Deconstruction / Poststructuralism by Derrida

 My interpretation of the questions about Deconstruction by Derrida is as follow.

First of all Deconstruction is really a bit difficult to understand, and one reason is that Derrida does not define the Deconstruction. First of all he asks that question that is it possible to define anything once and for all??  Or at what extent can we define something??? So he denies to define  deconstruction.

Derrida’s position is more  philosophical than real. He proves theoretically, not practically.

First of all Deconstruction is not a destructive activity, but it is an inquiry into the foundations of every thing. Deconstructionist critics goes deep into the foundation of text and then they try to subvert , undermine it. Derrida says that every text contains element which  can deconstruct itself.

Structuralist critics says that there is a meaning in the text but Poststructuralist critics says that there is no meaning at all. He talks about free play of meaning. And they also gave idea of supplementarity or decentering the center.

Derrida says that same text cannot be read in the same way. He also talks about free play of meaning that any word can be used for word. It is we who have given the meanings to everything.

We think that words takes us towards the meaning, but at the same time it also takes us away from the meaning. For example what is the meaning of the word “interest”??   we don’t know the meaning of this word, so we go to dictionary to find its meaning. And from dictionary we can get following meaning like…hobby, share in business etc. are meaning. If we take another word BAT, then we will find its meaning like…a kind of mammal,  an old woman, cricket bat  all this meaning we will get.   So what he tries to say that when we go to dictionary then we will find another word for that. The meaning of one word is set of another word, then what is the meaning of those words??.   So he says  FINAL MEANING IS ALWAYS POSTPONED.  According to him FINAL MEANING IS MYTH.

He also talks about phonocentricism and logocentricism  as well as metaphysics of  presence  and metaphysics of absence. He denies western tendency to privilege speech over writing. When we say I am man it means I am this not and that. So presence of one thing is absence of many things.

For example     FESTIVAL OF VASANTPANCHAMI  can be deconstructed.  At this day all the Muhurts  marriages are good. And at the same day  we worship goddess SARASVATI – symbol of education.  But both these opposite things    ( science VS  Nature,  Raw VS  cocked  debate) now a day Raw is corruption but actually it is natural .same way marriage is natural and education is  corruption.   When we go deep into the foundation at that time we found that puja , worship of Saraswati is problematic.  But somebody has merged this both. So when  we go deep into the foundations of this rituals we c an subvert, undermine,  blast the basic ritual.  This is the Deconstruction.

We can go deep into the foundation of anything and then we can deconstruct  it, subvert it, blast it, undermine it.

Thank you

One Night @ the call center by Chetan Bhagat

Chetan Bhagat ON@TCC blog 

(1) Contemporary issues in on@tcc:

From the beginning we are discussing the nature and function of literature. What is literature and what does literature do?Literature is not just imaginative stories written in leisure time only for entertainment. But it is reflection of time, place and society in which we are living. Literature is mirror or photographic image of society. Equally literature is also an X ray image portraying ugly, darker sides of society.

Similarly this novel also throws light on the contemporary issues of present society. All six major characters have their own problems in their personal life. Actually, they are not just imaginative characters, but they are mouthpiece or representative of majority of Indians.

Call center  is a place which unites all the six major characters. Bhagat calls Call centers  as a Soul destroying, air conditioned sweatshops. Most of people were considering it as a great help in boosting our economy. It gives new job opportunities to young people with handsome amount of salary.

But nobody was able to see the under current damage it does. This is the most productive and educated young generation of India. India was never so young before. But this young generation has to work according to American clock, have to talk in American accents and have to change even names also. For example Varun - Vroom, Shyam- Sam, etc.How painful it is to lose identity of one's own for the sake of others or job!!!!!. This is the newer form of slavery and colonization.(Slavery was never abolished; it is just changed to include everyone.-New work culture in office).

And more than that they condition the mind of youth by Ads. what does it mean to be young ?Being youth means  to eat pizza, to drink Coca-Cola, view item songs only. This conditioning is done to majority of people.

Apart from this other issues are also beautifully touched upon like... Love/ arranged marriage, breakup & patch up, Bossism, exploitation in modeling or other sectors, OLD MORALITY- NEW MORALITY, family values, constant fight of parents and its effect on children, low self esteem, emotional blackmailing, hire & fire work culture, anti- American sentiments and many more......

Anti- American sentiments are very strong in this novel. Bhagat through character of Vroom criticizes american policy. American DREAM is just myth. they are not happiest people. He also criticizes war mongering habit of america. those who fight a lot they are the most fearful people. vroom says  Americans suck the life blood out of our country’s most productive generation 

 ‘a thirty-five-year-old American’s brain and IQ is the same as a ten-years-old Indian’s brain. This will help you understand your clients. You need to be as patient as you are when dealing with a child. Americans are dumb, just accept it. this quote explains strong anti American sentiments.

2. Can you justify this observation?

“Bhagat's tone is pitch-perfect, hisObserver’s eye keenly focused on nuanceand detail. Verisimilitude is all: The firsttwo thirds of the novel evokes, indeedreproduces, the way the young callCenter workers think, talk, eat, and drink,Dress, date and behave.” (Tharoor).

Yes, it is quite true observation depicted in the novel of young people in the novel. Vroom complains about America and its negative effect on Indians. He also criticizes call centers. At that time someone says that if this is what happens then why don’t you leave the job. But he replies that I can’t, because I also want to live the way my other friends live. And for that he requires money.

“Bhagat has a talent for tapping into the zeitgeist; that he is not much older than the people he writes about makes him a particularly credible portrayal  of their world.”(Tharoor). 

☆ zeitgeist =¤The spirit of the age; the taste, outlook, and spirit /characteristic of a period.

¤spiritus mundi   
temper of the times

It is interesting observation by Shashi Tharoor that this is what "New" India is. Generally YOUTH hadn’t found enough space in past, especially in Indian writing in English. But Chetan Bhagat is able to catch the spirit of the age. This is what we find happening in and around world. The way youngsters live, eat, talk, drink, behave, spend money is brilliantly capture here. In DRYDEN's word it is JUST & LIVELY IMAGE of contemporary India.


Had Bhagat’s vision been shallow, he wouldn’t’t have been able to see “call-centers as soul- destroying sweatshop, soaking up the energies of young Indians who could be doing better for themselves and their country”. 

 Chetan Bhagat with this observation has captured the skeleton image of the undercurrents in the society

Many people criticize Bhagat's novels as simple, childish things without philosophical depth and keen observation. Though book is written in simple diction, it is not good idea to neglect its importance. It does present the skeleton image or undercurrent of society. It is a kind of reality which may gave shock to many people. Because working in call centers makes them submissive. Why they have to speak in American accents only?? Because if this people identifies them as Indians, then they may abuse Indians. Even if they abuse this people has to speak in decent language. This creates huge Psychological damage/ impact on the minds of the youngsters. It generates LOW SELF ESTEEM, which is found in the character of Shyam.

Corporate sectors USE energy of youngsters by showing dangling carrot. Success story of just 5% people are being told again and again. But what about other 95% people

.their stories never come out. It gives more opportunities to younger people. Because they are full of energy and enthusiasm. Older people cannot work like them. So they are thrown out of job. The same will happen with young generation also, that when their stamina will decrease, when they grew old they will be thrown away from job. (THROW AWAY CULTURE) .they is trapped, used as ploy. And when one comes to know about this, it’s too late.

This is what happening at present time. Everybody is not able to see the undercurrent effect. But Bhagat has very well presented these issues.

Here it is appropriate to use words of Coleridge that :-“ Had Mr. Wordsworth's poems been the silly, the childish things … they must have sunk at once, a dead weight, into the slough of oblivion, and have dragged the preface along with them.”  Similarly after so many years of its publication the book and writer both are still alive- read a lot by large number of people. Had it been worthless, childish thing people might have forgotten it. It has something which appeals to many.


★
Mannepean satire is a seriocomic genre, in Greek literature and Latin literature, in which contemporary institutions, conventions, and ideas were criticized in a mocking satiric style that mingled prose and verse.

At much extent this novel is example of it, because it also satirizes many institutions and ideas and conventions. For example Marriage institution, Bossism, work culture



 Cyberpunk:-

→(science fiction) A subgenre of science fiction which focuses on computer or information technology and virtual reality.

A cyberpunk character, a hacker punk, a high-tech low life.

There are few elements which leads us to read this novel as cyber punk.

-The "BUG" found in MS office is turned out as plot mover.

-open G mail account of Mr.Bakshi and as result fake mail drafted by Vroom is fine example of it.

Narrative technique:-

Apart from what is told in story, HOW part is also very important. Writer himself was traveling in train from Kanpur to Delhi. And then he meets a young girl, who tells him a story on condition of writing it as his  second novel. He listens the story, and story is told by  Shyam- one of the characters in the novel. In the beginning Shyam is introduced and then he introduces other major characters. So this narrative pattern in also very interesting.

PROLOGUE & EPILOGUE:-
Chetan Bhagat makes very good use of prologue and epilogue in his novel. In prologue, writer himself comes as character and talks with the reader.
It looks like Bhagat is well aware about the literary tradition of writing. Exact time and place of action is given. Which follows the Aristotelian unities of time, place and action. Deux ex Machina, is something which must be avoided. So he gives alternative narrative of  entire novel .which proves that God's intervention is not a mistake, but author deliberately does so.
There are many parallel/ similarities in Narrative technique of One Night @ The call center  by Bhagat and "Life of Pi" by Yann Martel- the  Canadian writer. For example beginning of the novel- Prologue. Both the writer himself present in the prologue telling how they got inspiration about writing their second novel. Both the writers meets person who tells them stories - a young lady in ON@tcc and an old man in Life of Pi. Both tell that you can meet the real people to collect more information.

Other parallel is Experience of God. There is not clarity about God, but rather it’s indicated and experienced. One can't say with surety that God is present or not.

And one more point is First person Narration in both the novels- Shyam and Pi- narrator and protagonist in both the novels.

EPILOGUE:-

And in the epilogue of both the novels alternative reading is given. When Japanese insurance agents listen the story of Pi, they are not ready to believe it. They say our company won’t believe this. So Pi tells another story replacing Animals with human beings. When Yann Martel asks what correct story is, Pi tells a story which I told you. But now it’s your story, you can write the way you wish. The same lines are also found in ON@tcc also. When Bhagat asks that people may not believe story with God's call. so the lady tells that you can replace the lines of God with Military uncle.

So, this is the parralel in Narrative technique in both novels, which is quite interesting.


★ Popular literature:-

ON@TCC is charged by many critics as popular literature.

But what is popular literature ??
Popular literature
Commonly lacks a sustained plot, worked

Out with close regard to cause and effect.
a good literary text should have cause &  effect justified. But here it is not so. God's call is there but its justification is not given. effect is there but cause is not justified.☆Still more characteristically it lacks the study of character and the intellectual analysis of such varied problems as occupy the fiction of the present age.
Why Bhagat's novel not won awards or critical acclaim ??- the reason is that characters are not well developed. All the characters are flat characters. God’s call comes and they easily accept without doubting or questioning. The details about characters upbringing is not given as it is given in Life of Pi. Pi believes in God, because from childhood he was grown up with stories of god. He believed in all the religions. So when he tells in the novel that I experienced god, it looks appropriate. Whereas in Bhagat's book it isn’t happening.

→The popular romances lay their stress chiefly on incident and adventure or simple intrigue, and set forth only the more familiar and accepted moral teachings.

ON@TCC:-It is not about something very great adventure characters are doing. What is written is the book is the day to day life of many people.And the moral teaching given by God is not something very great, because it is Chetan Bhagat's god. The kind of Teaching given in the book is already told in many books. He is just putting it in simple language. So it lacks that high seriousness. So it is appropriate to say that ON@TCC present an instinctive or traditional, rather than a highly reflective, philosophy of life. It does not raise or answerabstract questions also. It has happy ending, but life is actually not so. But Post Modern text never ends in clear cut way, but it does so.Because of all these reasons critics  have come to be regarded chiefly as the literature of children- because this kinds of stories were told in the beginning or at childhood of civilization. and if still these kinds of stories are told and people enjoy then we have to doubt whether humanity has evolved or not???

So, from much perspective this novel falls under the category of popular literature. But then even to degrade the text because it is popular is not a good idea. To be popular or classic is not in book's hand. Every text has its pros and cons.

To The Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf

• To The Lighthouse 

• it is a beauty of great literary texts that it remains open for various interpretations .the work can be praise for a point, at the same time can be criticize for that also.it is so complex that it is difficult to derive any conclusion from such literary texts.one fine example of this in the novel is character of Mrs. Ramsay."The novel is both the tribute and critique of Mrs. Ramsay".

• since the publication of the novel, till many years Mrs. Ramsay was considered as a heroine of the novel. She  is  a  dutiful  and  loving  wife of Mr. Ramsay. Mrs.  Ramsay  is  a  wonderful hostess  who  takes  pride  in  making  memorable  experiences  for  the  guests  at  the  family. Affirming  traditional  gender  roles  wholeheartedly,  she  lavishes particular  attention  on  her  male  guests,  who  she  believes  have  delicate  egos  and  need  constant support  and  sympathy.
• 
  
•   
• on the contrary, there is character of Lily Briscoe, who is completely different than Mrs. Ramsay.she is a single, individual person with beautiful gift of painting.Mrs.Ramsay and Lily Briscoe are women with different ideology.

• Mrs.Ramsay thinks that women should take care of family, husband, children and kitchen. And she insist others  comparing it with Shakespeare's " Taming of shrew”. She is conditioning other women to live under patriarchal structure, rather than becoming a radical, individual thinker this is the biggest objection feminist critics are having against Mrs.Ramsay.

• she is constantly satisfying ego of Mr.Ramsay.she works whole day-wakes up early, sleeps late at night, manages every household things.so in sense she is setting wrong model for women. That women has to sacrifice her own self for the sake of other.

• Mrs. Ramsay is the idea of Ideal Indian Woman.(reference to article)Thearticle is saying a kula dharma patni (perfect house wife) should possess the qualities like loyalty, intelligence, unconditional love, cheers for good causes, dedication, humility and boundless compassion.

• All this qualities are sprouting from Mrs.Ramsay.

• ★Symbolism:-
• 
  
•  Representation of a concept through symbols or underlying meanings of objects or qualities.
• To The Lighthouse is full of various symbols. The Lighthouse itself is the biggest symbol, suggesting many things.
• Lighthouse guides to those who are travelling in the sea. it is used for Mrs.Ramsay in the novel. She stands alone like lighthouse and keeps united to family. She is strong like lighthouse in between emotionally shattered family members. Lighthouse is also symbol of spiritual strength and emotional guidance. When there is no hope or direction in sea, it is lighthouse which helps there. The same important place is of Mrs.Ramsay holds in the novel.
• Charles Tansley tells Lily Briscoe that Women can’t paint or write. But at the end of the novel she completes her painting, which shows her stoicism like lighthouse. And this can be connect with writer herself that it is a women's determination to succeed in male oriented society.so whatever Lily is experiencing same thing might have experience by Woolf herself. But she stood like Lighthouse and guide other women that you can do whatever you want. Completion of painting suggests victory of woman. so that other can inspire from them.

• ★Lily's dilemma:-

• "... the wages of obedience is death, and the daughter that reproduces mothering to
• perfection, including child-bearing, already has on her cheeks the pallor of death. One reminded here of various texts by Lucy Irigaray, in which she attacks mothers for being, however unwillingly, accomplices in the patriarchal system of oppression." 

• This is about Prue Ramsay, who died because of illness related to child birth. Lily Briscoe thinks that Mrs.Ramsay always busy in match making and insist her also to get married. But what is the use of it? Mrs.Ramsay's her own daughter followed that and died. So Mrs.Ramsay was wrong. I AM MORE HAPPIER, Lily thinks.it is not that one has to get married to be happy in life.one can be more happy by remaining single.

• ☆What does cutting of 'Refrigerator' signify?

• in the beginning of the novel James cutting picture of Refrigerator from the 'Army and
• Navy' catalogue. on surface level it looks trivial and normal playing of a child but New reading gave new vision to understand this deep symbolism.
• Refrigerator is preserver, which preserves the thing for a longer period of time. at the same time it is unnatural also- not allow to.change.it means that Mrs.Ramsay anyhow tries to keep family united. She preserves the relation. It also signifies War and Consumerism - the two evils which walk hand in hand. And act against larger interest of Human Beings. And one more thing is that HE is allowed to cut not SHE.BOY'S PRIVILEDGED POSITION IN FAMILY

• it is still open for new interpretation.

• ☆ tale of the “Fisherman’s Wife”

• Mrs.Ramsay is reading story of Fisherman’s Wife in the novel.it has significance in the story. Mrs.Ramsay can be compared with Fisherman's Wife. Fisherman’s wife is greedy, always forced her husband to demand more from Fish.
• Both Mrs.Ramsay and Fisherman's wife makes unreasonable demands upon their husbands. The way man was right in story, similarly Mr.Ramsay was right in treatment of the children. He tells truth directly to James, that whether won’t be fine, where Mrs.Ramsay treats her emotionally.Mr.Ramsay says children should grow rational, because life is difficult.Mrs.Ramsay says make them happy today.

• ■ why did she weave such a misogynist tale into the fabric of a book which so eloquently challenges received patriarchal notions about the roles and capabilities of women?

• →Because if women can’t accept the truth and always goes with emotion, then it is also dangerous in relation.( for example domestic violence in present time)
• 
  
• and to understand this we have to subvert the fairy tale of Fisherman.-here woman Mrs.is acting with empathy.But there is a difference between emotional level of truth V/S rational level of truth (thinking).
• 
  
• ☆How do you interpret the last line of the novel
• (It was done; it was finished.

• Yes, she thought, laying down her brush in extreme fatigue, I have had my vision .) with reference to the ending of the film (After the final stroke on the canvass with finishing touch, Lily walks inside the house. As she goes ante- chamber, the light and dark shade makes his face play hide-and-seek. She climbs stairs, putsher brush aside, walks through the dark and light to enter her room. Gently closes the door - speaks: "Closed doors, open windows" - lies on the bed and with some sort of satisfactionutters: "Dearest Briscoe, you are a fool".)

• The novel is open ended, so there is possibility of much interpretation.
• one interpretation can be like this that she realize that way of living life of Mrs.Ramsay was perfect. IN MOVIE, they have presented in better way that Lily remembers Mrs.Ramsay, and also moves sensuously her hand over her body, goes into bedroom etc. symbolizes that may be she is ready to accept the role of Mrs.Ramsay.

• On the other hand we can say that she can never be as enduring as Mrs.Ramsay. No Doors, no windows, her painting is the best. She loves 'a room of her own', her loneliness,
• her art. Thus, it is critique of the. Sacrificial nature of Mrs. Ramsay.

Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett- & its Movie screening

I am not agree with those who are considering viewing 

(screening) of Waiting for Godot, a play ( movie version) a monotonous experience. Rather it is very humorous (on surface level only) and full of  short, repetitive dialogue. After viewing the movie, while returning home and throughout night, I was thinking WHAT WAS IT ALL ABOUT??? WHAT DOES IT WANTS TO SAY?? 

I was asking to myself.....

WHAT IS PURPOSE OF OUR ( ROUTINE, MECHANICAL)

 LIFE?ARE WE VLADIMIR & ESTRAGON???WHAT IS THE
 SIGNIFICANCE OF LIFE WE ARE LIVING?? OR WHAT IS

LIFE? WHY WE ARE LIVING?

I wanted to sleep, but this question not allowed me to do so. I had so many questions,  but no answer.

Samuel Beckett got inspiration for setting of the play  from a painting titled 'Longing' by Caspar David Friedrich. 

The setting of the play is A country road.  A  tree. Evening.

A tree is very important in the play. it is barren, in the first act, which suggests barrenness, hopelessness and despair. Where as in second act, few leaves grows to that tree. this symbolize hope that Godot must come. We can take another meaning that it suggests that they are waiting for so long time. it may be interpreted as a seasonal change. because leaves don’t come overnight.

☆ the  setting  with  some  debris.  Can you  read  any  meaning  in  the  contours  of  debris  in  the setting  of  the  play:-

Debris:-

• Rubble, wreckage, scattered remains of something destroyed.

• Litter and discarded refuse.

• The ruins of a broken-down structure.

• Large rock fragments left by a melting glacier etc.

this is the background where two tramps Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot.

this outside ruined, destroyed place symbolize their inner self, their mentality. debris itself represents the nothingness, uselessness of the thing they are doing. debris provides true background of the situation in which two tramps are.

  “Nothing  to  be done”

very first line of play is   “Nothing  to  be done”. and while play as such nothing significant happens. and this same dialogue repeats many a time. recurrence of Nothing again and again makes it something. 

Godot-a  positive  play,  not  negative

this point leads us to deep philosophical thinking. Vladimir & Estragon are waiting for Godot, but Godot never comes. so the waiting is endless, which may lead us to think that the play is negative play. but it is not so.

E.G.  Marshal's  view (who  played  Vladimir  in  original  Broadway  production 1950s) are very positive about the play. play is coming at immediately after World wars. large massacre lead people towards negation of life.

 so the views of E.G. Marshal becomes important that -No  matter  what—  atom bombs,  hydrogen  bombs,  anything—life  goes  on.  You can  kill  yourself,  but  you  can't  kill  life." this statement is very philosophical..

props used in Waiting for Godot by Beckett are hat and boot, and it has its own significance. nothing is useless or unintentional. it symbolizes something. props like hat and boot are meaningfully connected. Estragon and Vladimir plays trick with it. Vladimir thinks a lot, where as Estragon thinks about eating. and often he forgets that they are waiting for Godot. hat symbolizes thinking and Sticking boot of Estragon signifies a ditch, poor condition they are living.

Master Slave: Pozzo and Lucky

yes, too much obedience of slave Lucky to master Pozzo is irritating and nauseatic. play looks like a great satire on internalized slavery. it is surprising that even if master is blind , rather than runaway slave gives whip in master's hand to control. the ill treatment of Lucky by Pozzo is problematic. How can one be so obedient? and how can anyone treat other in such a torturing way? IT MAKES ATTACK ON SLAVISHNESS OF MIND. one's inability to break customs( thinking) and to be a true individual.

According to me Godot is Nothing, at the same time everything because it is open for personal interpretation. once Beckett was asked - who is Godot? he replied that if I would knew, then I might have told it in play !!!!!

one interpretation is possible that Godot, is nothing but God. which is common in  French to write with "OT" ( is added)God- Godot. Estragon and Vladimir have so many expectation from Godot. they thought that when he will come our all suffering will end. this leads us to think that Godot may be God.

Beckett left over reader to interpret  who is Godot? so we can compare it with anything. In our life, we all are waiting for something. life itself is nothing but waiting. so whatever one is waiting for curiously, and think that he will be happy after getting is Godot.

The  subject  of  the  play  is  not  Godot  but ‘Waiting’”  (Esslin,  A  Search  for  the  Self). Martin Esslin argues that, waiting is more important not Godot. Since its publication all were talking about Godot but Esslin says that Waiting is at the centre. Waiting is essential human condition of life. throughout our life, we all wait for something. Godot is just symbol, object, metaphor or event. after getting one (goal) we wait for other & it goes on . Waiting is infinite.

Waiting for Godot is better to read than view. Because it requires a lot of thinking. in Movie dialogues are spoken too fast which is difficult to understand. Reading allows free flow of imagination. where as in screening imagination gets controlled. At the same time Audio- visual is helpful in understanding content in better way. Students generally don’t like to read original text, so it is better to read & comprehend through Audio -visual. play comes from Europe, and we are not aware about their culture, myth, symbol etc. so for everybody it is not possible to understand. at this point movie is boon. Movie has ability to transfer the feeling of character into viewer.

Entire movie is carefully presented with many interesting sequences like Vladimir and Estragon killing time, episode of Lucky and Pozzo, etc.

both protagonist's attempts to kill time looks humorous, futile and meaningless. both debates over how to pass time- they do things like- lets abuse each other, let’s play Lucky and Pozzo, both tries to stand on one leg etc. this is really interesting as the same time deeply symbolic also.

Episode of Master - slave is carefully crafted one. Both Lucky and Pozzo come in both the acts. Pozzo beats Lucky, treats him roughly, calls him 'pig'. Vladimir is challenging through questions where as Estragon on the other side makes fun, creates laughter on the stage. the long speech of Lucky is also wonderful.

even the boy comes, is confusing that whether it is the same boy or not. the dialogues between Vladimir and boy are short. boy mostly replies in Yes or No. and sometimes don’t give any answer. and Estragon remains busy in eating & sleeping is also meaningful.

Yes, we feel existential crisis - Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot, but Godot never comes. we know that their waiting is absurd, futile. so what is the significance of things we are doing. Who am I ? Why am I here? why I am living? what will happen if I die?.- Nothing. we have no answers. our lives has very limited significance. so when we try to think in this direction it leads towards Existential crisis. I felt that crisis in second act, when boy reappears and tells that Godot, will not come today, but tomorrow he will come. this entire sequence turns hope into hopelessness, it leads to negation of life. Expression and soliloquy of Vladimir is wonderful to express this feeling.

Vladimir  and  Estragon  talks  about  ‘hanging’ themselves  and  commit  suicide,  but  they  do  not  do  so.- because of hope that Godot will come tomorrow, and he will do everything alright.

Existentialists says that we have habit of living, of breathing. We cannot leave these habit.

I am unable to find things regarding political reading of the play, it would be better if we discuss this point in class.

 

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.