RUSSIAN FORMALISM

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We5gheHWB4s&t=18s

          Russian formalism is the critical practice of strict adherence to prescribed forms as in religion and giving attention to arrangement, style and artistic means, free from its background, period and even the author.  So, to the formalists, the literary study should deal not with the author, the reader or the historical context but with the specific text at hand.  It emerged in Russia and Poland in 1910s.  The Moscow linguistic circle and the society for the study of poetic language (opojaz) reacted against the methods of literary theories of, 19^th and early 20^th century.  Formalists viewed literature as a distinct and separate entity, unconnected to historical or social causes or effects.  They gave greater importance to metaphor and other linguistic devices.  So, they can be said to be the fore runners of structuralists.

          The important formalists are Roman Jacobson, Viktor Shklovsky and Boris Eikhenbaum.  In 1921 Jacobson declared that ‘literariness’ that makes given work, a literary work.  Literature is really ‘foregrounding the utterances’, a feature that distinguishes literature from other human creations, which is made of certain artistic techniques or devices employed in literary works such as metaphor, rhyme and other patterns of sound and repetition.  The sum total of all the stylistic devices employed in it is to be taken into account.  Actually, these devices became the primary object of the formalist analysis.  It is to focus on ‘form’ of literary work and not on the content.  To the formalists the form is device and the content is material.

          Boris Eikhenbaum in his ‘Theory of formal Method’, (1926) surveys formalists’ history and their central theoretical concepts, he emphasizes Viktor Shklovsky’s role as the intellectual leader of the formalist movement and his most influential concept ‘defamiliarization’.  Defamiliarization is one of the important devices of the formalists.  According to Victor Shklovsky (1893-1984) defamiliarization is a typical device of all literature and art that presents a familiar phenomenon in an uncommon fashion for the purpose of renewed and prolonged aesthetic perception.  It is a literary device where ordinary and familiar objects are made to look different.  The Russian formalists believed that how something is said is more important than what is said.  No doubt, this concept has influenced the post modernism and epic theatre later in the 20^th century.  Shklovsky illustrates defamiliarization through Tolstoy’s ‘Kholstomer’, where the story is narrated by a horse at its point of view.  Thus the content of the story becomes unfamiliar.  The purpose of defamiliarization is making the reader question their perception of reality and as a result ultimately redefine it.  It helps them to see the strange aspects in the familiar and the unusual in the ordinary things of life.

          However, in 1920s, due to the Stalinist pressure the Russian Formalists had to accept the notions of literary evolution. Literary change and evolution was explained by them that the modifications of literary tradition, the development of art forms are all related to the aspects of culture, which brought gradual shifts in the laws of literary process.  Thus formalists skillfully examined the notion of literary history and pointed out the mechanics of continuity in the development of literature.  But the Russian Formalists were attacked by Russian Marxists, who saw literature as an integral, not a separate part of social forces.  So, by 1930, the formalist in Russia had been silenced. Though the formalists talked about the aesthetic function of poetic language and had a detailed study of sound and its role in poetry, their emphasis on form at the expense of thematic content was not well received after the Russian Revolution of 1917.  Moreover the Russian Formalism could not survive because of its neglecting the social world with which the human beings who wrote and read literature were brought up. So the Russian  formalism had to get absorbed in other systems of thought and lost its identity as a separate literary movement.

----Thulasidharan V

NEW CRITICISM

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4bu4eQBsQo

The new critics of 1930s insisted on the intrinsic values of a work of art and focused their attention on the individual work alone as an independent unit of meaning. They never considered the biological, sociological, and historical background of the work of art for the interpretation of the work. I.A. Richards (1893-1979) is a staunch advocate of a close textual and verbal study and analysis of a work of art. In order to ascertain the responses of fairly cultured readers, he distributed among his Cambridge students, printed sheets containing twelve poems and invited their comments. The names of the poets and all other information about them were carefully with-held. Having analysed their comments, he also gave his comments, interpretations, and conclusions. They were all included in the third part of his book, ‘The Practical Criticism’. That book became a landmark in the history of literary criticism. Thus, I.A. Richards has made literary criticism factual, scientific, and complete. Actually, these factual and scientific methods of critical analysis influenced a lot of the new critics on both sides of the Atlantic.

A poet wants to communicate and so he writes. The language he uses is the means of that communication. Language is made of words and hence a study of words is all important to understand the work of art. According to I.A. Richards, words carry four kinds of meaning. They are sense, feeling, tone and intention. By sense is meant something that is communicated by the plain literal meaning of the words. ‘Feeling’ refers to emotions, emotional attitude, will, desire, pleasure, unpleasure and the like. By ‘tone’ is meant the writer’s attitude to his reader. Actually, ‘feeling’ is only a state of mind. It won’t imply an object. But ‘intention’ has an object. It is actually, the writer’s aim which may be conscious or unconscious. It refers to the effect the writer wants to produce. Really this purpose modifies the expression. It draws attention to something of importance.

Though I. A. Richards, William Empson and T. S. Eliot had their contributions to this critical approach, it was John Crowe Ransom’s ‘The New Criticism’ gave the name to it. Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren too had their contributions to it. The new critics set out to define and formalize the qualities of poetic thought and language. They utilize the technique of close reading with special emphasis on the connotative and associative values of words. They also focused on the multiple functions of figurative language like symbol, metaphor, and image in the work. They are also of the opinion that the poetic form and content should not be separated, since the experience of reading the particular words of a poem, including its unresolved tensions, is the poem’s ‘meaning’.

Though T.S. Eliot sneered at the ‘verbal analysis’ as ‘lemon squeezing, many new critics including John Crowe Ransom and William Empson used this tool and techniques on an extensive scale. Moreover, William Empson came out with his book ‘Seven Types of Ambiguity’ in 1930, where he identified seven different types of verbal difficulty (ambiguity) in poetry and gave, examples of them with work analysis.

According to Cleanth Brooks, ‘The language of poetry is the language of Paradox’. So, the paradox is also a central concern of many new critics. It is actually used by almost all poets. Though it seems to be self-contradictory, it turns out to have a valid meaning. It is evident that the paradoxical utterance ‘Death’s death’ of John Donne in his ‘Death, be not proud’ has made the poem unique. It happened only when the new critics came out with their new approach. Metaphysical poets were totally neglected earlier. Similarly, irony, ambiguity, tension, affective fallacy and intentional fallacy are all having their inevitable contribution to poetry. They were all excellently identified and interpreted by the new critics between 1930 and 1970, in which period the practical criticism or the new criticism had a dominant role to play both in Britain and America.

--Thulasidharan V

 

 

PLATO’S CONCEPT OF ART AND HIS CRITICISM OF DRAMA AND POETRY (Criticism 2)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5bQLfCyR0A

      Though Homer (8th century BC) and Aristophanes (5thC BC) had several passages of penetrating critical inquiry here and there in their works, it was only with Plato that criticism became a vital force in the ancient world.  Plato was the first conscious literary critic who has put his ideas in a systematic way in his ‘Dialogues’. Plato is recognised as a master of the dialogue form and as one of the greatest prose stylists of the Greek language. 

Plato was born in 427 BC.  Plato was introduced to Socrates when he was a young boy.  He first started writing poems but destroyed them under the influence of Socrates and developed interest in philosophy and mathematics.  He founded his ‘Academy’ in 387 BC and taught his pupils philosophy, mathematics, natural science, Juris prudence and practical legislations.  He wrote his great books then, The Dialogues, Ion, Symposium and The Republic.  He died in 347 BC.

Though Plato’s views on art and literature are scattered all over his ‘Ion’ and ‘Republic’ they are of at length and forceful.  His views on ‘Poetic Inspiration’, ‘Imitation’ and ‘Condemnation of poetry are also of great historical significance.  Many of his utterances are of a challenging nature and thus he gave a stimulus to literary criticism.  His glowing fancy, his idealism, the subtle irony and humour of his style are beyond praise.

Plato was an idealist.  He believed that the phenomenal world (usual, known through senses) is but an objectification of the ideal world.  The ideal world is real; the phenomenal world is but a shadow of this ideal reality.  So, it is fleeting and unreal.

Plato describes poet as ‘a light and winged and holy thing’ and the poetic inspiration as something that happens in poet ‘by power divine’.  God takes away the minds of poets and uses them as his ministers as he also uses diviners and holy prophets.  So, we who hear the priceless words of the poets, in a state of unconsciousness, hear the words of God.  As the poet speaks divine truth, poetry is not a craft which can be learned and practiced at will.  This is the most elaborate presentation in the ancient world of the notion of poetry that survives even today with modifications.

As Plato was an idealist, he believed that ideas alone are true.  According to him all the earthly things like beauty goodness and justice are mere types of copies of the ideal beauty, goodness and justice which exists in heaven.  He regards “imitation’ as mere mimesis (copy) or representation of these ideal forms and not expression, which is creative.  The reality lies not in individual objects but in general ideas or forms.  A painter only imitates what he sees.  He does not know how to make or to use what he sees.  He can paint a bed but can't make one.  Similarly, the poets imitate reality without necessarily understanding it. 

Plato was a teacher and had his own ‘Academy’.  So, his ideal was to turn out young men of well-formed personalities fit to be the leaders and rulers of an ideal State.  His literary criticism is frankly Utilitarian (more good to more people) that of educating the youth and forming them into good citizens of his ideal State.  It is from this practical point of view that he judges poetry.  So, he had no other way except attacking poets and poetry.  Education was in a sorry state in Athens, then.  The epics of Homer formed an essential part of the school curriculum.  They were venerated by the Greeks almost like the bible.  But in Homer there are many stories which represent the Gods in an unfavourable light.  Allegorical interpretations of these stories were considered unconvincing and difficult to understand.  Moreover, the wonderful flowering time of Greek art and literature was over, and the creative impulse had practically died away.  So, there was a degradation.  As a result, philosophers and orators were regarded as superior to poets and artists.  So, much of his criticism is thus in the nature is governed by the social and political conditions of his age.

Plato’s published writings consist of some, twenty-six dramatic dialogues on philosophical and related themes.  In, almost all the dialogues Socrates is the main and Plato's mouthpiece, but Plato's Socrates is not the historical Socrates. Plato's dialogue does not always present a straightforward argument. The questions of Plato's Socrates towards his interlocutors Adeimantus in book two and Glaucon in book three of 'The Republic', revolve round the role that literature should play in the education meant for the 'Guardians', the future rulers. Thus, it becomes a discussion on the quarrel between philosophy and poetry. Actually, 'Ion' examines poetry as a kind of divine madness.  Whereas in Republic he argues for an ideal, well-regulated community in which the educational curriculum should promote respect for law, reason, authority, self-discipline and piety.  To him literature should teach goodness and grace.

Though Plato’s Socrates loves and regularly cites Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, he calls for the censorship of many passages in these works that represent sacrilegious, sentimental unlawful and irrational behaviour.  Actually, many of the stories of Greek Gods were thought by Xenophanes (570-480BC) the pre-Socratic philosopher, to be possibly lies. So, here Plato's Socrates mentions the story of Uranus who hated his children and kept them packed in their mother Earth's womb. And how the mother Earth made one of her children Cronus Castrate his father and became the Lord of creation and how later his son Zeus, with the help of his mother over-threw Cronus and established himself as the king of all Gods.  Plato’s Socrates also says that similarly the story of horrific kidnap of Helen by Theseus and Pirithous, who were respectively the sons of Poseidon and Zeus is unbelievable and intolerable.  Such stories fail to teach goodness and grace.  He also insists that the Gods are not shape shifting wizards and do not mislead the people by lying in what they say or do, as they are presented in many of the stories.

According to Plato as the epic, lyric or tragedy, the literature that he has mentioned through Socrates are fictional and made up, they are dangerous.  Since they are too inferior to be accepted as a Mimesis, a copy of a copy, he insists everyone should be aware of what in literature should be allowed and what should be censored.  According to him good literature, cultural studies should lead the younger generation to become ideal men and women.  It must represent a world in which virtue is rewarded and even the punishment of evil serves virtuous ends. 

Plato condemns poetry in Republic X (book 10), that they feed and water the passions instead of drying them up and let them rule instead of ruling them.  The poets with their emotional frenzies and lack of moral restraint can afford no safe moral and intellectual guidance.  Thus, Plato attacks poetry on intellectual, emotional, utilitarian and moral grounds and demonstrates its uselessness and its corrupting influences.  He also condemns the ridiculous mixture of tragic and comic effects that were a feature of contemporary drama.  He emphasises for the first time that organic unity is essential for success in all arts. 

He ends his charges against poetry by saying that in an ideal state, “no poetry should be admitted, save hymns to the Gods and panegyrics on famous men”.  According to him the poets are to be honoured but they are to be banished from his ideal state.

 

----Thulasidharan V

Nature and functions of Literary Criticism (Criticism1) / Understanding The Idea of Criticism

      Etymologically the word criticism is derived from the Greek word ‘krinein’ meaning judgement and hence criticism is the exercise of judgement and literary criticism is the exercise of judgement on works of literature.  Criticism is the play of the mind on work of literature and its function is examining its excellencies and defects and finally to evaluate its artistic worth.

          Criticism is the art of estimating the quality and character of a work of art and the function or work of a critic - New English dictionary. 

To set up as a critic is to set up as a judge of values – I. A. Richards.

 Criticism is a disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world – Mathew Arnold.

The sole task of criticism is to answer the three questions:

What has the artist tried to express?

How has he succeeded in expressing it?

Was it worth expressing? – Spingarn

The view of criticism is varied from critic to critic and age to age.  There are as many theories of criticism as there are critics. The view of criticism is directly related to the critic's own intellectual preoccupation and his philosophy or out look of life. So, a critic with moral and religious bias would be of the view that the function of criticism is to examine the moral worth and significance of a work of literature.  On the contrary, one with an artistic bent of mind would be of the view that the function of criticism would revolve around the aesthetic appreciation.

Moreover, the idea of criticism varies in accordance with the idea of literature.  So, the neo-classical criticism is built upon neo-classical theory of literature whereas the Romantic criticism is built upon individualism and impressionistic view.  Besides, the critical views of the critics echo the intellectual and moral environment where they live.  Thus, the development in social and behavioural sciences have brought psychological, and sociological approaches to criticism.

Since Plato (427-347 BC) condemned poetry as immoral and untruthful, Aristotle (384-327 BC) and Horace (65-8 BC) established dogmatic ‘rules’ and writers were advised to follow them strictly.  The Augustans were of the view that the chief end of criticism was to devise rules and regulations for the guidance of writers and then to judge a work on the basis of these rules.  However, with the rise of romantic individualism, Wordsworth and Coleridge came out with impressionistic criticism.  Thus, the romantic poet critics made minute and subtle studies of the poetic execution and tried to formulate principles of poetic composition.  But the wayward and unbalanced impressionistic criticism was neglected by Victorians.  They decided to discipline the personal likes and dislikes, prejudices and pridelections of the critics.  That was why Mathew Arnold designed criticism as the disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world.

The Modern age has widened the function of literary criticism.  It created two kinds of criticism.  The extrinsic criticism takes the cultural, sociological and psychological concepts into consideration and relates a work of literature closely to the life and age of its writer.  But, on the other hand the ‘new critic’ of the Ontological criticism examines the studies the work of literature word by word and line by line without any reference to any other extrinsic considerations.  Thus gets a better and clearer understanding of the work. 

The new critics of the 20th century began to look for paradox, ambiguity, irony and tension to have a better interpretation of the text, whereas the contemporary critics deal with all that belong to the present and occur in the present.  Because, the 21^st century literature deals with current theme or issues and reflects a technological culture.  Authors from diverse cultures and back grounds gain more recognition.  This has enriched the global literary landscape too.  Moreover, they are data-rich and Media-driven too.  Since the 21^st century learners have command over the digital and informational world, the writers too have to equip themselves with the same.  So, the writings have also become learner-centered.  However, Derrida’s Deconstructive approach and Foucault’s discourse theory have influenced the literary criticism of the 21^st century to some extent.

 Thus contrary to the everyday sense of criticism as 'fault finding', the much modern criticism, especially the academic kind, analyses whether the works it discusses are valuable. Here, the functions of judgement and analysis having to some extent become divided between the market world that reviews, whether it is worth and the educational world asks why this is so good.  Thus, by using different theoretical lenses, it reveals the hidden layers and changes our perspectives with an active investigation.

Since the functions of literary criticism are evaluations, interpretations and elucidations, the critic should be aware of the three principles of criticism – the principle of truth, principle of symmetry (balance of size, form, shape) and the principle of idealism.  A critic should be a man of sound common sense, understanding and clear thinking.  A critic must be a man widely read not only in the literature of his own language, but in that of as many languages as possible.  He must have proper training and technical skill in the different branches of literature.  He must rise above all personal, religious, national, political and literary prejudices and pridelections.  He must have imaginative sympathy too.  Above all he must posses a sound knowledge of human psychology.  He must also have a thorough knowledge of human life and nature.  Apart from all these qualities he must be able to put his responses before his reader effectively, clearly and lucidly. 

https://youtu.be/oh9oVBPoFb8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rbnxyHEXd0

----Thulasidharan V Thillaiakathu

CHANDRAN ALIYAN

 

CHANDRAN ALIYAN

 

 For the past fifteen months covid-19 has swallowed the lives of millions of people throughout the world.  Though it shows the symptoms of disappearance now and then actually it becomes stronger day by day.  Its ruthless life hunting continues.  The biggest problem that all the countries throughout the world except china (it is a wonder – how? Why?) have been facing after the Second World war is no doubt by this Covid.  The gnawing pain on our seeing the picture of a covid victim’s body carried by his wife and daughters will remain till the end of our life. That will echo the covid 19 tragedy in the days to come.....

 

Similarly unexpected covid death of many political leaders, scholars, writers, doctors, teachers, policemen, artists like SPB whom we loved and enjoyed have wounded us badly. Doubtlessly all deaths and departures are painful.  Still the icy hands of covid are mercilessly being extended towards our loving and loveable people.  As its atrocity has become inevitable, we are helpless.  I too had a similar thunder struck shock last week.

 

Our Chandran Aliyan (Aliyan in Malayalam means brother-in-law, the husband of one’s sister) has also become a victim of this covid-19.  My cousin Indira Bhai’s husband, who got retired from H.M.T Ltd, Kalamassery, Kochi.  A charming character, who has won the love and respect of all his friends and relatives with his infallible dealings of love and care, even in his 70s. 

 

When I look back, in 1980s he was always with me then with his helping hands to get employed at various establishments like La Bella finances, Our College and Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.  Similarly in 1990s, he was inevitable on my finding a life partner and on my getting fixed to a permanent employment too. In fact, after the departure of my parents, to some extent, he has occupied that place.  He never missed to call me and know the well being of me and my family even when I missed to call him due to my so called tight work schedule.

 

In fact, he tried his maximum to save himself from Covid-19 by following all the instructions given. He even escaped from an unexpected heart attack in March.  Unfortunately, covid-19 trapped him in the second week of May 2021.  After a few days of home quarantine, on 14^th as it became severe, he was taken to the Medical College, Kalamassery.  As he had a slight improvement, he was shifted to a covid care centre then. 

 

There the ruthless Covid-19 took away his life on it finding a favourable moment (a cursed moment to all of us).  However, there were angels like volunteers who took the body and cremated and collected and handed over the ash remaining of him in an earthen pot.  Now it is kept and preserved at the southern end of the house outside, waiting to be taken to the riverbanks of Periyar near Aluva Advaidha Ashramam for the further ceremony, when the lock down is over.

 

The only thing that can be done now is praying for the Moksha Prapti of his soul, consoling the bereaving family, turning the pages of the memory where he lives and feeling the painful enjoyment.

 

On reading this I know very well that you all have in your mind one or more faces of your loving and loveable ones who have also become victims to Covid-19.  Let us pray for them.  Let us pray for the rest and peace of their souls.  This too will p ass.  Yes, time and patience will cure all the wounds.  Let us also pray the Almighty to help us to get relieved from the cruel clutches of Covid-19 and save ourselves and our loving and loveable along with the entire human race.

 

-----Thulasidharan

 

The Rivals – Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751-1816)

 

          Richard Brinsley Sheridan, the most important dramatist of the 18^th century, was born in Dublin in 1751.  His father Thomas Sheridan, an Irish actor-manager had a name for himself in his profession.  So, he had taken young Sheridan to the town of Bath, where he established an Institute for elocution and grammar in 1770.  Sheridan used to write sonnets, verses, satires and lampoons upon others.  However, his powers as a dramatist are displayed in design, in dialogues, in most effective presentation of comic characters.  That’s why Balston has said, “Of the only three plays in the English language besides those of Shakespeare which have achieved permanent popularity, two, ‘The school for Scandal’ and ‘The Rivals’ are by Sheridan, the third, ‘She Stoops to Conquer’, is by Oliver Goldsmith.  Moreover, it is also said in the warfare with sentimentality Goldsmith was an elder not a better soldier than Sheridan.

          Sheridan’s first play ‘The Rivals was staged in 1775.  As the play was not a success, he revised it and staged it again.  However, the revised play became a big success.  After writing a farce and a comic opera, he staged ‘The School for Scandal’ in 1777, which won him immediate recognition. ‘The Critic’ which he wrote in 1779 was the last play as he selected parliamentary career as his life long one.  Though he shone well in his social and political life of London, his excellence as a dramatist still helps him shine better.  Such were his precision of diction in dialogues and skill in the construction of scenes in his plays.

          ‘The Rivals’ is a comedy of situation and intrigue.  As the title indicates many of the characters consider themselves as ‘rivals’.  The play opens with a chance meeting of Fag, the servant of Captain Absolute and Thomas, the Coachman of Captain’s Father, Sir. Anthony in a street of Bath.  Captain Absolute is there in Bath in the guise of poor Ensign Beverley with the hope of winning the hands of Miss. Lydia Languish.  Sir. Anthony visits Bath with his ward, Julia for his gout, as the city water is a cure of gout.  Lydia, is greatly disturbed because of her aunt’s discovery of her secret love- intrigue with Beverley.  Her tough aunt Mrs. Malaprop not only stands against her love but insists her to marry Bob Acres.  Then Julia enters.  Both talk about their love affairs.  Though Julia and Faulkland love each other, Julia thinks that Faulkland is jealous and has no faith in himself where as Faulkland is afraid whether her love towards him is out of gratitude on his saving her from a boat accident.

          When Sir. Anthony absolute enters, Mrs. Malaprop talks about the love affair of Lydia.  When Sir. Anthony proposes his son Captain Absolute as Lydia’s husband, she withdraws her candidature and gives her consent.  Both Sir. Anthony and Mrs. Malaprop are ignorant of the fact that Lydia’s lover, Ensign Beverley is none other than Captain Absolute.  Mrs. Malaprop wants to have the marriage of her niece at the earliest.  Then she may not have any problem to continue the secret love affair with Sir. Lucius O’ Trigger.  Because she knows very well that the letters that she sent to him with the name ‘Delia’ is considered by him as they were the letters from the charming niece of Mrs. Malaprop.

          When Fag and Captain Absolute talk about the arrival of Sir. Anthony, Faulkland enters.  The two friends exchange their love affairs with Lydia and Julia.  Bob Acres enters then and talks about his rival Ensign Beverley.  Actually he is not aware that the Ensign and his friend (Absolute) Jack are one and the same person.  After his departure, Sir. Anthony enters the scene.  He wants his son to marry a rich heiress of his choice.  Captain Absolute says that he won’t marry a girl whom he has not known or seen.  Moreover, when he says that he has already pledged his love to another lady, Sir. Anthony is greatly shocked and says that if he disobeys him, in that case, he will disinherit and even disown him and leaves.  However, when Lucy, the maid servant of Mrs. Malaprop delivers a letter of Mrs. Malaprop to Sir. Lucius and gets kissed by him, Fag enters there.  So Lucy has to reveal the truth that it was the letter of Mrs. Malaprop to Sir. Lucius that she delivered to him.  She also tells Fag that Beverley has now to face a worse rival than Bob Acres.  That is Captain Absolute who has been proposed by Sir. Anthony to get married to Lydia.

          Captain Absolute is happy at the news brought by Fag that whom his father insisted to marry is Lydia herself.  So, he meets his father with his willingness to marry the girl of his father’s choice.  With a letter of introduction from his father, he meets Mrs. Malaprop.  Mrs. Malaprop not only talks of her niece’s foolish infatuation for poor Ensign Beverley but also gives him a letter of Beverley to Absolute.  However, Captain Absolute makes Mrs. Malaprop to bring Lydia to him by saying that Beverley has come to see her.  Lydia is greatly surprised to see Beverley there.  Captain Absolute explains that somehow he has supplanted his rival and impersonates him there.  Lydia is pleased to see her aunt deceived and wants to implement her plan of elopement if he decides to forgo her dowry.  Absolute assures her that her beauty and love are all the dowry he values.  However, Mrs. Malaprop has all the time been over hearing the talk between Captain and Lydia.  On the contrary, in the meeting of Julia and Faulkland, he says that when lovers are separated, they should shed tears of sorrow.  Then in a long speech about true love unfortunately complains that women often profess love for men for motives other than that of true love.  Julia bursts into passion, begins weeping and leaves the room.  Then only he realizes his mistake of torturing a faithful girl.  However, he resolves not to treat her like this anymore.

          The simple-minded Bob Acres decides to fight a duel with Beverley at the instigation of Sir. Lucius and writes a letter of challenge.  However, David his servant advises him not to have a duel with Beverley.  So, Bob Acres hands over the letter of challenge to Captain Absolute and wants him to act as his second in the duel.  Captain Absolute is greatly amused on hearing this, declines to accept that honour and suggests the name of Sir. Lucius.  Then Captain Absolute is taken by his father to the house of Mrs. Malaprop.  But Lydia refuses to look at the new suitor, not to speak for receiving his address when Absolute is compelled to speak, he talks in a very low gruff tone lest she should recognize him as Beverley.  Sir. Anthony asks his son to speak clearly and Lydia to show them honour by turning her face.  Lydia recognizes her Beverley’s voice in the young man.  Absolute is caught in his deception.  Lydia is frustrated and wild with anger for the deception practiced on her so long by the Captain.  However, Sir. Anthony and Mrs. Malaprop decide to forgive the two young persons, leaving them alone to settle their problem.  Absolute fails to convince Lydia.  Sir. Lucius who thinks that Absolute has spoiled his chances of marrying Lydia, challenges him to fight a duel with him.  Absolute, takes up the challenge and agrees to have the fight at king’s Mead-fields that evening.

          Both Absolute and Faulkland meet and disburden their disappointments in love.  Absolute asks Faulkland to act as his second in his duel with Sir. Lucius.  On hearing this incorrigible capriciousness of Faulkland makes him to plan another test for Julia’s consistency in love for him.  He meets her and tells her that as he has killed a person in a duel he has to leave England immediately.  Hearing this Julia proposes to share his sorrows, go in exile with him and marry him.  Then Faulkalnd tells her that it is a cooked up story.  But Julia who is terribly shocked at the capricious jealousy of her lover leaves Faulkland out o despair.  The disappointed Faulkalnd goes to king’s mead-fields to act as Absolute’s seoncd.  When Julia and Lydia talk about their lovers, Mrs. Malaprop enters the room with Fag and David shouting ‘murder and man-slaughter in the fields’.

          At king’s Mead-fields, on seeing Absolute with Faulkland, Sir. Lucius takes Faulkland to be Beverley.  But Bob Acres says that he will fight with only Beverley.  Thus Absolute declares himself to be Beverley.  Acres says that he won’t fight with his friend Absolute.  But Sir. Lucius draws his sword to fight with his opponent Absolute.  Sir. Anthony along with all women intervene and prevent the fight.  When Sir. Lucius talks about the letter of ‘Delia’, Mrs. Malaprop reveals the truth and declares herself to be ‘Delia’.  When Sir. Lucius decides not to marry Mrs. Malaprop, Sir. Anthony steps into cheer the disappointed Mrs. Malaprop, by saying, “you are in your bloom yet’.  When Lydia offers her hand to Absolute, Sir. Anthony advises Julia and Faulkland also to get married.  He also propses a drink for their health and wishes a husband for Mrs. Malaprop.  Thus ‘The Rivals’ a comedy of manners reflects the ways of life of a particular social class – men and women whose follies and foibles are made subjects of fun and satire.  It also ends happily with its objects achieved by correcting the manners and refining the conduct of the majority of the characters of the play.

Sheridan’s attitude towards sentimental comedy and his satiric portraiture of contemporary society

 

By the middle of the 18^th century the sentimental comedy had fully established itself on the English Stage.  The comedy of manners, so popular in the restoration period, was then rapidly degenerating.  It became much too coarse, artificial and blantantly immoral.  Its heroes and heroines became immoral.  Wit and humour were completely replaced by ‘conscious moralization’.  So, a reaction against sentimentalism began to grow in the domain of drama.  However, it resulted gradually in the revival of the comedy of manners in a new setting.  However, the pioneers of this reaction were Goldsmith and Sheridan who declared war against the sentimental comedies, while Goldsmith registered this protest in his essay on ‘On the theatre’ and illustrated his views in his comedy ‘The good-natured man’.  Sheridan projected his protest with greater force in his three plays, ‘The Rivals’, ‘The School for Scandal’ and ‘The Critic’.

          Though ‘The Rivals’ is an artificial comedy of manners, it is not totally devoid of sentimentalism. Obviously Sheridan tries to satirize the heroine of sentimental comedy in the person of Lydia Languish who is ready ‘to die with disappointment’.  Similarly, in the Julia-Faulkland episode Julia loves Faulkland, who is an incorrigible sentimentalist.  He is obsessed with some fixed ideas about love, sex and marriage.  He is full of doubts about the sincerity of his beloved. Every time Faulkland meets Julia, he finds occasions to quarrel with her and Julia has to leave him with tears.  All these draw sympathy from the spectators for poor Julia.  Moreover, the play ends with a note of moral preaching.  Thus, though Sheridan tried to attack sentimentality in his plays, yet he could not completely get rid of the prevailing force of sentimentality.  But, through these characters and the situations he satirizes the manners, habits and follies of the people of the contemporary society.

          Sheridan attempts to portrait the pleasures, intrigues as well as the artificial conventions and follies of the aristocratic section of the eighteenth century.  Lydia Languish is a satiric portrait of the one whose head had been turned by her reading of too many romantic novels.  In Faulkland his jealousy is exaggerated.  In Mrs Malaprop, Sheridan satirizes the provincial woman desperately trying to live up to the smartness of Bath by her muddle-headed but unconscious life of learned words.  In the character of Sir Antony, Absolute, Sheridan presents a satiric portrait of the type of self willed authoritative father of the old conservative school who believes in keeping an iron hand over his son even when he has grown into an adult.  Through Sir Lucius O’ Trigger Sheridan satirizes the type of adventures with whom fighting is a kind of pastime.  Bob Acres represents the type of foolish country-squire who believes that merely by putting on fine dress and assuming a swaggering air he can win the love of his lady.

The Rivals is full of series of cleverly devised situations and intrigues.  All the complications arising out of these situations continue to develop the theme.

The central theme of the play is that there is quadrangular rivalry among four sets of characters for the heroine, Lydia Languish.  They are Ensign Beverley, Captain Absolute, Sir Lucius O’ Trigger and Bob Acres. Thus, ‘The Rivals’ represents the superficial habits and manners of only the then fashionable society of aristocratic and middle classes.  The dialogues are witty, sharp, keen, humorous, sparkling in brilliant exchange of words.  Sheridan’s main aim of writing this play was to provide entertainment to his audience.  So, he may lack the high seriousness and the depth of Shakespeare.   But Sheridan occupies an important position in the history of English drama.  Some critics give him even the second place after Shakespeare.

 

 -----Thulasidharan V

Procrastination of Hamlet

 

Procrastination of Hamlet

 

          William Shakespeare is said to be not of an age, but of all time and not of a land but of all lands. He had an amazing genius for words.  Hamlet is considered as one of the best tragedies of Shakespeare.  The mental torture that Hamlet faces makes this tragedy at the top of all tragedies of Shakespeare.  The death of his father and the hasty marriage of his mother with Claudius shattered Hamlet.  When the ghost of his father appeared and asked him to take revenge upon his uncle Claudius, who had killed him, Hamlet decided to kill his uncle.  But there appeared procrastination.  Though he was fully aware that Procrastination as the thief of time, he postponed his revenge.  He unnecessarily delayed to get confirmed whether it was Claudius, who had killed his father.  But unfortunately he had to pay a big price for his delay.

          There is a play within the play in the third act.  Before that Hamlet asks one of the players to deliver a dialogue from Virgil’s Aeneus.  When he saw the genuine emotion of the actor on his narrating the pathetic condition of Hecuba, after her husband Priam’s death, Hamlet delivers a soliloquy.  There Hamlet bitterly scolds himself for his ruthless delay to execute his revenge.  He calls himself as “A dull and muddy-mettled rascal”.  He even considers himself as a prostitute and a kitchen menial, who suffer everything and lead a life of shame and vulgar as he can’t take revenge upon his uncle.  However, he finds the reason that causes procrastination in him.  So he wants to play, ‘Mouse trap’ and catch the king red handed.  He says

          “The Play’s the thing

          Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king.”

Thus he justifies his procrastination.  Moreover he doubts the ghost and thinks that sometimes it may deceive him and lead him to commit the sin of murder.  So, he wants to get confirmed of the crime of Claudius before taking revenge.

          Then in his soliloquy, “To be or not to be, that is the question’, Hamlet has a doubt in his mind.  He is in a dilemma: whether he has to suffer silently the cruelties of fate or to put an end to all the sufferings by committing suicide.  As he doesn’t know what is waiting for him after his death, he decides not to commit suicide.  Thus this soliloquy reveals the speculative nature of Hamlet than any other soliloquy.  Here he becomes more of a philosopher than a man of action by saying,

          “Thus conscience does make cowards of us all”

          In another situation, he hesitates to kill his uncle on his finding him in prayer.  He thinks that as Claudius is in direct connection with God then, his killing him will send him to heaven.  When his father gets tortured in Hell, how can he send his murderer to heaven?  So, he decides not to kill him then.  He puts his sword down by saying

          “And now I’ll do it,

            And so a goes to Heaven’

Instead, he decides to wait for an opportunity, where he may find him sleep and drunk or do some equally wicked deed.  Here he evades the responsibility that has been entrusted to him by the ghost, by finding same reasons not to kill his uncle.  Thus Hamlet’s procrastination becomes the assassin of opportunity.  As Hamlet is a man of moral idealism he shows an unlimited delight and faith in everything that’s good and beautiful.  So, it is clear that the revenge is delayed because of  the peculiar temperament and character of  him.  Instead he might have killed his uncle and revealed the truth to all.  Thus he could have made his revenge an inevitable one.  But that he never did. So, his delay makes many die including the innocent people like Ophelia and Laertes.  Thus the procrastination of Hamlet becomes the main villain in the play that creates all the troubles in Hamlet’s life.

Woman Characters in Hamlet have been designed to be called as "Frailty thy name is woman"

 

          Shakespeare's Hamlet is remarkable for its richness and variety, its fullness of interesting characters, and its striking contrasts. There are only two female characters, Gertrude and Ophelia. Both are sincerely loving Hamlet and are loved by Hamlet. But the words and deeds of them make big wounds in the mind of Hamlet. Mainly the hasty second marriage of his mother with his uncle Claudius ruins Hamlet. His concept about women changes, and he generalizes that all women are weak and they have no strength of character. His remark 'Frailty thy name is woman' is fully applicable to both the female characters in the play. This remark comes in the soliloquy that he makes just after the urge of his mother and uncle Claudius not to go to the University.

          Hamlet recalls the profuse tears that his mother had shed at the time of his father's death. Like Niobe she had followed his father's dead body to the graveyard. He wonders how it was possible to get married to Claudius within a month, who is far inferior to his father.  Moreover, he deplores the fact that she has now entered into an incestuous relationship by getting married to her late husband's brother.  In his opinion, his mother's behaviour is proof of frailty.  Moreover, the Ghost of his father tells Hamlet that Gertrude had been having an incestuous relationship with Claudius during the very lifetime of her, with his first husband. This adds fuel to the fire of his hatred towards women.  Actually, Gertrude is fully aware that the main causes of the disappointment are both the death of his father and her hasty remarriage with Claudius.  But, she miserably failed to think about it before the marriage.  This later realization is also a powerful evidence that makes us think that she is weak-minded and weak-willed.

          When Hamlet has his private interview with his mother, she asks if a middle-aged woman like her has behaved in this manner under the influence of her lust, how would a young woman behave under the influence of her youthful passion. Gertrude begs Hamlet not to go on talking to her in that manner. She says, "these words like daggers enter in my ears". These all show that Gertrude has realized her mistake, but she is incapable of either convincing her son or avoiding the incestuous relationship with her existing husband. Thus, she proves to herself again and again that she is too frail to tackle the problems of her life.

          But, when Ophelia says that she wants to return all the gifts that Hamlet had given her as tokens of love, he gets angry. He thinks that she must have taken that decision under the influence of her father. Then he begins to talk in a most cynical manner about the chastity of women. Here he thinks about his mother and believes that all beautiful women have a tendency to become immoral. He advises Ophelia, "Get thee to a nunnery." The fact that Hamlet once loved Ophelia becomes clear from his behaviour in the graveyard when he challenges Laertes saying that forty thousand brothers could not love Ophelia as much as he loved her. But later, he suppresses his love for her and behaves as if he were no longer interested in her.

Moreover, Ophelia fails to understand Hamlet. She decides to dance according to the tunes of her father. This is nothing but the frailty of Ophelia. Then she too becomes a frail character in this play.  Both Ophelia and Gertrude have miserable deaths in the play. As they were very weak, they couldn't survive.  However, the words of Ophelia and the deeds of his mother might have made Hamlet think like this and deliver the sentence, "Frailty thy name is woman".

---Thulasidharan V

COMALA

 

COMALA

 

            Santhosh Eachikanam, is a short story writer and scenarist who has received the Kerala Sahitya Academy Award for his short story Comala in 2008.  He also won Padmarajan Award, Cherukad Award and Basheer Award.  Many of his short stories were translated into English, Hindi, Tamil, Kannada and Telegu.  His ‘Comala’ is one of the critically acclaimed short stories of Malayalam Literature of the twentieth century.  It was written in the context of the rise of suicidal tendency among the people in the post-globalized world.  Apart from this it is also criticizing the discussions of news channels that don’t contribute anything good to the society.

          In ‘Comala we come to know how Sudhakaran, an insincere friend of Viswan, gets him into the debt trap. By quoting the words of their teacher Mr. Pothuval, ‘helping others is an act of holiness’ Sudhakaran cleverly got Viswan sign as the surety for his loan of Rs. 50,000.  After 3 years Viswan got a notice from the bank demanding him to pay Rs. 90,345 including interest.  He met Sudhakaran and asked him to pay but he didn’t.  So, Viswan’s wife worked hard and got Rs. 7000 that was paid to the bank.  But the bank sends a notice to Viswan saying that his house and land will be confiscated.  As he has no other way, he makes the threat of collective suicide on 15^th August by displaying a board in front of his house.  However, this attracts attention and becomes the topic of discussion in News time.  The unsympathetic attitude of the panelists in the discussion and the society is clearly shown here.

          Madhavan Nair the secretary of the bank argues for his bank where as Dr. Nandakumar tries to prove that Viswan wants to live through this threat.  Alex Punnoose talks about the highest rate of suicide in the country.  He also refers Comala in the novel ‘Pedro Paramo’ by Juan Rulfo saying that Kerala will become Kerala Comala in near future, filled with dead. Advocate Fathima Begam argues that the attempt to commit suicide is an offence.  Unfortunately nobody takes part in the opinion poll on the issue next day.  Thus the entire discussion becomes absurd.

          However, a week before August 15, Viswan decides to look for Sudhakarn.  He travels for 5 days and searches for Sudhakaran.  But he can’t find him.  On the 5^th day, when he is about to drink a black coffee from a thattu kada near a highway, an accident happens and a motor cyclist is seriously wounded.  But nobody in the thattukada or on the way seems to bother.  Viswan takes the injured man to the Medical College in a jeep.  On seeing the unsympathetic jeep driver and the selfish man who gets a lift on the way, he doubts whether it is ‘Comala,’ a dead peoples land.  On the way the man shows signs of death.  Viswan gets two drops of water into the dying man’s mouth.  Then he says ‘My debt was two drops of water.  I have repaid it.  So, I have to remove the stupid board that I have displayed in front of my house.’  Thus the story has a fine ending with the realization of Viswan who decides not to commit suicide at the end.

------Thulasidharan V

ENGLISH DRAMA AND Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’

 

 ENGLISH DRAMA AND Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’

 

 

Actually, a Latin Play in honour of St Katherine is believed to be the first play that was staged in England in 1110 A.D. It was known as then the Miracle or mystery play. The materials for these kinds of plays were taken from the Bible. Gradually the Miracle or mystery plays were taken from the interior portions of churches to church yards and then to village and city streets. In England, the miracle plays reached its peak in the 14^th century. However, during the 16^th century Morality plays replaced Miracle plays. In Morality Plays the characters were personified abstractions. Then interlude entered which was a short dramatic piece of a satire rather than of a religious or ethical nature. John Heywoods, “Four P’s, in which a Palmer, a peddler, a pardoner and a pothecary exchange amazing stories and finally enter into a competition as to which of them can tell the biggest lie, is the most famous example of its kind.

 

Renaissance made English writers learn the Principles of dramatic construction and technique. Thus, Nicholas Udall, the Head Master of Eton came out with the first real English Comedy, ‘Ralph Roister Doister’ in 1550. And then in 1581, ‘Gorboduc’, the first English tragedy was written by Thomas Sack Wille and Thomas Norton. However, there was a conflict between those who insisted on the classical tradition and those who wanted to establish the national taste of the English public. But, a group of scholars known as ‘The University Wits’, John Lily, Thomas Kyd, Robert Greene, George Peele, Thomas Lodge, Christopher Marlow and Thomas Nash established the romantic form of drama. Marlow used blank verse in his plays.

 

William Shakespeare who is said to be with ‘Small Latin and less Greek’ came to London from Stratford-on-Avon and joined Burbages company of actors in 1587. Then started the period of his greatest literary activities. Within five years, ‘The Gentle’ Shakespeare has gained his entrance to the society of Gentlemen and Scholars of London. His poem ‘Venus and Adonis’ that was dedicated to Earl of Southampton won him both fame and wealth. Then came a series of great plays like the Marchant of Venice, As you like it, Twelfth Night, Julius Caser, Hamlet, Macbeth, Othello, King Lear, Antony and Cleopatra from his pen. Altogether he has written 37 plays and 154 Sonnets.

Though the legend of Hamlet was already current in the folk literature of Iceland, Ireland and Denmark, Shakespeare got it for his plot from the Danish Historian Saxo Grammaticus’s ‘Historica Denica’ (Danish History) of thirteenth century. Instead ‘Hamlet’ Saxo actually used the name ‘Amleth’ in his book. But Shakespeare changed all the names of the characters in his play ‘Hamlet’. It is said, though the legend of Hamlet is based on historical fact, the proof of it is lacking. The mental torture that Hamlet faces makes this tragedy at the top of all tragedies of Shakespeare. He had an amazing genius for words. That is why Shakespeare is said to be not of an age but of all time and not of a land but of all lands.

-----Thulasidharan