My presentation

To evaluate my presentation click here

To evaluate my presentation click here

To evaluate my Presentation click here

To evaluate my Presentation click here

To evaluate my Presentation click here

To evaluate my Presentation click here

To evaluate my Presentation click here

To evaluate my Presentation click here

Name: VYAS NUPUR HITESHBHAI.

Roll No: 43

Paper No: 2 – The neo-classical literature

Topic: The theme of Master-slave relationship in Robinson Crusoe.

Year: 2015-2017

Submitted to M.K.B.U., Department of English

Email id: nupurvyas1995@gmail.com

To evaluate my assignment click here

 Introduction:-

This novel Robinson Crusoe is written by Daniel Defoe and this not only the novel but more than just an adventurous novel or journey of the protagonist of this story and that character is Robinson Crusoe who is name of the novel. This novel includes themes like repentance, overcoming fear, melancholy nature relationship and motifs like counting and measuring, eating, ordeals at sea, and also symbol like the footprint, and the cross, and the Crusoe’s bower etc.

What is master and slave relationship?

The master-slave dialectic as proposed by Hegel remains prominent throughout the novel. Slave trade and concept of master and slave is projected to have persisted prominently in Crusoe’s time. The master- slave relation in the novel,  first of all is displayed when Crusoe is taken captive by the moors and made a slave to a certain master.

About this novel Robinson Crusoe

Key facts:

1] Full title: The life and strange surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of York, Marinar: who lived eight and twenty years all alone in an  uninhabited island on the coast of America.

Author:- Daniel Defoe

Type of work:- Novel

Genre:- Adventure Story; novel of isolation

Language:- English

 Time and place written:- 1719; London England

Narrator:- Robinson Crusoe is both narrator and main character of the tale.

Point of view: crusoe narrates in both the first and third person, presenting what he observes. Crusoe  occasionally describes his feelings but only when they are overwhelming. Usually he favors a more factual narrative style focused on actions and events.

Tone:- crusoe’s tone is mostly detached, meticulous and objective.

Tense- past

Setting [time]:- from 1659 to 1694 Protagonist:- Robinson Crusoe

Major conflict- shipwrecked alone, crusoe struggles against hardship, privation, loneliness, and cannibals in his attempt to survive on a deserted Island.  Rising action:- crusoe disobeys his father and goes out to sea. crusoe has a profitable first merchant voyage, has fantasies of success in Brazil, and prepares for a slave-gathering expedition.

Climax :-Crusoe becomes shipwrecked on an  Island near Trinidad,  forcing him to fend for himself and his basic needs. Falling action:- crusoe constructs shelter, secures the food supply, and accepts his stay on the island as work of providence.

About master and slave relationship in this novel:-

            The master slave relationships starts with chapter “my man Friday” crusoe names the native Friday to commemorate the on, which crusoe saves  native’s  life. “I made him know that his name was to be Friday, which was the day I saved his life I also taught him to say “master” and let him know that was to be my name” “I also taught him to say ‘yes’ and ‘No’”. 

                  These lines suggest English man’s mentality, because they rulling over the world. Crusoe tries to convert him and become civilized man. Friday by nature he was cannibal. Crusoe over teaches him simple English words and   clothes him. Crusoe is delighted with his new companion and teaches him to eat goat meat instead of human flesh. Cruiser was believe in Christianity he was believer of God. crusoe and Friday relationships start off by Crusoe taking him under his wing and protecting him from his fellow savages. Due to this rescue Friday becomes very loyal towards him and submits.At the times relationship between the two is almost like father and son and crusoe seems to have respect and trust for Friday. However, at other times it is apperent that Crusoe is the master and Friday is merely his Slave. The naming showed a certain hierarchy, placing Crusoe above Friday. This shows Crusoe’s true nature, coming from an English Christian background Friday does not fight this master -slave relationship; in fact, he welcomes  it and  reflects very devote as thanks to crusoe for saving his life. This is shown when crusoe states ,

“At last he lay his  head flat upon the ground, close to my foot; and sets My other foot upon his head to let me know, how he would serve me as long as he liv’d”

The ideslised master servant relationship defoe depicts between crusoe and Friday can also be seen in terms of cultural imperlalism.

“I found Friday had  still desire to eat some of the flesh and was a Cannibal by nature”

“I showed so much horror at the idea that he kept his desire to himself I had made him see that I would kill him if he at tempted to satisfy his desire”.

Although Friday is a servant, he never appears to resist or recent his new servitude and actually views it as appropriates for saving his life, Despite Friday’s response, his servitude to Crusoe is seen as a symbol of imperialist operation throughout the modern world. Friday’s  instance servitude towards Crusoe raises question about Crusoe own sense in rank and power. As Friday Bowing to Crusoe, Crusoe come easily lift Friday from the ground but chooses not to even when Crusoe saves Friday’s father and the Spaniard from being murdered and devoured by the cannibals, you see Crusoe put a pedestal on the Spaniard and only has Friday and Friday’s father cut tree while spaniard supervises.

Crusoe refers to the Spaniards “to whom I imparted my thought on that affair, to oversee direct their work” without giving it a second though Crusoe takes in Friday as his servant of an inferior rank, and assuming not only his own superiority  but white European superiority when they encourage and save the Spaniard.

                   Throughout the course of Robinson Crusoe, Crusoe becomes something of a teacher to Friday , as he conveys Friday from a religion invite in the worship of a god named Benamuckee, the Christianity. Friday came from  different background  so he probably didn't have the same values the white Europeans had. Even when converted to Christianity, crusoe still calls him a Savage due to their racial and  differences.

Crusoe in the process of searching for what he wants repeatedly leaves others ,beginning with his family of origin and concluding with the family he creates. Crusoe also uses a labour of others by exploiting them, such as Brazilian plantation, for immense profits without his personal labour. Crusoe was selfish and self-centered, not even thinking of any family for anyone else, just taking off for himself. The necessity of repentance is seen throughout the  ending this novel. Crusoe’s experiences not only show an adventure, but also a tale demonstrating the right and wrong ways to live one's life. Crusoe being his teacher might have become like him even though Crusoe mentioned Friday was a better Christian. Crusoe treated Friday as a servant or slave  to an extreme viewpoint. Crusoe begins to look friday and , in the course of rudimentary conversations with him ,learns that the cannibals periodically visit the island. Crusoe finds out that Friday is aware of mainland Spaniards who will many men. Crusoe attempts to educate Friday in religious matter and finds that his servant easily understand the notion of God, to whom Friday draws similarities with his own deity Benamuckee. Friday has no more difficulty understanding the devil, not grasping why god does not rid the world of these  evil being permanently, Crusoe has trouble answering this question. Crusoe admits that he lacks the religious knowledge necessary for instructing Friday  in all the aspects of God and Devil.

Friday reports that the cannibals have saved the men from the shipwreck discovered by Crusoe before Friday’s  liberation and  that those men are living safely  among the natives now. When Friday expresses a yearning to return to his country, Crusoe fears losing him and when Crusoe considers trying to join the shipwreck survivors, Friday becomes upset and begs Crusoe not to leave him. Together, the two build a boat in which they plan to sail to Friday’s land in November or December.

“My Island was now peopled and I thought myself very rich in subjects….. how like a king I looked.”

Before Crusoe and Friday have a chance for their voyage to the cannibals land, before they went the cannibals  visit Crusoe’s Island. Twenty-one natives come in three canoes to carry out another cannibalistic attack on three prisoners. Crusoe finds that since Friday belongs to an enemy nation, the situation can be constructed as a state of war in which killing is permissible approaching  the shore, Crusoe observes that one of the Prisoners is a European. Crusoe and Friday fall upon the cannibals and quickly overcome them with their superior weapons, allowing only four to escape. Friday is overjoyed to find that another of the prisoners is his own father.Crusoe and Friday carry them back to Crusoe’s dwelling, reflects   contentedly on the peopling of his kingdom with loyal subjects.  The affectionate loyal bond between Crusoe  and  Friday is a remarkable feature of these early novel. Indeed  it is  striking that this tender friendship is depicted in an age when Europeans were engaged in the large scale devastation of a non-white populations across the globe. Even to represent a native American with the individual characterization that Defoe gives Friday, much less as an  individual with admirable traits, was an unprecedented move in English literature. But, in accordance with the Eurocentric attitude of the time, Defoe ensures that Friday is not Crusoe’s equal in the novel.  He is clearly a servant and inferior in rank, and power and respect. Nevertheless, when Crusoe describes his own “singular satisfaction in fellow himself,” and says, “I begin really to love the creature” his emotional attachment seems sincere, even if we object to Crusoe’s treatment of Friday  as a creature rather than a human being. As the bond between Crusoe in Friday becomes stronger, the similarities between the two men’s cultures and gain more importance than their difference. Crusoe openly refers to himself as a national leader of military forces. when he refers to his two new guests on the island as his “subjects”, we sense how deeply ingrained his imagined National role as king  of the island has become.

Friday’s  subjugation to Crusoe reflects colonial race, relations, especially in Crusoe’s  unquestioning belief that he is helping Friday by making him servant. Crusoe has turned his story of one man’s survival into a political tale replete with its own ideas about Imperialism.

To evaluate my assignment click here

Name: VYAS NUPUR HITESHBHAI.

Roll no: 43

Paper No: 1 - The Renaissance Literature

Topic – Formalist approach in “Hamlet”

Year- 2015-2017

Sem- 1

Submitted to M.K.B.U. Department of English.

Date- 14\09\15

To evaluate my assignment Click here

  
Introduction about Formalist approach:                                   Formalism is a school of literary criticism and literary theory having mainly to do with structural purposes of particular text. It is the study of text without taking into account any outside influence.

                      In literary theory, Formalism refers to critical approaches that analyze, and interpret or evaluate the inherent features of text. These features include not only grammar and syntax but also literary devices such as meter and trope.  The formalist approach reduces the importance of a text’s historical, biographical and cultural context. 

 The formalist approach in “Hamlet”

Dialectic as a form: The trap metaphor in Hamlet

                 ‘ My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent; and like a man to double business bound, stand in pause where I shall first begin, and both neglect’

         The words are not those of Hamlet. They are spoken by claudius as he tries to pray for forgiveness even as he knows that he cannot give up those things for which he murdered his brother his crown his fulfilled ambition and his wife. But the words may easily have been hamlet's for he too is by “double business bound” Indeed, much of play centers on doubleness. In that doubleness lies the essence of what we mean by “dialectic” here- confrontation of Polarities. A consequence of that doubleness of the characters is that they are apparently caught in a trap a key metaphor in the Play or in another image “Hoist with [their] own perfard”[s]. Polonius indudiciously uses the metaphor to warn ophelia away from Hamlet’s “Holy vows of heaven”  that he says are “springs to catch wood-cocks”. More significant is Hamlet’s deliberately misnaming of “The murder of gonzages” he call it “The mousetrap” because it is as he says elsewhere “the thing wherein I will catch conscience of the king”. Claudius feels that he is trapped: “O limed soul the struggling to be free \art more engaged.” Hamlet in the hands of plotters, finds himself “thus be netted round with villainies”. One of whom Claudius has “Thrown out his angle [fish hook] my proper life”. The dying Laertes echoes his father’s  metaphor when he tells osric that he is as a woodcock to mine own spirit here we have a pattern of trap images-springes, lime, nets, mousetraps, angels or hooks no traps are usually for animals but we are dealing with human beings people who are trapped in their own dilemmas in their own question in very questioning of the universe.

2] The  Cosmological trap:- Hamlet's first scene of Act 1 to realize that it is a disturbed world, that a sense of mystery and deep anxiety pre-occupies the soldiers of the watch. The ghost has appeared already and it is expected to appear again. The Guards instinctively assume that apparition of the former King has more than passing import; in their troubled question to Horatio  about the mysterious preparation for War the Guards show how closely They  regard the connection between the unnatural appearance of Dead king and the Welfare of the state. The guards have no answers for the mystery their un certainly or their premonitions.  Their quandary is mirrored in abundant question and minimal answer a rhetorical phenomenon that recurs throughout the play even in the soliloquies of Hamlet in other words, an instance of dialectic.

                          Hamlet a goodly one; in which there are many confines words dangerous Denmark being the one o’th worst.  These remarks recall assertion not marcelleus as Hamlet and the ghost go offstage: “something is rotten in the state of Denmark” Indeed, Hamlet acknowledges that rottenness of Denmark pervades all of nature this godly frame the earth seem to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent cancopy, the air look you, this brave over hanging fireman this majestical roof fretted with Golden fire why it appereth nothing to me but a foul and pestilent congregation of vapors.” Much earlier before his encounter with the ghost, Hamlet expressed his extreme pessimism at man’s having to endure earthly existence within nature’s unwholesome realm:

How weary, stale, flat and

unprofitable seems to me all the uses of this world!

fie on’t, ah, fie, ‘tis an unweeds garden, That grows to seed things went and grows in nature possess it merely

As he speaks these lines Hamlet apparently has no idea of the truth of his father's death but is dismayed over his mother’s hasty marriage to the new king he has discovered seeming paradox in the nature of existence the fair, in nature and human inevitably submits to the dominion of the foul. His obsession with the paradox focuses is his attention on Denmark as model of nature human frailty. Thus as a pattern of increasing parallels between Denmark and the Cosmos and between man and nature develops question and answer dialogue and soliloquy ,become a verbal Unity repeated words and phrases looking forward to larger thematic assertion  and backward to earlier about adumbration. 

                                 The play constitutes a vast poems in which speculation about nature, human nature, the health of the state and human destiny intensifies into a passionate dialectic mystery, riddles Enigma and the metaphysical question complicated questions that have obsessed protagonist from Sophocles Oedipus to Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and guildenstern what begins with the relatively simple question of the soldiers of the watch in Act 1 is magnified and rarified probes of the maddening gulf between reality and appearance proliferate. Moreover  the contrast between what is simple man cheerfully accepts a face value and what the thoughful man is driven to question calls into doubt every surface of utterance, act, or things.

3] seeming and being:- An index to form looms in the crucial qualitative difference between hamlet's mode of speech and that of the Other inhabitants of his strange world because Hamlet’s utterances and manners are  characteristically  unknown inventions. The Other major characters assumes that he is mad or atleast temporarily deranged conversely, because they do speak the simple, selectively safe language of ordinary existence, he assumes that they are hiding twisting the truth. No one who is easily settles for semming is quite trustworthy to the man obsessed with the pursuit of being. Even the ghost’s nature and origin must be tentative for Hamlet  until he can settle the validity of the ghost’s revelations  with “the play within the play” even ophelia must be treated as possible tool of claudius and Polonius. The presence of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, not to mention their mission on the journey of England arouses Hamlet’s deepest suspicious. only Horatio show is extempt from dis trust and even to him Hamlet cannot divulge the full dimension of his subversion yet though hamlet seems to speak only in riddle and to act solely with the von, his utterances and acts always actually bespeak the full measure of his feelings and his increasingly single minded absorption with his inevitable mission.The important qualification of his honesty lies in his full knowledge that others do not comprehend his real meanings and that others are hardly vitally concerned with deep truths about the state, mankind or themselves. When the demands some explanation for his  extraordinary melancholy, Hamlet replies, “ I am too much in the sun”. The reply thus establishes although Claudius does not perceive it, Hamlet’s judgment of and opposition to the easy acceptance of “ things as they are” and when the queen tries to reconcile him to the in-evitability of death in the natural scheme and asks “why seems it so particular with thee?”. He responds with a revealing contradictory between the seeming evidences  of  mourning and real woe- an inadequate condemnation of   the     Queen’s Apparent is easy acceptance of his father's death as opposed to the vindication of his refusal to view that death a merely an occasion  for a ceremonial mourning duties. To the joint extreaty of Claudius and gertrude that he remained in Denmark he replies only to his mother “I shall in all my best obey you madam” but in thus  disdaining  to answer the king he has promised really nothing to his mother although she takes his reply for complete submission to the Royal couple again we see that every statement of Hamlet is dialectic that is it tends toward double meaning the superficial meaning of the word of the world of Denmark and the subtler meaning for Hamlet and  the readers.

                          As  we have observed Hamlet’s overriding concern even before he knows of the ghost’s appearance, is the frustration of living in an imperfect world.  He sees, wherever he looks,the pervasive blight in nature, especially human nature. Man, out-wardly the acme of creation, is susceptible to “some vicious mole of nature,” and no matter how virtuous he otherwise maybe the

“dream of evil” or the “stamp of one defect” adulterates nobility. Hamlet finds that “one may smile and smile and be a villain”. To the uncomprehending Guildenstern, Hamlet emphasizes his basic concern with the strange puzzle of corrupted and corrupting man.  

what a piece of work is a man how Noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how  express an admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god: the beauty of the world, the Paragon of animals! and yet to me what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me- no, nor  woman either, though by your smiling you seem to say so.

 This  preoccupation with the paradox of man, recurring as it does throughout the play, obviously takes precedence over the revenge order by the ghost. Instead of the ideal world Hamlet seeks, the real world that he find is his father’s death, his mother's re- marriage and the defection of his supposed friends, and the fallen state of man.

              Reams have been written about Hamlet reasons for the delay in carrying out his revenge; for our purpose, however, the delay is not particularly important, except in so far as it emphasizes  Hamlet’s greater obsession with the pervasive blight within cosmos.

4] “seeing and knowing” :

                 The design of the play can be perceived in part in the elaborate play upon the words “see” and “know” and their cognates. whereas the deity can be understood as “Looking before and after”, the players King points out to his queen that there is hiatus between what  people intend and what they do: “our thoughts are ours,  their ends none of our own”. Forced by Hamlet to consider the difference between her two  husbands Gertrude cries out in anguish against having to see into her own motivations

O Hamlet, speak no more.

Thou  turn’st mine eyes into my very soul ,

And there I see such  black and grained spots

As will not leave their tinct.

But she does not see the ghost of her former husband, nor can she see the metaphysical implications of Hamlet’s reason in madness. The blind eye sockets of Yorick’s skull once saw their quota of experience, but most people in Denmark are quite content with the surface appearances of life and refuse even to consider the ends to which  mortality brings everyone. The intricate weavings of images of Sight thus become a kind of tragic algebra for  the plight of a man who “seemed to find his way without his eyes” and who found himself at last “placed to the view” of the “yet unknowing world”.  The travelling players had acted out the crime of Denmark on another stage, but their  play seemed to most of audience only a diversion in a pageant of images designed to keep them from really knowing themselves or their fellows to be corrupted by nature and doomed at last to become “my Lady Worm’s, chapless   and knocked about the mazzard with a sexton’s spade”. The contexts of these words assert a systematic enlargement of play’s tragic  pronouncement of human ignorence in the midst of appearances. Formally, the play progresses from the relatively simple speculations of the soldiers of the watch to the sophisticated complexity of metaphysical inquiry. There may not be final answer to the questions Hamlet ponders, but the questions assume a formal order as their dimensions are structured by speech and action- in miniature, by the play within the play ;in extension ;by the tragedy itself. 

                     Ophelia, in her madness, utters perhaps the key line of the play: “Lord,  we know what we are, but we know not what we may be”. Hamlet has earlier said that if the king reactes as expected to the play within the play, “I know my course”; that is he will spring the trap. But he is not sure of his course, nor does he even know himself- at least not until the final act. In the prison of the world and its myriad traps he can only pursue his destiny, which, as he realizes before the duel, inevitably leads to the grave. The contest between human aspiration and natural order in which Hamlet finds himself is all too un equal: idealism turns out to be a poor match for the prison walls of either Denmark or the grave.

To evaluate my assignment Click here

Name: Vyas Nupur H.

Roll No: 43

Paper no 4- Indian writing in English

Topic: Critical note on the deconstruction of myth in “The Purpose”

Submitted to M.K .Bhavnagar University, Department of English

Email Id : nupurvyas1995@gmail.com

Date: 14|10|2015

Year: 2015-2017

To evaluate my assignment click here

Introduction

 What is Myth?

A simple definition of Myth is a story handed down through the history, often oral tradition that explains or give value to the unknown. Myths are often stories told by a particular people such as Indians in Egyptians, and Greeks, romans and others. They are especially linked to religious beliefs and rituals. Rituals were believed to invoke a type of Magic that would the aid war, help achieve prosperity or make choices and promote stability in the land.

What is Deconstruction?

 Introduction:-  

Deconstruction is a critical Outlook concerned with the relationship between text and meaning. Jacques Derrida’s 1967 work of grammatology introduced the majority of Ideas influential within the deconstruction. Language is a system of Signs and words only have meaning because of the contrast between these signs.

Critical note on the deconstruction of myth in “The Purpose”

The Purpose, written over a period of six years, is a tragedy in two acts, the main characters are Eklavya and Arjuna and Drona. The Central idea is that the aim of learner finally determines his proficiency. Behind the mighty characters of the play looms an unseen power, with its own purposes hidden even from the Great Bheeshma.

Kailasam had brought his theme from the Indian epics. The playwright has made changes in original myth and gave it a totally new form. His English plays are small but significant effort to perceive and convey an original pattern of re-interpretation of traditional myth for this purpose he looked fresh some of the Fringe character from the Mahabharata. He attempted to bring into limelight marginalized of Fringe character such as Eklavya. Kailasam’s uniqueness lies not merely in evoking our sympathies for Eklavya but also in elevating them to the level of tragic heroes who were masculine, skillful and capable of achievement. In addition, Kailasam attempted to reveal in these heroes the features that the colonizers believe they possess and which accounted for their superiority over Indians. The purpose highlights Eklavya’s ambition to become the greatest Archer in the world in order to protect his fawns from the wolves, just as it highlights the questionable motivation of other heroic character shabby treatment of the low caste Hero. There purposes of Kailasam can be linked to the broader purpose of the Nationalistic movement of India to rewrite India's past as a foundation of the nationalistic feeling movement and sense of self.He innovates  his characters beyond the roles assigned to them by the authorized versions of the great epics, and he transforms them from

passive victims to active participants thus fitting them into Western definition of masculinity. “The purpose” by T. P. Kailasam is drama in two acts, the story is based on Adipurva from the Mahabharata. The story moves around Eklavya and Arjuna and their purpose behind learning archery. Both have want to learn archery from the great Dronacharya now, if we try to evaluate the story of play “The purpose” by comparing it with the story of Mahabharata then we will find a vast difference in both the things.

                         In Mahabharata, Arjuna is drawn as a heroic character possessing superhuman quality. He is drawn as a noble, kind, worries committed to his duty kind of person. We cannot imagine him doing any bad things About Arjuna we have a very good image in our mind. He is the greatest Archer in the world. This is the myth we heard from our childhood, so we cannot imagine this ideal characters committing any wrong things. But Kailasam challenges this myth and makes an attempt to present this myth  in totallydifferent way, with his own perspective in with his own perspective. In the play “The purpose” Kailasam has drawn Eklavya a marginalized character in Mahabharata as hero of the play, whereas Arjuna is drawn as not good character. In the play Arjuna’s intention behind learning archery was not noble.  He wanted to learn only because he wanted to become greatest Archer in the world. This was the only his limited ambition. we cannot imagine a character like him thinking so selfishly  but in this place it is not so. In contrast to this Eklavya, is a nishadha boy wanted to learn archery not for his personal ambition but he wanted to protect animals. His intention was Nobel he has no personal aspirations. He behaves like a real hero. and at some extent, playwright has shown him greater than Guru Dronacharya also. Eklavya is drawn here as a fast learner noble and greater kind of character in comparison to Arjuna. This all are the things when Kailasam perspective differs from the myth of Mahabharata. Arjuna and Eklavya both wanted to learn archery. Dronacharya teaches archery to Arjuna but cannot accept Eklavya’s proposal because of his promise to Arjuna.  Both of them have different purpose behind to learn archery. Arjuna wanted to become a greatest archer in the world and Eklavya explains that he wants to learn archery to save lives of innocent animals. Arjuna’s purpose behind learning archery is self-centred while Ekalvya purpose is noble. This is the point where the perspective of Writers differs. Rejected by GuruDrona Eklavya leaves the ashrama but with firm decision to learn archery. Eklavya put gurudrona  idol and because of his hard work and guru bhakti becomes the great archer. In the 2 act Eklavya is far ahead then Arjuna in archery. In anger Arjuna says that he will tell everyone that Guru Drona has not kept his vow. To save his Guruji from social criticism Eklavya gives willingly his thumb to drona as Guru Dakshina.

This is the change made by Kailasam.  Here the perspective differs.  The behavior of Arjuna is unexpected in this play. It is my personal ambition to become a greatest Archer in the world- Arjuna. But how can prince personal ambition? He must be patriotic, think about other. And more than that Arjuna says “I have trouble” at that drona says you usually have problem in learning, and your aim is wrong. This has double meaning. Now this is Arjuna is different from Mahabharata. In the play he is a self-obsessed. His understanding is a very limited. Whereas Ekalavya after learns after even watching behind the tree. Ekalavya says  that this boy partha  will never improve, he still making mistakes. All this things shows the upliftment of the character of Eklavya. Thus the Kailasam has highlighted the character of Eklavya. Arjuna is portrayed as anti –hero. Eklavya is nobler than Arjuna so the story told by Maharshi Ved Vyasa, in the Mahabharata is conflicting with the story told by T.P. Kailasam in “The purpose of purpose” In the Purpose, T.P.Kailasam’s Eklavya is greater than Arjuna. Through Eklavya is a nishidha boy, his purpose in learning archery is for the betterment of others. In actuality it is the duty of the prince, but the prince Arjuna is selfish. The reader are  looking at the story from different perspective and that are of the writers. Both the writers have created truths in their individual perspective. Their individual perspectives  are contradictory. The Mahabharata story of Prince and in the purpose Kailasam has given voice to marginalize.

Conclusion:

              We cannot prove Ved Vyasa   right and Kailasam wrong or vice versa. So the reality presented by the writer is just their individual perspective not the truth.

Paper no 4- Indian writing in English

Topic: Critical note on the deconstruction of myth in “The Purpose”

Submitted to M.K .Bhavnagar University, Department of English

Email Id : nupurvyas1995@gmail.com

Date: 14|10|2015

Year: 2015-2017

Introduction

 What is Myth?

A simple definition of Myth is a story handed down through the history, often oral tradition that explains or give value to the unknown. Myths are often stories told by a particular people such as Indians in Egyptians, and Greeks, romans and others. They are especially linked to religious beliefs and rituals. Rituals were believed to invoke a type of Magic that would the aid war, help achieve prosperity or make choices and promote stability in the land.

What is Deconstruction?

 Introduction:-  

Deconstruction is a critical Outlook concerned with the relationship between text and meaning. Jacques Derrida’s 1967 work of grammatology introduced the majority of Ideas influential within the deconstruction. Language is a system of Signs and words only have meaning because of the contrast between these signs.

Critical note on the deconstruction of myth in “The Purpose”

The Purpose, written over a period of six years, is a tragedy in two acts, the main characters are Eklavya and Arjuna and Drona. The Central idea is that the aim of learner finally determines his proficiency. Behind the mighty characters of the play looms an unseen power, with its own purposes hidden even from the Great Bheeshma.

Kailasam had brought his theme from the Indian epics. The playwright has made changes in original myth and gave it a totally new form. His English plays are small but significant effort to perceive and convey an original pattern of re-interpretation of traditional myth for this purpose he looked fresh some of the Fringe character from the Mahabharata. He attempted to bring into limelight marginalized of Fringe character such as Eklavya. Kailasam’s uniqueness lies not merely in evoking our sympathies for Eklavya but also in elevating them to the level of tragic heroes who were masculine, skillful and capable of achievement. In addition, Kailasam attempted to reveal in these heroes the features that the colonizers believe they possess and which accounted for their superiority over Indians. The purpose highlights Eklavya’s ambition to become the greatest Archer in the world in order to protect his fawns from the wolves, just as it highlights the questionable motivation of other heroic character shabby treatment of the low caste Hero. There purposes of Kailasam can be linked to the broader purpose of the Nationalistic movement of India to rewrite India's past as a foundation of the nationalistic feeling movement and sense of self.He innovates  his characters beyond the roles assigned to them by the authorized versions of the great epics, and he transforms them from

passive victims to active participants thus fitting them into Western definition of masculinity. “The purpose” by T. P. Kailasam is drama in two acts, the story is based on Adipurva from the Mahabharata. The story moves around Eklavya and Arjuna and their purpose behind learning archery. Both have want to learn archery from the great Dronacharya now, if we try to evaluate the story of play “The purpose” by comparing it with the story of Mahabharata then we will find a vast difference in both the things.

                         In Mahabharata, Arjuna is drawn as a heroic character possessing superhuman quality. He is drawn as a noble, kind, worries committed to his duty kind of person. We cannot imagine him doing any bad things About Arjuna we have a very good image in our mind. He is the greatest Archer in the world. This is the myth we heard from our childhood, so we cannot imagine this ideal characters committing any wrong things. But Kailasam challenges this myth and makes an attempt to present this myth  in totallydifferent way, with his own perspective in with his own perspective. In the play “The purpose” Kailasam has drawn Eklavya a marginalized character in Mahabharata as hero of the play, whereas Arjuna is drawn as not good character. In the play Arjuna’s intention behind learning archery was not noble.  He wanted to learn only because he wanted to become greatest Archer in the world. This was the only his limited ambition. we cannot imagine a character like him thinking so selfishly  but in this place it is not so. In contrast to this Eklavya, is a nishadha boy wanted to learn archery not for his personal ambition but he wanted to protect animals. His intention was Nobel he has no personal aspirations. He behaves like a real hero. and at some extent, playwright has shown him greater than Guru Dronacharya also. Eklavya is drawn here as a fast learner noble and greater kind of character in comparison to Arjuna. This all are the things when Kailasam perspective differs from the myth of Mahabharata. Arjuna and Eklavya both wanted to learn archery. Dronacharya teaches archery to Arjuna but cannot accept Eklavya’s proposal because of his promise to Arjuna.  Both of them have different purpose behind to learn archery. Arjuna wanted to become a greatest archer in the world and Eklavya explains that he wants to learn archery to save lives of innocent animals. Arjuna’s purpose behind learning archery is self-centred while Ekalvya purpose is noble. This is the point where the perspective of Writers differs. Rejected by GuruDrona Eklavya leaves the ashrama but with firm decision to learn archery. Eklavya put gurudrona  idol and because of his hard work and guru bhakti becomes the great archer. In the 2 act Eklavya is far ahead then Arjuna in archery. In anger Arjuna says that he will tell everyone that Guru Drona has not kept his vow. To save his Guruji from social criticism Eklavya gives willingly his thumb to drona as Guru Dakshina.

This is the change made by Kailasam.  Here the perspective differs.  The behavior of Arjuna is unexpected in this play. It is my personal ambition to become a greatest Archer in the world- Arjuna. But how can prince personal ambition? He must be patriotic, think about other. And more than that Arjuna says “I have trouble” at that drona says you usually have problem in learning, and your aim is wrong. This has double meaning. Now this is Arjuna is different from Mahabharata. In the play he is a self-obsessed. His understanding is a very limited. Whereas Ekalavya after learns after even watching behind the tree. Ekalavya says  that this boy partha  will never improve, he still making mistakes. All this things shows the upliftment of the character of Eklavya. Thus the Kailasam has highlighted the character of Eklavya. Arjuna is portrayed as anti –hero. Eklavya is nobler than Arjuna so the story told by Maharshi Ved Vyasa, in the Mahabharata is conflicting with the story told by T.P. Kailasam in “The purpose of purpose” In the Purpose, T.P.Kailasam’s Eklavya is greater than Arjuna. Through Eklavya is a nishidha boy, his purpose in learning archery is for the betterment of others. In actuality it is the duty of the prince, but the prince Arjuna is selfish. The reader are  looking at the story from different perspective and that are of the writers. Both the writers have created truths in their individual perspective. Their individual perspectives  are contradictory. The Mahabharata story of Prince and in the purpose Kailasam has given voice to marginalize. Name: Vyas Nupur H.

Roll No: 43 Name: Vyas Nupur H.

Roll No: 43

Paper no 4- Indian writing in English

Topic: Critical note on the deconstruction of myth in “The Purpose”

Submitted to M.K .Bhavnagar University, Department of English

Email Id : nupurvyas1995@gmail.com

Date: 14|10|2015

Year: 2015-2017

Introduction

 What is Myth?

A simple definition of Myth is a story handed down through the history, often oral tradition that explains or give value to the unknown. Myths are often stories told by a particular people such as Indians in Egyptians, and Greeks, romans and others. They are especially linked to religious beliefs and rituals. Rituals were believed to invoke a type of Magic that would the aid war, help achieve prosperity or make choices and promote stability in the land.

What is Deconstruction?

 Introduction:-  

Deconstruction is a critical Outlook concerned with the relationship between text and meaning. Jacques Derrida’s 1967 work of grammatology introduced the majority of Ideas influential within the deconstruction. Language is a system of Signs and words only have meaning because of the contrast between these signs.

Critical note on the deconstruction of myth in “The Purpose”

The Purpose, written over a period of six years, is a tragedy in two acts, the main characters are Eklavya and Arjuna and Drona. The Central idea is that the aim of learner finally determines his proficiency. Behind the mighty characters of the play looms an unseen power, with its own purposes hidden even from the Great Bheeshma.

Kailasam had brought his theme from the Indian epics. The playwright has made changes in original myth and gave it a totally new form. His English plays are small but significant effort to perceive and convey an original pattern of re-interpretation of traditional myth for this purpose he looked fresh some of the Fringe character from the Mahabharata. He attempted to bring into limelight marginalized of Fringe character such as Eklavya. Kailasam’s uniqueness lies not merely in evoking our sympathies for Eklavya but also in elevating them to the level of tragic heroes who were masculine, skillful and capable of achievement. In addition, Kailasam attempted to reveal in these heroes the features that the colonizers believe they possess and which accounted for their superiority over Indians. The purpose highlights Eklavya’s ambition to become the greatest Archer in the world in order to protect his fawns from the wolves, just as it highlights the questionable motivation of other heroic character shabby treatment of the low caste Hero. There purposes of Kailasam can be linked to the broader purpose of the Nationalistic movement of India to rewrite India's past as a foundation of the nationalistic feeling movement and sense of self.He innovates  his characters beyond the roles assigned to them by the authorized versions of the great epics, and he transforms them from

passive victims to active participants thus fitting them into Western definition of masculinity. “The purpose” by T. P. Kailasam is drama in two acts, the story is based on Adipurva from the Mahabharata. The story moves around Eklavya and Arjuna and their purpose behind learning archery. Both have want to learn archery from the great Dronacharya now, if we try to evaluate the story of play “The purpose” by comparing it with the story of Mahabharata then we will find a vast difference in both the things.

                         In Mahabharata, Arjuna is drawn as a heroic character possessing superhuman quality. He is drawn as a noble, kind, worries committed to his duty kind of person. We cannot imagine him doing any bad things About Arjuna we have a very good image in our mind. He is the greatest Archer in the world. This is the myth we heard from our childhood, so we cannot imagine this ideal characters committing any wrong things. But Kailasam challenges this myth and makes an attempt to present this myth  in totallydifferent way, with his own perspective in with his own perspective. In the play “The purpose” Kailasam has drawn Eklavya a marginalized character in Mahabharata as hero of the play, whereas Arjuna is drawn as not good character. In the play Arjuna’s intention behind learning archery was not noble.  He wanted to learn only because he wanted to become greatest Archer in the world. This was the only his limited ambition. we cannot imagine a character like him thinking so selfishly  but in this place it is not so. In contrast to this Eklavya, is a nishadha boy wanted to learn archery not for his personal ambition but he wanted to protect animals. His intention was Nobel he has no personal aspirations. He behaves like a real hero. and at some extent, playwright has shown him greater than Guru Dronacharya also. Eklavya is drawn here as a fast learner noble and greater kind of character in comparison to Arjuna. This all are the things when Kailasam perspective differs from the myth of Mahabharata. Arjuna and Eklavya both wanted to learn archery. Dronacharya teaches archery to Arjuna but cannot accept Eklavya’s proposal because of his promise to Arjuna.  Both of them have different purpose behind to learn archery. Arjuna wanted to become a greatest archer in the world and Eklavya explains that he wants to learn archery to save lives of innocent animals. Arjuna’s purpose behind learning archery is self-centred while Ekalvya purpose is noble. This is the point where the perspective of Writers differs. Rejected by GuruDrona Eklavya leaves the ashrama but with firm decision to learn archery. Eklavya put gurudrona  idol and because of his hard work and guru bhakti becomes the great archer. In the 2 act Eklavya is far ahead then Arjuna in archery. In anger Arjuna says that he will tell everyone that Guru Drona has not kept his vow. To save his Guruji from social criticism Eklavya gives willingly his thumb to drona as Guru Dakshina.

This is the change made by Kailasam.  Here the perspective differs.  The behavior of Arjuna is unexpected in this play. It is my personal ambition to become a greatest Archer in the world- Arjuna. But how can prince personal ambition? He must be patriotic, think about other. And more than that Arjuna says “I have trouble” at that drona says you usually have problem in learning, and your aim is wrong. This has double meaning. Now this is Arjuna is different from Mahabharata. In the play he is a self-obsessed. His understanding is a very limited. Whereas Ekalavya after learns after even watching behind the tree. Ekalavya says  that this boy partha  will never improve, he still making mistakes. All this things shows the upliftment of the character of Eklavya. Thus the Kailasam has highlighted the character of Eklavya. Arjuna is portrayed as anti –hero. Eklavya is nobler than Arjuna so the story told by Maharshi Ved Vyasa, in the Mahabharata is conflicting with the story told by T.P. Kailasam in “The purpose of purpose” In the Purpose, T.P.Kailasam’s Eklavya is greater than Arjuna. Through Eklavya is a nishidha boy, his purpose in learning archery is for the betterment of others. In actuality it is the duty of the prince, but the prince Arjuna is selfish. The reader are  looking at the story from different perspective and that are of the writers. Both the writers have created truths in their individual perspective. Their individual perspectives  are contradictory. The Mahabharata story of Prince and in the purpose Kailasam has given voice to marginalize.

Conclusion:

              We cannot prove Ved Vyasa   right and Kailasam wrong or vice versa. So the reality presented by the writer is just their individual perspective not the truth.

Paper no 4- Indian writing in English

Topic: Critical note on the deconstruction of myth in “The Purpose”

Submitted to M.K .Bhavnagar University, Department of English

Email Id : nupurvyas1995@gmail.com

Date: 14|10|2015

Year: 2015-2017

Introduction

 What is Myth?

A simple definition of Myth is a story handed down through the history, often oral tradition that explains or give value to the unknown. Myths are often stories told by a particular people such as Indians in Egyptians, and Greeks, romans and others. They are especially linked to religious beliefs and rituals. Rituals were believed to invoke a type of Magic that would the aid war, help achieve prosperity or make choices and promote stability in the land.

What is Deconstruction?

 Introduction:-  

Deconstruction is a critical Outlook concerned with the relationship between text and meaning. Jacques Derrida’s 1967 work of grammatology introduced the majority of Ideas influential within the deconstruction. Language is a system of Signs and words only have meaning because of the contrast between these signs.

Critical note on the deconstruction of myth in “The Purpose”

The Purpose, written over a period of six years, is a tragedy in two acts, the main characters are Eklavya and Arjuna and Drona. The Central idea is that the aim of learner finally determines his proficiency. Behind the mighty characters of the play looms an unseen power, with its own purposes hidden even from the Great Bheeshma.

Kailasam had brought his theme from the Indian epics. The playwright has made changes in original myth and gave it a totally new form. His English plays are small but significant effort to perceive and convey an original pattern of re-interpretation of traditional myth for this purpose he looked fresh some of the Fringe character from the Mahabharata. He attempted to bring into limelight marginalized of Fringe character such as Eklavya. Kailasam’s uniqueness lies not merely in evoking our sympathies for Eklavya but also in elevating them to the level of tragic heroes who were masculine, skillful and capable of achievement. In addition, Kailasam attempted to reveal in these heroes the features that the colonizers believe they possess and which accounted for their superiority over Indians. The purpose highlights Eklavya’s ambition to become the greatest Archer in the world in order to protect his fawns from the wolves, just as it highlights the questionable motivation of other heroic character shabby treatment of the low caste Hero. There purposes of Kailasam can be linked to the broader purpose of the Nationalistic movement of India to rewrite India's past as a foundation of the nationalistic feeling movement and sense of self.He innovates  his characters beyond the roles assigned to them by the authorized versions of the great epics, and he transforms them from

passive victims to active participants thus fitting them into Western definition of masculinity. “The purpose” by T. P. Kailasam is drama in two acts, the story is based on Adipurva from the Mahabharata. The story moves around Eklavya and Arjuna and their purpose behind learning archery. Both have want to learn archery from the great Dronacharya now, if we try to evaluate the story of play “The purpose” by comparing it with the story of Mahabharata then we will find a vast difference in both the things.

                         In Mahabharata, Arjuna is drawn as a heroic character possessing superhuman quality. He is drawn as a noble, kind, worries committed to his duty kind of person. We cannot imagine him doing any bad things About Arjuna we have a very good image in our mind. He is the greatest Archer in the world. This is the myth we heard from our childhood, so we cannot imagine this ideal characters committing any wrong things. But Kailasam challenges this myth and makes an attempt to present this myth  in totallydifferent way, with his own perspective in with his own perspective. In the play “The purpose” Kailasam has drawn Eklavya a marginalized character in Mahabharata as hero of the play, whereas Arjuna is drawn as not good character. In the play Arjuna’s intention behind learning archery was not noble.  He wanted to learn only because he wanted to become greatest Archer in the world. This was the only his limited ambition. we cannot imagine a character like him thinking so selfishly  but in this place it is not so. In contrast to this Eklavya, is a nishadha boy wanted to learn archery not for his personal ambition but he wanted to protect animals. His intention was Nobel he has no personal aspirations. He behaves like a real hero. and at some extent, playwright has shown him greater than Guru Dronacharya also. Eklavya is drawn here as a fast learner noble and greater kind of character in comparison to Arjuna. This all are the things when Kailasam perspective differs from the myth of Mahabharata. Arjuna and Eklavya both wanted to learn archery. Dronacharya teaches archery to Arjuna but cannot accept Eklavya’s proposal because of his promise to Arjuna.  Both of them have different purpose behind to learn archery. Arjuna wanted to become a greatest archer in the world and Eklavya explains that he wants to learn archery to save lives of innocent animals. Arjuna’s purpose behind learning archery is self-centred while Ekalvya purpose is noble. This is the point where the perspective of Writers differs. Rejected by GuruDrona Eklavya leaves the ashrama but with firm decision to learn archery. Eklavya put gurudrona  idol and because of his hard work and guru bhakti becomes the great archer. In the 2 act Eklavya is far ahead then Arjuna in archery. In anger Arjuna says that he will tell everyone that Guru Drona has not kept his vow. To save his Guruji from social criticism Eklavya gives willingly his thumb to drona as Guru Dakshina.

This is the change made by Kailasam.  Here the perspective differs.  The behavior of Arjuna is unexpected in this play. It is my personal ambition to become a greatest Archer in the world- Arjuna. But how can prince personal ambition? He must be patriotic, think about other. And more than that Arjuna says “I have trouble” at that drona says you usually have problem in learning, and your aim is wrong. This has double meaning. Now this is Arjuna is different from Mahabharata. In the play he is a self-obsessed. His understanding is a very limited. Whereas Ekalavya after learns after even watching behind the tree. Ekalavya says  that this boy partha  will never improve, he still making mistakes. All this things shows the upliftment of the character of Eklavya. Thus the Kailasam has highlighted the character of Eklavya. Arjuna is portrayed as anti –hero. Eklavya is nobler than Arjuna so the story told by Maharshi Ved Vyasa, in the Mahabharata is conflicting with the story told by T.P. Kailasam in “The purpose of purpose” In the Purpose, T.P.Kailasam’s Eklavya is greater than Arjuna. Through Eklavya is a nishidha boy, his purpose in learning archery is for the betterment of others. In actuality it is the duty of the prince, but the prince Arjuna is selfish. The reader are  looking at the story from different perspective and that are of the writers. Both the writers have created truths in their individual perspective. Their individual perspectives  are contradictory. The Mahabharata story of Prince and in the purpose Kailasam has given voice to marginalize.

Conclusion:

              We cannot prove Ved Vyasa   right and Kailasam wrong or vice versa. So the reality presented by the writer is just their individual perspective not the truth.

Conclusion:

              We cannot prove Ved Vyasa   right and Kailasam wrong or vice versa. So the reality presented by the writer is just their individual perspective not the truth.

To evaluate my assignment click here

NAME: VYAS NUPUR H.

ROLL NO:  43 

PAPER NO : 3  (Literary Theory $ Criticism ) Western-1

Topic: Wordsworth ‘s themes of poetry

Date :14-10-15

Submitted to: M.K. Bhavnagar University Department of English.

Email id : nupurvyas1995@gmail.

To evaluate my assignment click here
Introduction:

William Wordsworth is considered the pioneer of the Romanticism in English literature. ‘The Lyrical Ballads’ was published in 1798 under the combined authorship in word worth and Coleridge. This poetry collection is considered the mile- stone of 19^th century English poetry. In the preface to the lyrical ballads, Wordsworth at length, comments upon the nature and functions of poetry. He cherishes humble and rustic life as the source of poetry writing. Wordsworth says that the poet is men speaking to men wordsworth loved nature.so his themes are also natural.

                    He wants the poets to write and communicate in such a way that no class remains untouched. His poems under the category of children poems and like nursery rhyme. He uses meter and rhyme and figures of speech.

What according to words-worth should be the theme of poetry?

Theme of poetry

1)  Nature

2)  Memory

3)  Mortality

4)  Humanity

5)  Transcendence and connectivity

6)  Morality

7)  Religion

8)  Country life v/s city life

9)  The splendor of childhood

1]Nature:’’ Come forth in to the light of things ,Let Nature be your Teacher.’’

-These line by ‘Tables Turned ‘poem.

‘’I wandered lonely as a cloud that floats on high o ‘er vales and hills’’.

-This line by ‘Daffodils

No discussion on words worth would be complete without mention of Nature.Wordsworth has connected with Nature in his later life. Nature and its connection to humanity make an appearance in the vast majority of Wordsworth poetry. through Wordsworth’s work, nature provides the ultimate good influence on the human mind words worth’s poetry of an holding up poems focus and has become the cornerstone of the romantic movement primarily because of him. For him nature is a kind of religion in which he has utmost faith in nature. Nature fills two major roles in Wordsworth's poetry  

1] Even though it is intensely beautiful and peaceful nature often causes Wordsworth to feel melancholy or sad. This is usually because even as his relishes in his connection with nature he worries about the rest of humanity most of who lives in cities completely apart from nature. Wordsworth wonders how they could possibly revive their spirits. In the end, however, he often decides that it is wrong to be sad while in nature. ‘A poet could not but be gay in such jocund company.’

2] Nature also gives Wordsworth hope for the future from past experience Wordsworth knows that spending time in nature is a gift to his future self, because later, when he is alone tired and frustrated in the busy, dirty city, he will be able to look back on the on a field of Daffodils he once spent times in and be happy again. All manifestation of the natural world from the highest mountains to the simplest flower elicit noble, elevated thoughts and passionate emotions in the people who observe these manifestation. Wordsworth repeatedly emphasizes the importance of nature to an individual’s intellectual and spiritual development. A good relationship with nature helps individuals connect to both the spiritual and the social world. As Wordsworth explains in ‘The prelude’ a love of nature can lead to a love of humankind.

2] Memory: For Wordsworth the power of the human mind is extremely important. In several of his poems he begins in a negative or depressed mood, and then slowly becomes more positive. Wordsworth’s Lucy poems marked with the quality of memory

‘’she dwelt among the untrodden ways, she lived unknown, and few could know, when Lucy ceased to be, but she is in her grave, and oh, the difference to me”

               For instance, in poems like ‘’Lines composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey” and “I wandered lonely as a cloud” Wordsworth is in nature and he is happy but he becomes even happier when he realizes that he never actually has to leave his memories behind. He defines his poetry that “Poetry is a spontaneous overflow of powerful feeling recollected in tranquility” He believes that by recalling memories with calmness and to write a poetry. He observes nature and then he be collected his memory and write a poetry. once he has returned to the daily to the daily gloom of the City he will be able to remember the time we spent among the  nature and make himself happy again. “And then my heart with pleasure fills   and dances with [Daffodils”]. “The music in my heart I bore, long after it was heard no more”. The lines by [Solitary Reaper]

As Wordsworth begins to consider his own mortality memory is again huge comfort, because he realizes that even after he has died he will be able to live on in the memory of his family and friends, just as those who have passed on before him are in his memory. Wordsworth is especially heartened to know that his sister Dorothy with whom he spent countless hours will remember him fondly carrying him with her whenever she goes using memory and imagination individuals overcome difficulties and pain. The transformative powers of the mind are available to all, regardless of an individual’s class or background.

                The democratic view emphasizes individuality and uniqueness. Throughout his work, Wordsworth showed short strong support for the political, religious and artistic rights of the individual including the power of his or her mind. In the 1802 “preface to lyrical ballads” Wordsworth explain the relationship between the mind and poetry. Later poems, such as “Ode: Intimations of Immortality” imagine nature as the source of the inspiring material that nourishes the active creative mind.

3] Mortality:- Wordsworth fascination with death frequently shows up in his poetry like Lucy poems

“Strange fits of passion have I known”

“A slumber did my spirit seal”

“The education of nature”

“The solitary reaper”

“She dwelt among the untrodden ways”

               for instance, are a series of poems about young girl who may or may not have been a figment of Wordsworth's imagination and ultimately dies. We can say that all his Lucy poems belongs to our love poems Lucy maybe his beloved. Wordsworth looks at the event from several angles. In “She dwelt among untrodden ways” he focuses on the unexpected ness of her death in general. “In the three years she grew” Wordsworth creates a fanciful rationale for her death: Nature became entranced by her and promised to give her an incredible life’ but once all of her promises were fulfilled Lucy had to die.

“Slumber did my spirit seal” in this poems lines shows “No motion has she now no force, she neither hears nor sees;  Roll’d round in earth diural course, with rocks, and stones, and trees”

               This line shows the belief of pantheism means the belief that nature is God and every human being becomes the part of the universe after death. In “lines composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey” Wordsworth is comforted by the thought that he will live on after his death, because his sister Dorothy will remember him lovingly.

4] Humanity:- One of Wordsworth greatest worries is descent of humanity. As man moves further and further away from humanity he seems to be losing more and more of his soul. Often when Wordsworth is in Nature his invention he is saddened because he is forced to think about people trapped in cities unable or unwilling to communicate with Nature. In “London 1802” for instance,

  “We are a selfish man; oh! raise up, return to us again; as and give us Manners, virtue, freedom and power.”

  Wordsworth makes a plea to the poet John Milton to return and teacher humanity how to regain the morality and virtue it once had similarly in “The world is too much with us” Wordsworth worries that the world is to full of people who have lost their connection to divinity and more importantly to nature “Getting and spending we lay waste our powers, little we see in nature that is ours”

             5] Transcendence and connectivity:- The idea of transcendence did not gain full speed until the romantic movement moved to America, but Wordsworth was certainly a fun of the idea long before then. Trascendence” simply means “being without boundaries” for Wordsworth  this means being able to connect with people and things outside of oneself, especially in terms of nature. In his poem “A slumber did my spirit seal”

“A slumber did my spirit seal I had no human fears; she seemed a thing that could not feel. The touch of earthly years”

     It was Wordsworth’s Supreme aspiration to met aphorical transcend the limitation of his body and connect completely with nature. Mankind's difficulty accepting the beauty that nature has to offer saddened Wordsworth; and he found the loss of Such a gift difficult to accept.

6] Morality: In Wordsworth poems morality doesn't necessarily stem directly from religion, but rather from doing what is right by oneself by humanity and by nature. “ In London 1802”, Wordsworth complains that man’s morals are in the state of constant decline, but the morals he is talking about have more to do with following the natural process of life being free and powerful not tied down by city living for common thoughts. The most important lesson a person can learn according to Wordsworth is to be true to his own impulses and desires, but not greedy. A person should be available to help his fellow man, but should not be consumed by other peoples’ needs. He should be in communion with nature with humanity, and with himself.

      7] Religion: religion, while not as prevalent as in the poetry of enlightenment, does have a place in much of Wordsworth’s poetry. Often religion is included simply to help Wordsworth’s more pious readers understand the level of his commitment to and faith in nature. Wordsworth uses religious imagery and language in his poems in order to convey his ideas about the power of nature in humanmind and global Inter- connectivity

8] Country life vs City life:- Wordsworth was in favour of country life. He observed shepherd life and their daily routine life. He was lover of nature. He wandered lonely in the Nature. His most of poems shows shepherd life and their work. He   satire one of “ode to West Minister Bridge” on a city life. This poem is also under the category of nature poem. This ode is written where in London industrial revolution began and much developed City. Wordsworth’s poem

“The solitary reaper be hold her, single in the field, yon on solitary Highland Lass! Reaping and singing by herself;

This lines show a girl was reaping the land with chanting song. This shows daily life of shepherd’s girl and living with nature.

Ode to Westminster Bridge,

A sight so touching in its majesty:

This city now doth, like a garment, wear  

The beauty of the morning; silent bare, ships, Towers, domes, theatres and temples lie

Open unto the fields, and  to the sky;

All bright and glittering in the Smokeless air,

Dear God! the very houses is seem asleep; and all that mighty heart is lying still!

                 This lines shows city life upon Bridge this was There was a time of industrial revolution. There time of winter and city was calm and silent early morning without smoke some lines shows city life with full of machines and towers.

9]The Splendor of childhood:-In Wordsworth poetry, childhood is magical magnificent time of Innocence. Children from an intense bond with nature so much so that they appear to be a part of the natural world, rather than a part of human social world. Their relationship to nature is passionate and extreme. Children feel joy at seeing a rainbow but great terror at seeing desolation of decay. In 1799 Wordsworth wrote several poems about a young girl named Lucy who died at a young age. These poems including “she dwelt among the untrodden ways” [1800] praising her  beauty and lament her untimely death. In death, Lucy retains the innocence and Splendor of childhood. Unlike the  children who grow up  lose their connection to nature and lead unfulfilling lives.

To evaluate my assignment click here