The Romantic Literature

Name- Vyas Nupur Hiteshbhai

Roll number- 39

Batch year- 2015-2017

Email id- nupurvyas1995@gmail.com

Assignment topiccom- A criticle note on gender stereotypes in sense and sensibility

Subject- paper-5 The Romantic Literature

Submitted to Department of English, MKBU, india , gujarat (Bhavnagar)

To click here to evuluate.

Introduction

Sense and Sensibility is a novel by Jane Austen, and was her first published work when it appeared in 1811 under the pseudonym "A Lady". A work of romantic fiction, better known as a comedy of manners, Sense and Sensibility is set in southwest England, London and Kent between 1792 and 1797, and portrays the life and loves of the Dashwood sisters, Elinor and Marianne. The novel follows the young ladies to their new home, a meagre cottage on a distant relative's property, where they experience love, romance and heartbreak.

When Mr. Henry Dashwood dies, leaving all his money to his first wife's son John Dashwood, his second wife and her three daughters are left with no permanent home and very little income. Mrs. Dashwood and her daughters (Elinor, Marianne, and Margaret) are invited to stay with their distant relations, the Middletons, at Barton Park. Elinor is sad to leave their home at Norland because she has become closely attached to Edward Ferrars, the brother-in-law of her half-brother John. However, once at Barton Park, Elinor and Marianne discover many new acquaintances, including the retired officer and bachelor Colonel Brandon, and the gallant and impetuous John Willoughby, who rescues Marianne after she twists her ankle running down the hills of Barton in the rain. Willoughby openly and unabashedly courts Marianne, and together the two flaunt their attachment to one another, until Willoughby suddenly announces that he must depart for London on business, leaving Marianne lovesick and miserable. Meanwhile, Anne and Lucy Steele, two recently discovered relations of Lady Middleton's mother, Mrs. Jennings, arrive at Barton Park as guests of the Middletons. Lucy ingratiates herself to Elinor and informs her that she (Lucy) has been secretly engaged to Mr. Ferrars for a whole year. Elinor initially assumes that Lucy is referring to Edward's younger brother, Robert, but is shocked and pained to learn that Lucy is actually referring to her own beloved Edward.

In Volume II of the novel, Elinor and Marianne travel to London with Mrs. Jennings. Colonel Brandon informs Elinor that everyone in London is talking of an engagement between Willoughby and Marianne, though Marianne has not told her family of any such attachment. Marianne is anxious to be reunited with her beloved Willoughby, but when she sees him at a party in town, he cruelly rebuffs her and then sends her a letter denying that he ever had feelings for her. Colonel Brandon tells Elinor of Willoughby's history of callousness and debauchery, and Mrs. Jennings confirms that Willoughby, having squandered his fortune, has become engaged to the wealthy heiress Miss Grey.

In Volume III, Lucy's older sister inadvertently reveals the news of Lucy's secret engagement to Edward Ferrars. Edward's mother is outraged at the information and disinherits him, promising his fortune to Robert instead. Meanwhile, the Dashwood sisters visit family friends at Cleveland on their way home from London. At Cleveland, Marianne develops a severe cold while taking long walks in the rain, and she falls deathly ill. Upon hearing of her illness, Willoughby comes to visit, attempting to explain his misconduct and seek forgiveness. Elinor pities him and ultimately shares his story with Marianne, who finally realizes that she behaved imprudently with Willoughby and could never have been happy with him anyway. Mrs. Dashwood and Colonel Brandon arrive at Cleveland and are relieved to learn that Marianne has begun to recover.

When the Dashwoods return to Barton, they learn from their manservant that Lucy Steele and Mr. Ferrars are engaged. They assume that he means Edward Ferrars, and are thus unsurprised, but Edward himself soon arrives and corrects their misconception: it was Robert, not himself, whom the money-grubbing Lucy ultimately decided to marry. Thus,x Edward is finally free to propose to his beloved Elinor, and not long after, Marianne and Colonel Brandon become engaged as well. The couples live together at Delaford and remain in close touch with their mother and younger sister at Barton Cottage.

Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes are simplistic generalizations about the gender attributes, differences, and roles of individuals and/or groups. Stereotypes can be positive or negative, but they rarely communicate accurate information about others. When people automatically apply gender assumptions to others regardless of evidence to the contrary, they are perpetuating gender stereotyping. Many people recognize the dangers of gender stereotyping, yet continue to make these types of generalizations.

Traditionally, the female stereotypic role is to marry and have children. She is also to put her family's welfare before her own; be loving, compassionate, caring, nurturing, and sympathetic; and find time to be sexy and feel beautiful. The male stereotypic role is to be the financial provider.

Elinor Dashwood — the sensible and reserved eldest daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Henry Dashwood. She is 19 years old at the beginning of the book. She becomes attached to Edward Ferrars, the brother-in-law of her elder half-brother, John. Always feeling a keen sense of responsibility to her family and friends, she places their welfare and interests above her own, and suppresses her own strong emotions in a way that leads others to think she is indifferent or cold-hearted.

Marianne Dashwood — the romantically inclined and eagerly expressive second daughter of Mr and Mrs Henry Dashwood. She is 16 years old at the beginning of the book. She is the object of the attentions of Colonel Brandon and Mr. Willoughby. She is attracted to young, handsome, romantically spirited Willoughby and does not think much of the older, more reserved Colonel Brandon. Marianne undergoes the most development within the book, learning her sensibilities have been selfish. She decides her conduct should be more like that of her elder sister, Elinor.

John Willoughby — a philandering nephew of a neighbour of the Middletons, a dashing figure who charms Marianne and shares her artistic and cultural sensibilities. It is generally presumed by many of their mutual acquaintances that he is engaged to marry Marianne (partly due to her own overly familiar actions, i.e., addressing personal letters directly to him).

Mrs Jennings – mother to Lady Middleton and Charlotte Palmer. A widow who has married off all her children, she spends most of her time visiting her daughters and their families, especially the Middletons. She and her son-in-law, Sir John Middleton, take an active interest in the romantic affairs of the young people around them and seek to encourage suitable matches, often to the particular chagrin of Elinor and Marianne.

Henry Dashwood – a wealthy gentleman who dies at the beginning of the story. The terms of his estate — entailment to a male heir — prevent him from leaving anything to his second wife and their children. He asks John, his son by his first wife, to look after (meaning ensure the financial security of) his second wife and their three daughters.

Lucy Steele – a young, distant relation of Mrs. Jennings, who has for some time been secretly engaged to Edward Ferrars. She assiduously cultivates the friendship with Elinor Dashwood and Mrs John Dashwood. Limited in formal education and financial means, she is nonetheless attractive, clever, manipulative, cunning and scheming.

paper-7 literary theory and criticism

Name - Vyas Nupur Hiteshbhai.

Roll number- 39

Subject- paper- 7 Literary theory and criticism

Aassignment Topic- Deconstruction

Batch year- 2015-2017

Submitted to Department of English, MKBU, india, gujarat (Bhavnagar).

Email id- nupurvyas1995@gmail.com

click here to evaluate my assingment

 Deconstruction

Derrida, Jacques form of philosophical and literary analysis, derived mainly from work begun in the 1960s by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, that questions the fundamental conceptual distinctions, or “oppositions,” in Western philosophy through a close examination of the language and logic of philosophical and literary texts. In the 1970s the term was applied to work by Derrida, Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller, and Barbara Johnson, among other scholars. In the 1980s it designated more loosely a range of radical theoretical enterprises in diverse areas of the humanities and social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and literature—law, psychoanalysis, architecture, anthropology, theology, feminism, gay and lesbian studies, political theory, historiography, and film theory. In polemical discussions about intellectual trends of the late 20th-century, deconstruction was sometimes used pejoratively to suggest nihilism and frivolous skepticism. In popular usage the term has come to mean a critical dismantling of tradition and traditional modes of thought.

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 deconstruction. According to Derrida and taking inspiration from the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, language as a system of signs and words only has meaning because of the contrast between these signs. As Rorty contends "words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words...no word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form)".As a consequence meaning is never present, but rather is deferred to other signs. Derrida refers to the - in this view, mistaken - belief that there is a self-sufficient, non-deferred meaning as metaphysics of presence. A concept then must be understood in the context of its opposite, such as being/nothingness, normal/abnormal, speech/writing, etc.

Finally, Derrida argues that it is not enough to expose and deconstruct the way oppositions work and then stop there in a nihilistic or cynical position, "thereby preventing any means of intervening in the field effectively".To be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not to synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference and eternal interplay. This explains why Derrida always proposes new terms in his deconstruction, not as a free play but as a pure necessity of analysis, to better mark the intervals. Derrida called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, "false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition: but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions, resisting and organizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of Hegelian dialectics (e.g. différance, archi-writing, pharmakon, supplement, hymen, gram, spacing).

In the 1980s, the Postmodernism era, deconstruction was being put to use in a range of theoretical enterprises in the humanities and social sciences, including law anthropology, historiography, linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychoanalysis, feminism, and LGBT studies. In the continental philosophy tradition, debates surrounding ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and philosophy of language still refer to it today. Within architecture it has inspired deconstructivism, and it remains important in general within art, music, and literary criticism.

Derrida's original use of the word "deconstruction" was a translation of Destruktion, a concept from the work of Martin Heidegger that Derrida sought to apply to textual reading. Heidegger's term referred to a process of exploring the categories and concepts that tradition has imposed on a word, and the history behind them. Derrida opted for deconstruction over the literal translation destruction to suggest precision rather than violence.

Basic philosophical concerns

Derrida's concerns flow from a consideration of several issues:

A desire to contribute to the re-valuation of all western values, built on the 18th century Kantian critique of reason, and carried forward to the 19th century, in its more radical implications, by Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.

An assertion that texts outlive their authors, and become part of a set of cultural habits equal to, if not surpassing, the importance of authorial intent.

A re-valuation of certain classic western dialectics: poetry vs. philosophy, reason vs. revelation, structure vs. creativity, episteme vs. techne, etc.

To this end, Derrida follows a long line of modern philosophers, who look backwards to Plato and his influence on the western metaphysical tradition.[23] Like Nietzsche, Derrida suspects Plato of dissimulation in the service of a political project, namely the education, through critical reflections, of a class of citizens more strategically positioned to influence the polis. However, like Nietzsche, Derrida is not satisfied merely with such a political interpretation of Plato, because of the particular dilemma modern humans find themselves stuck in. His Platonic reflections are inseparably part of his critique of modernity, hence the attempt to be something beyond the modern, because of this Nietzschian sense that the modern has lost its way and become mired in nihilism.

Différance

Différance is an important idea within deconstruction, it is the observation that the meanings of words come from their synchronity with other words within the language and their diachrony between contemporary and historical definitions of a word. Understanding language according Derrida required an understanding of both viewpoints of linguistic analysis. The focus on diachronity has led to accusations against Derrida of engaging in the Etymological fallacy.

There is one statement by Derrida which has been of great interest to his opponents, and which appeared in an essay on Rousseau (part of the highly influential Of Grammatology, 1967), It is the assertion that "there is no outside-text" (il n'y a pas de hors-texte),which is often mistranslated as "there is nothing outside of the text". The mistranslation is often used to suggest Derrida believes that nothing exists but words. Michel Foucault, for instance, famously misattributed to Derrida the very different phrase "Il n'y a rien en dehors du text" for this purpose. According to Derrida, his statement simply refers to the unavoidability of context that is at the heart of différance.

For example, the word "house" derives its meaning more as a function of how it differs from "shed", "mansion", "hotel", "building", etc. (Form of Content, that Louis Hjelmslev distinguished from Form of Expression) than how the word "house" may be tied to a certain image of a traditional house (i.e. the relationship between signifier and signified) with each term being established in reciprocal determination with the other terms than by an ostensive description or definition: when can we talk about a "house" or a "mansion" or a "shed"? The same can be said about verbs, in all the languages in the world: when should we stop saying "walk" and start saying "run"? The same happens, of course, with adjectives: when must we stop saying "yellow" and start saying "orange", or exchange "past" for "present? Not only are the topological differences between the words relevant here, but the differentials between what is signified is also covered by différance.

Thus, complete meaning is always "differential" and postponed in language; there is never a moment when meaning is complete and total. A simple example would consist of looking up a given word in a dictionary, then proceeding to look up the words found in that word's definition, etc., also comparing with older dictionaries from different periods in time, and such a process would never end.

Metaphysics of presence-

Derrida describes the task of deconstruction as the identification of metaphysics of presence or logocentrism in western philosophy. Metaphysics of presence is the desire for immediate access to meaning, the privileging of presence over absence. This means that there is an assumed bias in certain binary oppositions where one side is placed in a position of one over another, such as good over bad, speech over the written word, male over female among other oppositions. Derrida writes, "Without a doubt, Aristotle thinks of time on the basis of ousia as parousia, on the basis of the now, the point, etc. And yet an entire reading could be organized that would repeat in Aristotle's text both this limitation and its opposite." To Derrida the central bias of logocentrism was the now being placed as more important than the future or past. This argument is largely based on the earlier work of Heidegger, who, in Being and Time, claimed that the theoretical attitude of pure presence is parasitical upon a more originary involvement with the world in concepts such as the ready-to-hand and being-with.

Logocentricism-

French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) in his book Of Grammatology responds in depth to what he believes is Saussure’s logocentric argument. Derrida deconstructs the apparent inner, phonological system of language, stating in Chapter 2, Linguistics and Grammatology, that in fact and for reasons of essence Saussure’s representative determination is ‘...an ideal explicitly directing a functioning which...is never completely phonetic’.The idea that writing might function other than phonetically and also as more than merely a representative delineation of speech allows an absolute concept of logos to end in what Derrida describes as infinitist metaphysics.[9] The difference in presence can never actually be reduced, as was the logocentric project; instead, the chain of signification becomes the trace of presence-absence’.

'That the signified is originarily and essentially (and not only for a finite and created spirit) trace, that it is always already in the position of the signifier, is the apparently innocent proposition within which the metaphysics of the logos, of presence and consciousness, must reflect upon writing as its death and its resource.'

"Logocentrism" is a term coined by the German philosopher Ludwig Klages in the 1920s. It refers to the tradition of "Western" science and philosophy that situates the logos, "the word" or the "act of speech", as epistemologically superior in a system, or structure, in which we may only know, or be present in, the world by way of a logocentric metaphysics. For this structure to hold true it must be assumed that there is an original, irreducible object which the logos represents, and therefore, that our presence in the world is necessarily mediated. If there is a Platonic Ideal Form then there must be an ideal representation of such a form. According to logocentrism, this ideal representation is the logos.

Phonocentrism-

Phonocentrism is the belief that sounds and speech are inherently superior to, or more primary than, written language. Those who espouse phonocentric views maintain that spoken language is the primary and most fundamental method of communication whereas writing is merely a derived method of capturing speech. Many also believe that spoken language is inherently richer and more intuitive than written language. These views also impact perceptions of sign languages - especially in the United States. Oralism is the belief that deaf students should use sounds, speech reading, and primarily English instead of signs in their education. Alexander Graham Bell is a well known proponent for oralism of the deaf - such phonocentristic views are rejected by the Deaf community. Phonocentrisim in the context of deafness is referred to as audism.

Some writers have argued that philosophers such as Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Ferdinand de Saussure have promoted phonocentric views. Walter Ong, who has also expressed support for the idea of phonocentrism, has argued that the culture of the United States is particularly non-phonocentric.

Some philosophers and linguists, notably including the philosopher Jacques Derrida, have used the term "phonocentrism" to criticize what they see as a disdain for written language. Derrida has argued that phonocentrism developed because the immediacy of speech has been regarded as closer to the presence of subjects than writing. He believed that the binary opposition between speech and writing is a form of logocentrism.

Paper 6 Victorian literature

Name- Vyas Nupur Hiteshbhai.
Roll number- 39
Subject- The Victorian literature
Batch- 2015-2017
Submitted to Department of English, MKBU, India, Gujarat( Bhvnagar).
Email id- nupurvyas1995@gmail.com
Assingnment topic- Doing as one likes : Matthew Arnold

TO EVALUATE MY ASSIGNMENT CLICK HERE  

Introduction- 

                                             Matthew Arnold, in the first chapter of "culture and Anarchy "-'Sweetness and Light'- has tried to show that culture is the study and pursuit of perfection ; and sweetness and light, are the main characters. But hitherto he has been insisting chiefly on beauty , or sweetness , as a character of perfection . To complete rightly his design , it evidently remains to speak also of intelligence, or light, as a character of perfection. In this chapter to bring home his point of Anarchy, he speaks of light as one of the characters of perfection , and of culture as giving us light.


Dangers of 'Doing As One Likes' in Society : Personal Liberty : Freedom :

                             It is said that a man with the theories of sweetness and light is full of antipathy against the roughter or coarser movements going on around him , that he will not lend a hand to the humble opration of uprooting evil by their means , and that therefore the believers in action grow impatient with him . But what if rough and coarse , ill-calculated action, action with insufficient light, is bane (curse) on society?  What if society's urgent want now is, not to act at any price,but rather to lay in a stock of light for its difficulties? In that case, to refuse to lend a hand to the rougher and coarser movements going on round, is surely the best and in real truth the most practical line.
Freedom of doing as one likes, according to Arnold, was one of those things which english thus worshipped in itself, without enough regarding the ends for which freedom is to be desired. He agrees with the prevalent notion that it is a most happy and important thing for man merely to be able to do as he likes. But the problem is "on what he is to do when he is thus free to do as he likes , we do not lay so much strees ".  Even though the British Constitution and liberal practitioners like Mr.bright forcibly say that - "British Constitition is a system which stops and paralyses any power in interfering with the free action of individuals that the central idea of English life and politics is the assertion of personal liberty", yet Arnold fears this very right and happiness of an Englishman to do what he likes may drif the entire society towards ANARCHY.

              Its outcome on Middle & Working Class:

                                                                                                Again, Arnold gives an example of Middle class and working class, to prove how 'doing as one likes' may bring chaos and anarchy in society : He writes in this essay.
Our middle class , the great representative of trade and Dissent , with its maxims of everyman for himself in business , every man for himself in religion, dreads a powerful administration which might some how interfere with it; and besides, it has its own decorative inutilities of vertrymanship and guardianship and a stringent administration might either take these functions out of its hands, or prevent its exercising them in its own comfortable , independent manner ,as at present.

                                  Then as to our working class. This class, pressed constantly by the hard daily compulsion of material  wants, is naturally the very centre and stronghold of our national idea , that it is man's ideal right and felicity to do, as he likes".
In short, Arnold strongy believed that Our masses are quite as raw and uncultivated as the French; and so far from their having the idea of public duty and of discipline". And that if this concept of freedom is rampant in the nation ,it will soon be the need of the hour to civilized the nation of barbarians by the conscription (compulsory enrollment).

                              Its Consequences on Hyde Park Protesters / Dissenters:

                                            Arnold gives yet another example of Hyde Park protesters and dissenters to prove how chaotic the world becomes as a consequences of doing as one likes :let us put it in Arnold 's own ironic style
"But with the Hyde Park rioter how different! They are our own flesh and blood ; they are a Protesters ; they are framed by nature to do as we do, hate what we hate , love what we love ; the question of questions , for them , is a wages question".
How, indeed, should their overwhelming strength act, when the man who gives an inflammatory lecture , or breaks down the park railings, or invades a Secretary of State's office, is only ffollowing an Englishman's impulse to do as he likes ; and our own conscience tells us that we ourselves have always regarded this impulse as something primary and sacred ? Mr. Murphy lectures at Birmingham , and showers on the Catholic population of that town 'words', says the Home Secretary , 'only fit to be addressed to thieves or murderers'.
Arnold, in his crystal clear style , blames the strong belief in Freedom for such anarchy in society.  He says that English are so obsessed with the notion of freedom in doing as one likes that they became careless of right reason- intelligence.
     
       A principle of authority to counteract the tendency to ANARCHY:


                                      Now, if culture , which simply means trying to perfect oneself, and one's mind , brings us light, and if light shows us that there is nothing so very blessed in  merely doing as one likes, that the worship of the mere freedom to do as one likes is worship of machinery, that the really blessed thing is to like what right reason order, and to follow her authority , then one has got a practical benefit out of culture. The urgent need of  society is much- wanted principle , a principle of authority , to counteract the tendency to anarchy , which seems to be threatening society.
But again the big problem , according to Arnold is "who should be entrusted with this authority?" According to Carlyle it is the Aristocratic class, for Mr.Lowe ,it is the middle class and for  the Reform League, it is the working class to whom the authority to judge the right by light - reason should be given. But, at the end of a very long disquisition ( A formal discourse on a subject , often in writing), Arnold says ...." that we can as little find in the working class as in the aristocratic or in the middle class our much-wanted sourse of authority , as culture suggests it to us ". He is of the view that all these three classes are honest, they have got the 'sweetness' essential for 'Culture' ; but what they lack in different proportions is 'LIGHT'.  People of the aristocratic class want to affirm their ordinary selves , their likings and disliking ; people of the middle class the same , people of the working class the same. 
As a result , Arnold verbalize that: By our every-day selves, however , we are separate , personal, at war, we are only safe from one another's tyranny when no one has any power; and this safety , in its turn , cannot save us from anarchy. And when, therefore, anarchy presents itself as a danger to us , we know not where to turn.

OUR BEST SELF: the ultimate guardian of principle of authority:

                                       As all the classes fails to pass Arnold's standard to hold the guardianship of the principle of authority to counteract Anarchy, Arnold suggests our best selves- to whom the authority must be given "because it is the truest friend we all of us can have ;and when anarchy is a danger to us, to this authority we may turn with sure trust" Arnold says firmly that " we want an authority , and we find nothing but jealous classes, cheks, and a deadlock; culture suggests the idea of the state. We find no basis for a firm State-power in our ordinary selves; culture suggests one to us in "OUR BEST SELF".
                                                         Conclusion

                                          Thus to conclude we may say that for Arnold , OUR BEST SELF which culture, or the study of perfection , seeks to develop in us is the eventual remedy for anarchy is society. In his concluding paragraph Arnold quotes Bishop Wilson to prove himself in asserting , how important is intelligence and reason to judge right, in doing as one likes :

Firstly never go against the best light you have ;
Secondly take care that your light be not darkss,

                       "English have followed," writes Arnold to conclude second chapter, with praiseworthy zeal the first rule but we have not  given so much heed to the second. We have done according to the best light we have; but we have not taken enough care that this should be  really the best light possible for us . That is should not be darkness. And our honesty being very great, conscience has whispered to us that the light we were following, our ordinary self, was, perhaps, only darkness.





TO EVALUATE MY ASSIGNMENT CLICK HERE  
           

Name- Vyas Nupur Hiteshbhai.
Roll number- 39
Subject- The Victorian literature
Batch- 2015-2017
Submitted to Department of English, MKBU, India, Gujarat( Bhvnagar).
Email id- nupurvyas1995@gmail.com
Assingnment topic- Doing as one likes : Matthew Arnold


Introduction- 
                            Matthew Arnold, in the first chapter of "culture and Anarchy "-'Sweetness and Light'- has tried to show that culture is the study and pursuit of perfection ; and sweetness and light, are the main characters. But hitherto he has been insisting chiefly on beauty , or sweetness , as a character of perfection . To complete rightly his design , it evidently remains to speak also of intelligence, or light, as a character of perfection. In this chapter to bring home his point of Anarchy, he speaks of light as one of the characters of perfection , and of culture as giving us light.


Dangers of 'Doing As One Likes' in Society : Personal Liberty : Freedom :

It is said that a man with the theories of sweetness and light is full of antipathy against the roughter or coarser movements going on around him , that he will not lend a hand to the humble opration of uprooting evil by their means , and that therefore the believers in action grow impatient with him . But what if rough and coarse , ill-calculated action, action with insufficient light, is bane (curse) on society?  What if society's urgent want now is, not to act at any price,but rather to lay in a stock of light for its difficulties? In that case, to refuse to lend a hand to the rougher and coarser movements going on round, is surely the best and in real truth the most practical line.
Freedom of doing as one likes, according to Arnold, was one of those things which english thus worshipped in itself, without enough regarding the ends for which freedom is to be desired. He agrees with the prevalent notion that it is a most happy and important thing for man merely to be able to do as he likes. But the problem is "on what he is to do when he is thus free to do as he likes , we do not lay so much strees ".  Even though the British Constitution and liberal practitioners like Mr.bright forcibly say that - "British Constitition is a system which stops and paralyses any power in interfering with the free action of individuals that the central idea of English life and politics is the assertion of personal liberty", yet Arnold fears this very right and happiness of an Englishman to do what he likes may drif the entire society towards ANARCHY.

              Its outcome on Middle & Working Class:
Again, Arnold gives an example of Middle class and working class, to prove how 'doing as one likes' may bring chaos and anarchy in society : He writes in this essay.
Our middle class , the great representative of trade and Dissent , with its maxims of everyman for himself in business , every man for himself in religion, dreads a powerful administration which might some how interfere with it; and besides, it has its own decorative inutilities of vertrymanship and guardianship and a stringent administration might either take these functions out of its hands, or prevent its exercising them in its own comfortable , independent manner ,as at present.
Then as to our working class. This class, pressed constantly by the hard daily compulsion of material  wants, is naturally the very centre and stronghold of our national idea , that it is man's ideal right and felicity to do, as he likes".
In short, Arnold strongy believed that Our masses are quite as raw and uncultivated as the French; and so far from their having the idea of public duty and of discipline". And that if this concept of freedom is rampant in the nation ,it will soon be the need of the hour to civilized the nation of barbarians by the conscription (compulsory enrollment).

                              Its Consequences on Hyde Park Protesters / Dissenters:
   Arnold gives yet another example of Hyde Park protesters and dissenters to prove how chaotic the world becomes as a consequences of doing as one likes :let us put it in Arnold 's own ironic style
"But with the Hyde Park rioter how different! They are our own flesh and blood ; they are a Protesters ; they are framed by nature to do as we do, hate what we hate , love what we love ; the question of questions , for them , is a wages question".
How, indeed, should their overwhelming strength act, when the man who gives an inflammatory lecture , or breaks down the park railings, or invades a Secretary of State's office, is only ffollowing an Englishman's impulse to do as he likes ; and our own conscience tells us that we ourselves have always regarded this impulse as something primary and sacred ? Mr. Murphy lectures at Birmingham , and showers on the Catholic population of that town 'words', says the Home Secretary , 'only fit to be addressed to thieves or murderers'.
Arnold, in his crystal clear style , blames the strong belief in Freedom for such anarchy in society.  He says that English are so obsessed with the notion of freedom in doing as one likes that they became careless of right reason- intelligence.
     
       A principle of authority to counteract the tendency to ANARCHY:
Now, if culture , which simply means trying to perfect oneself, and one's mind , brings us light, and if light shows us that there is nothing so very blessed in  merely doing as one likes, that the worship of the mere freedom to do as one likes is worship of machinery, that the really blessed thing is to like what right reason order, and to follow her authority , then one has got a practical benefit out of culture. The urgent need of  society is much- wanted principle , a principle of authority , to counteract the tendency to anarchy , which seems to be threatening society.
But again the big problem , according to Arnold is "who should be entrusted with this authority?" According to Carlyle it is the Aristocratic class, for Mr.Lowe ,it is the middle class and for  the Reform League, it is the working class to whom the authority to judge the right by light - reason should be given. But, at the end of a very long disquisition ( A formal discourse on a subject , often in writing), Arnold says ...." that we can as little find in the working class as in the aristocratic or in the middle class our much-wanted sourse of authority , as culture suggests it to us ". He is of the view that all these three classes are honest, they have got the 'sweetness' essential for 'Culture' ; but what they lack in different proportions is 'LIGHT'.  People of the aristocratic class want to affirm their ordinary selves , their likings and disliking ; people of the middle class the same , people of the working class the same. 
As a result , Arnold verbalize that: By our every-day selves, however , we are separate , personal, at war, we are only safe from one another's tyranny when no one has any power; and this safety , in its turn , cannot save us from anarchy. And when, therefore, anarchy presents itself as a danger to us , we know not where to turn.

OUR BEST SELF: the ultimate guardian of principle of authority:
As all the classes fails to pass Arnold's standard to hold the guardianship of the principle of authority to counteract Anarchy, Arnold suggests our best selves- to whom the authority must be given "because it is the truest friend we all of us can have ;and when anarchy is a danger to us, to this authority we may turn with sure trust" Arnold says firmly that " we want an authority , and we find nothing but jealous classes, cheks, and a deadlock; culture suggests the idea of the state. We find no basis for a firm State-power in our ordinary selves; culture suggests one to us in "OUR BEST SELF".
                                                         Conclusion
Thus to conclude we may say that for Arnold , OUR BEST SELF which culture, or the study of perfection , seeks to develop in us is the eventual remedy for anarchy is society. In his concluding paragraph Arnold quotes Bishop Wilson to prove himself in asserting , how important is intelligence and reason to judge right, in doing as one likes :
Firstly never go against the best light you have ;
Secondly take care that your light be not darkness,

"English have followed," writes Arnold to conclude second chapter, with praiseworthy zeal the first rule but we have not  given so much heed to the second. We have done according to the best light we have; but we have not taken enough care that this should be  really the best light possible for us . That is should not be darkness. And our honesty being very great, conscience has whispered to us that the light we were following, our ordinary self, was, perhaps, only darkness.


           

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