing is that, they are celebrating birthday of Stanley, But Stanley denies that it is not his birthday. Except Stanley all enjoys- Nat & Lulu, Meg & McCann.it also mean both the ladies are taken away from him. His glasses are broken during this scene- means breaking artist’s vision and inspiration. So it is very important.

v  And in the 3^rd act, Nat and McCann takes Stanley away to a man called Monty. Petey tries to resist but can’t stop them from taking Stanley. This suggests society’s impotency to protect artist.

v  In the movie two scenes are omitted, which is in the play- the reason may be to make movie compact and precise. Or maybe they wanted to focus on Stanley- an artist that how they are used and frightened by bureaucrats or people from underworld.

v  Yes, there are many incidents when we feel effect of danger. When two strangers come, who they are? Why they came? What they will do with Stanley? Etc. will create effect of danger- even Stanley says to Meg – you don’t know with whom you are talking. This indicates his fishy past.

v  McCann tears newspaper which Petey was reading earlier. In last act, in spite of Petey’s resistance they take Stanley away and also threat him. Which shows Petey’s insignificance, impotency against them.

v  While playing blind man’s buff, camera is on the head of Stanley which creates image like cage, trap which means that he is held up in such a situation from which it is not possible for him to come out. Now Stanley has no way to go out, he has to succumb himself to them.

v  Film is brilliant, no doubt than movie. It with fantastic use of camera transfers the experience of fear, menace to the audience. What Pinter cannot do in the play performance, because of its limitations, he does that in the movie. Then even if we don’t know the Pinter’s biography or if we watch movie without prior reading then we will understand nothing. It is boring, monotonous to watch, and even without background music.

v  Director has beautifully made the movie. They are able to tell what they wanted to. Setting, character, camera work, dialogue everything is perfect.  

DIGITAL INDIA

•  DIGITAL INDIA:-

v  Last week, I got opportunity to interact with school children of my village. and from them I came to know many things about "Mid Day Meal".

v  Every day in News paper and other social media, we  read  something problematic about Mid Day Meal in school. though it is one of the best programme of Govt. of India, something is not right with it. contractors, intermediaries are not doing their job sincerely and as a result poor, innocent little school  children’s have to suffer a lot.

v  Many time we  read in newspaper that children are hospitalized because of poor quality of food of Mid Day Meal at school . finding cockroaches and other small insects in  meal is also common in news.

v  there is inspection team of Govt to prevent this but inspection is not happening regularly. at the same time it is time, energy and money consuming also. And there is also scope for corruption.

v  so what is solution?????

  Definitely Technology !!!!!!!

v  Earlier, where there was no technology, so we can understand that it is difficult to keep watch over person. But now we have medium, then why don’t we use them??

v  In 21st century technology can be important tool to prevent corruption.

v  what I think is that Govt. have to use technological gadgets like CCTV camera, whatsapp, face book and other social media.

v  it is rule  in school that menu is different everyday. but contractor does that on paper only. And surprisingly teachers are also silent over this matter. they should be sensitive towards this issue.

v  Everybody has mobile now a day. So Government can make rule for contractor that take photographs and video of everyday and send it to Govt. before given time. you can also take small 2/3 minutes interview of teachers and students describing quality, quantity, punctuality and variety of Mid Day Meal.

v  If contractor of Mid Day Meal is uneducated then teachers can help them.

v  it is also possible that School prepare their own face book Page, and post photographs everyday.

v  Govt. can make zone as per need at Taluka level or district level. A single person by sitting in his office can check schools of entire district. ELECTRONIC FOOT PRINTS ARE DIFFICULT TO RUB. one can easily access information of many months or years and if anyone does corruption in this they he/she may be easily caught.

v  I think, this kinds of smaller steps will make  true  our dream of DIGITAL INDIA.

Movie review of "Midnight's Children"

Movie review about the Midnight’s Children and The Reluctant Fundamentalist.

The Midnight’s Children is the movie adapted from the novel of  the same title by   Salman Rushdie. The novel is so long so it looks difficult to compile into a movie version. The technique used in this movie is of Magic Realism. Directed by Deepa  Mehta, the movie tries to compile story of three generation which looks too long. The movie has rather allegorical  political meaning.  The narrator of this movie is Saleem Sinai. And he starts telling story from his grandfather, then father and  his life’s journey, so it becomes difficult to remember and also looks unnecessary in the movie. Movie could have been much better if it only tries to cover life of Saleem Sinai. Or just little information through flashback technique would be fine. Even the representation of Indian slum area, streets, fighting, riots during independence movement, blood shed and mass killing looks like pre- conceived notion about India or say stereotypical image of India. Rushdie himself lives in Europe since many years, so we can say that he is also looking at India like Western people looks.

The movie has a very traditional beginning like I was born in Bombay  'Once upon a Time....'
#  scene of Miah Sahib killed in the beginning of the movie by telling that you Kafir can't prevent partition is appropriate to show the ugly face of partition.

# When the world will sleep, India will awake- is very significant.
Nurse's changing of child plays vital role in the plot of the movie.

There is also a scene in which lift were pulled by ropes, which presents appropriate picture of contemporary India.

# Messenger technique:  Rather than showing blood shed and mass killing Film maker brilliantly makes use of old technique ( messenger   comes on the stage and informs that this happens outside)
that Mary's husband comes and tells that outside people are killing eachother.Hindu killing Muslim and Muslim killing Hindu.

#Magic Realism presented very well in the movie. A scene where Saleem calls other Midnight's  Children and introduces  their  gifts that is wonderful.
Shiva always fights and Saleem always tries to make them realise the reason why they are there....
# birth of children symbolically means birth of Nation. For example Shiva and Saleem - India and Pakistan. And later on birth of Adam Sinai ( son of Parvati) also symbolically attached with birth of Bangladesh.

#'India is the Prime Minister, Prime Minister is India'- a statement in the novel/movie is very controversial.
Decision to destroy slum by Indira, Emergency as a black spot in the history of democracy,... is a serious attack on the politics of India.

#After the end of the 1971 war, camera captures the scene of corpses lying here and there and there is even no one to buried them, shows the dehumanization and terrific effect of war. India and Pakistan makes treaty with each other. Then what is the use of war? What about those who have lost their lives for the sake of war? Govt. has nothing to do with either soldiers or common people. So it tries to give voice to them.

# there is also a scene in the movie in which crow was sitting on the grave, which symbolically means ....there is no one to remember who pass away.

Traditional way of looking towards India:- In the movie at the time of 1971 war, there is scene when an old man called Picture-ji has so many snakes with and around him. Which proves image of India as a land of snake charmers.

# it is Parvati-the witch who saves Saleem Sinai during war and brings him back to India through his magic tricks - Abaraka dabra. And the same word speaks Adam sinai at the end of the movie.

#at the  near end of the movie Emergency is over and

 camera captures scene of sunrise which  suggests new beginning, new hope and birth of country.

Ø 

Does Literature Lie ????

Does literature lie???

Does literature lie or it expresses universal truth?, that is the question arise in my mind while studying literature.

          I want to put forward my arguments with the books like Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, Dr, Faustus by Christopher Marlowe, a story that is in the 12^th English and even Paradise Lost by John Milton.

                                                                               Let me start by Dr. Faustus – a play by Christopher Marlowe. Setting of this play is in Renaissance era. Very impressive description description is given in the first monologue.  He is the scholar from the university from of Wittenberg. He has acquired all the knowledge available at that time, like history, economics, medicine, law, physics and many other fields. I can say that he has acquired such a large quantity of knowledge in 16^th century that may not have common people of 21^st century. Dr. Faustus was synonym of knowledge.

                                                                               But then even he was not satisfied with the knowledge he has!!!!!!!! He was still hungry for more knowledge.

And then to gain more knowledge he makes contract with Mephistopheles- a devil, that Mephistopheles will give him power and after 24 years  Faustus will give her soul to devil. Dr. Faustus willingly accepts this!!!!!!!!!

                                                                               And Ultimately, Faustus in last monologue regrets and suffers a lot and dies   a tragic death.

I

                                                                               Now my point is that why knowledge is portrayed in negative  shade by writer. The question in my mind is that whether writers know universal- ultimate truth or they (writers) are also biased? Is knowledge really destroy person or writer portrays it like this because the contemporary society believed so?

If we glance in the field  of science and technology then we come to know that knowledge of anything is becoming boon for mankind. Edison, Newton, Einstein etc scientist were also hungry  for more knowledge, and it is because of their thrust for knowledge we ‘ve  electricity, technological gadgets, mobiles, heavy machinery, mobiles, engines, transportation, progress in aeronautics (space), internet etc.  all these things are essential part of our day to day life.

                                                                               If these things won’t be there then we are still like cave men. what  is the difference between them and us.

Modern progress and development became possible only possible because of basic human nature- desire to know more.

                                                                               now  if one tries to get knowledge what is wrong in that – that  he is portrayed in negative way and given tragic end to his life.

Person like Faustus and Victor Frankenstein are like candle. they burn themselves and  give light to others. It is only because of their sacrifice  personal lives and hard work, we enjoy all the privileges of our lives.

Another example is  victor Frankenstein- a protagonist of the novel ‘Frankenstein’ by Mary Shelley.

                                                                               He was an eccentric scientist, who wants to know the secret of life. He gives so many years of his lives to the research that  it is possible to make dead person alive by electricity.  And after a dedicated, determined hard work of  long time he did so. He joints the different parts of the corpse and creates a monster- life into a  dead one!!!!!!!!!

And then the novel is full of suffering and pain of victor. He loses all his near and dear- father, mother, brother and even his beloved Elizabeth. (all killed by monster) and ultimately victor dies a tragic death.

                                                                               Now again the question comes into my mind is that why Mary Shelley gave tragic end to Victor? Why gaining a secrets of life- knowledge is curse rather than boon in the novel?

Is this the warning to the 21^st century people ( or any living being)  that don’t run behind knowledge otherwise  you will also suffer like Victor!!!!!!! Is any writer can see what we common people cannot see? Or is it true that “ Knowledge is unhappiness and Ignorance is bliss ?

 Or writers are also biased ? or  they have done injustice to their character. Because they cannot think beyond social norms.

Renaissance and Romanticism was a time when people were slowly and steadily coming out from from dark age towards light. People have started to develop scientific approach in their life. Rather than religion science was predominating every spheres of life.

If writer is universal genius then why he prefers religion over science?   To please few groups of people?  To earn money? Or to threat people?

Even the same case with the Paradise Lost by John Milton. Where God punishes Adam and Eve for eating  a fruit of knowledge. But why???? What is wrong in that???

In developed countries like U.S, Japan and many others have prepared  highly modern robots. Slowly we are moving into the era of robotic culture. Recently I have read in newspaper that Robots are used as a waiters in restaurant. Recently there was soccer competition of robots, which was won by Australia. NASA is also sending robots into  space. List is long……………

My point for talking about the role of robots in 21^st century  is that  IN ONE OR THE ANOTHER WAY

ROBOTS ARE ALSO EQUAL TO THE MONSTER OF FRANKENSTEIN.  Basic idea to create like into dead one  by electricity is taken from. Traces of this idea is into the mind of Victor Frankenstein.

                                                                               It  (Robots) is becoming boon for for us then why Monster becomes curse for Victor??  Or because of that era writer don’t realize its importance.

Should  we think in this way or it  is indication  (like movie Robot) that this artificial intelligence will one day create problem for its creator???

One more example that I give that is a story from 12^th English.

                                                                               The setting of  this story is 2094- in future and in this  story technology is portrayed as villainous.

It is a story of a school girl who don’t like her mechanical teacher. ( mechanical teacher means computer) there was a computer in her room where she used to study  whole day. There was some error in her mechanical teacher , so that girl was relaxed- felling happy. But  her mother calls technician and makes computer functioning well. Then  her grandfather gives her book about school but that girl hates even name of school. It was a printed book. She has never seen printed book in her life. She was surprised to see stable words on book. This school girl considers  it stupid that what is the use of this printed book once after  it read. She has so many books on her computer screen.

But then her grandfather tells her that IT IS A BOOK ABOUT THE SCHOOL THEY HAD.

Then her grandfather tells her story – once there were TEACHERS  ( HUMAN BEING) to teach children. Then girl speaks beautiful  sentence that HOW CAN A MAN BE A TEACHER? ( because of high technological  era she was taught only by the computers.)

The girl exclaimed that I will not allow  any unknown person to enter into my ho use. At that time her grandfather laughed and replied that teachers do not come home to teach you.

                                                                               There was separate rooms and buildings for students. All boys and girls were going there to study. It was a place called school. Then there is wonderful description of REAL SCHOOL. The girl lost into the stories of her grandfather &  thinks about the days THEY HAD.- A DAY OF REAL SCHOOL. Where every one was studying, laughing, playing, enjoying together.( helping each other in homework, going school on bicycle, a time when teachers were real man)  REALLY EDUCATION-SCHOOL WAS NOT MONOTONOUS AS IT IS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

This story, like many other stories is an futuristic vision of writer, that what kind of schools will be there in the days to come. That school will be in your  drawing room. Teachers will be replaced by the computers and lifeless, dull, monotonous teaching –learning will be there. Education won’t be interesting as it is now. Computers can give you knowledge but it can’t  give you love, affection and sympathy which teacher can. If teachers  will be replaced by the computers then it  will kill the basic spirit of children.

This is the thing I think writer wants to tell through this story.

                                                                               Now the question comes in my mind is that why educational technology is shown as harmful ? as I have asked in earlier parts , that same question can be ask here again also.

( as generally it is said and believed in literature) if writers are extraordinary human being with futuristic insight  then will it be true what he is telling in his story? Is it a prediction for human race or HE IS A TRADITIONAL, ORTHODOX PERSON WHO CANNOT THINK BEYOND SOMETHING.                                                      

I have read and observed  that new things (invented) are not easily accepted by the people. You will be surprised to  know that when electricity was invented, most of the people were protesting it, rather than supporting it. Now can you live today without electricity??? ( it means that contemporary people were wrong) so writers are also part of that society who don’t realize the importance of new thing.

During Industrial Revolution heavy machinery was invented.  At that time also people were protesting it- that it will replace human being.

There are still some people who prefer bullock cart over tractors in agriculture ( farming)

My point is that every new things faces problems initially. Contemporary people with traditional, orthodox mentality faces problems in accepting new things.

IS THIS THE SAME CASE IN THIS STORY???????

EVERY coin has two side. I am not denying negative parts of any. My point particularly about this story is that – think about the  positive changes technology can bring in teaching- learning process. Audio, video, images and internet can give far better learning experience which only teacher and ‘chalk and talk method’ can’t.

Teacher, even though efficient , master and specialist in his subject cannot explain the  outside world really as it is. By sitting in your classroom you cannot explain the glory of the African  Jungle, but you can do that easily by showing video.

You can neither go in space nor explain  SPACE ( stars, galaxy, planets) but you can show images and videos about that to do it in better way.

It is proved through research that  Audio- Visual teaching aids creates better understanding as well as this points goes into long term memory of student.

                                                                               Volcano, flood, earthquake, water- air pollution, internal body mechanism, historically important places, rivers, wonders of the world………etc… for students it is not possible to visit but technology is boon that you can show anything through  video or images as per need. It saves time and money too.

Then why writer of that story focuses only on  negative aspects of that?

So what do you think……..???? may I ask you a question      DOES LITERATURE   LIE  ????   ……OR ….????