MA ENGLISH GUIDENESS AND NOTES

ASSLAM O ALAIKUM
DOSTO YE MERE LYE BOHT KHUSHI KI BT HA K AM ITTALEEM KA MEMBER HU. DOSTO MA KHUD MA ENG KA STUDENT HO MERA FINAL YEAR HA OR AJ KUL MA RESULT KA WAIT KR RHA HO. MAIN APNE FRIENDS KI KISI BI TRA THORI BOHT HELP KR SKA TO MERE LYE KHUSH KISMTI KI BT HO GE.
FROM SYED ALI SHAH

When most people consider how to tell a story, they think in terms of plot and character. While these are often the
most visible aspects of a story, there is an underlying foundation of principles that support a well-told story. These
principles could be compared to a house foundation. Without a solid foundation, the other effects of the house, its
"character and design," cannot be fully enjoyed. In the same fashion, the principles of storytelling are also mostly out of
sight, but the effect of badly laid story foundation has effects just as damaging as a badly constructed house foundation.

The purpose of this essay is to lay out the principles, that well-constructed literature will contain, in a manner that
they can be considered individually. The principles can also be understood as a unified piece of rationalism that offers an
overview of what well constructed literature consists of, and how it is written. Understanding these principles should be
able to help a reader to distinguish between well-constructed literature and what tries to pass as literature.

Literature is a world where every character, every action, every element has meaning and purpose. This is what makes
literature fundamentally different from life. Life offers facts that don't necessarily have a clear purpose, meaning or
outcome; events that generate emotional states that have no clear purpose or fulfillment; or events that captivate the senses,
but not in a meaningful, dramatic, or fulfilling way. Real life, then, can be chaotic, or appear to lack a desirable purpose
and meaning. For example, we don't marry the love of our life... or we do, and then things can go terribly wrong. Or the
one we love is taken from us by a freak accident. Or we work hard but don't get the rewards we desire. Even worse, the
rewards may go to someone who appears to be completely undeserving of the reward and honour we've worked to attain.
So real life can be painful, unpredictable, or even wildly rewarding, but in spite of our best-laid plans or efforts, we can
never clearly predict the outcome of any action or actions. Most people, then, have a need for something that gives
meaning and purpose to the events of life. This is what literature will do. However, the beautiful thing about literature is
that it may do this, or it may do the exact opposite. It may leave issues or conflicts unresolved, forcing the reader to bring
their own experiences and understanding to it, in order to make some meaning of it all, and reach that fulfillment again.
Personally, I prefer this type of literature as it forces me to think and reason about the book. Therefore, literature that does
not give meaning or purpose to the events of the story, in order to leave the reader with questions, is considered to be well-
constructed literature too.

Literature offers an experience of life that has meaning and purpose, by taking life-like characters, issues and events
arranged around a central issue, and moving them to a state of resolution and fulfillment. A story thus fills a basic human
need that life can appear to have a discernible meaning, purpose and outcome that can be experienced in a direct way.
Because a literature usually resolves and fulfills the issues and ideas it raises, it can create a fulfilling, complete experience
of any state of human emotions or thoughts. But for this state of fulfillment to occur, the author must create a story around
a dramatic issue a reader desires to experience, or can be led to desire to experience. So a story is written around a dramatic
issue a reader desires to internalise and experience. This is why the author must, first of all, understand the human need for
a fulfilling story, and how a story will meets those needs. For only when literature engages and holds a reader's attention,
by what a story is about at its deeper level, will it be perceived as compelling. Therefore all literature must revolve around
some issue that arises from the human experience. To feel alive, to experience states of love, honour, courage, or fear,
doubt, or revenge. To feel a part of a world, even if it is an imaginary one. To feel the freedom to explore new worlds or
simply to experience a fulfilling state of senses, intellect, or feelings in an outcome of events. To experience insights into
life we might not see on our own, or see deeply. The book Lives of the Saints, by Nino Ricci, for example, is a story not
literally about its title, but about the nature of the people situated in a small town in Italy. Thus, when readers enter its
world, they are led to experience something deep and fascinating about another people and culture. The reader is exposed
to an experience that may expand their horizons and that they can internalise and thus experience within themselves.

Whether the overall movement of a story is simple or complex, the various movements of story elements must be
understandable and of enough consequence that a reader desires to internalise the story's movement to fulfillment. Thus,
characters that are not in conflict over shaping a story's course and outcome, are not tied into its movement, and a reader
may struggle to internalise and assign meaning to those character's actions. Such characters can appear to be unclear and
unfocused, and without meaning and purpose. The result is that the reader may set aside that story. Even when a reader
can't consciously identify why the story "feels" false, false movement confuses them and make it difficult to internalise the
story. What the story itself is about is what should give birth to the characters, and assign meaning to their actions. The
action and events of a story, then, should be arranged in a way to make a clear, and dramatically potent, movement toward
the story's fulfillment. For example, I was unable to understand what the whole story, Guerrillas, written by V.S. Naipaul,
was about. The actions in the story did not seem to express any deeper purpose the story might have had. Therefore, it is
an important tool to be able to write a powerfully affecting story and be able to lay out what such a story is about at its
foundation level.

Characters in a story operate to make the story's movement visible and concrete, in a way that engages a reader's
interest. The author, then, needs to be able to make the subtle distinction between what their story is about on that deeper,
foundation level, from what is at stake for their characters and what they need to do to set up their plot. When the author is
clear about how their story fulfills the reader's needs, what the story is about, and its plot, they still must be able to create
characters that act powerfully in the "moment." All characters in well told stories must have strength of purpose. Whether
the issue is love, greed, revenge, compassion, hate, or jealousy, a character must be willing to confront and overcome
whatever obstacles the story places in their path. Weak characters offer the reader no reason to internalise the story; and
because their actions are weak and unfocused, the reader literally has difficulty internalising the actions of such characters
and assigning them meaning. The writer must create characters that will act forcefully when confronted with the need to
resolve the conflict in the story, in a favourable way for themselves, or for their allies. The characters, for which the writer
has not fully considered their situation and how they would respond, are truly weak characters, no matter how powerful
they might appear when considered separately.

In order to hold a reader's interest, the author must be able to write powerfully in the "moment." Proficient writing
creates a compelling sense of being in the "moment" of the action being described. In order to effectively do this; the writer
must perceive what is at stake in the story. When this is understood, the emotions and events that drive a story's characters
will become clearer. Keeping that in mind, the character's actions, when viewed individually, should be active, bold,
dramatic and direct. This will ensure that the reader's interest is held. This ability to create scenes or characters that exist
powerfully in the "moment" is one of those issues of writing that separate good writing from bad. If a writer is able to
create an experience deeply and powerfully felt by a story's characters, and a reader is able to internalise those dramatic
actions, the writing style may be considered quite exceptional. When writers fail to understand what their story is about at
its essence, and how that drives their characters, they can also struggle with this issue of how best to describe the elements
of their story in a way that brings it to life. Instead of describing characters and actions and issues at the heart of their
stories, they describe characters and events the reader doesn't "feel" are relevant. Or they describe such characters and
events in a way that fails to generate a dramatic quality of moving a story toward its fulfillment. Therefore, in the book
Guerrillas, it is either the fault of V.S. Naipaul's, for not writing effectively, or it is my fault for not being a good reader,
that I did not understand the story.

A writer must also be clear about how to arrange the elements of a story for the full dramatic effect. For example, in
order for the introduction of a story to be effective, the reader should not be told of the situation, rather they should be
shown by what happens. So the story, in its arrangement of its elements, should set out what is at stake in the story; what,
of any consequence, is at stake for the story's characters, not to mention its readers; and what would fulfill the story. The
deeper level of drama in a story then is in the arrangement of its events that create a pull on a reader's attention and interest,
and offer a reward for that interest and attention: a deeply felt fulfillment of the issue, whatever it may be.

Well-constructed literature will contain a plot that makes visible and concrete the movement of the story in a way that
its action is dramatic and potent. A plot good plot will take the character's concerns and intertwine them with what's at
stake in the story itself. So to achieve their personal goals, which readers desire to internalise in order to experience the
drama of the outcome, a character must act perseveringly, in a way that advances the story. In turn, they may be blocked,
just as resolutely, by other characters that desire a different course or outcome for the story. However, to describe a story's
plot is not the same as describing what a story is about on its foundation level, what the story is actually about. For
example, consider Lives of the Saints. On the surface, this story might appear to be about a family, in a small mountain
town situated in Italy, trying to leave the ignorance and superstition of their village and trying to reach America. But on the
story level, this is a story about a clash of values and ideology in a small Italian village, and about self realisation of a
young boy who grew up there. We can readily internalise this story because it is about the universal human experience of
self-realization. The plot, the movement of the story, is just a means to this end.

Well-constructed literature, then, can be analysed by understanding these principles of storytelling. By exposing
the reasons why we desire stories, and how well-constructed literature can meet these needs that we bring to it, I sought to
reveal what well-constructed literature will contain and how to identify it. During the colloquies, I struggled with a
definition of good literature. However, I came to the conclusion that well-constructed literature is not necessarily good
literature, and vice versa. So, instead of trying to conclude what good literature is, I decided to tackle the idea of what well-
constructed literature is. It is important to remain aware of the fact that good literature is many things to many people.
Different people will try to reach a different type of fulfillment. In my opinion, it is impossible to judge or define good
literature, one may only attempt to judge or define what well-constructed literature is, as I hope to have done here, in this
essay, for you.

1. How sympathetic is Dickens towards the French Revolution? Which details illustrate his revulsion or attraction to the movement?

2. Compare the adherence to traditional gender roles by Lucie Manette and Madame Defarge. Is Dickens constrained by literary or social conventions, for example by making a manly woman the villain and a feminine woman the sentimental heroine?

3. How does religion color the attitudes of the characters in this novel? Compare Sydney Carton to Lucie Manette, or Jerry Cruncher to the Defarges.

4. Does the plot's reliance on fate and coincidence--including the resemblance of Carton to Darnay, the discovery of Dr. Manette's document, and the double recognition of Solomon Pross a.k.a. John Barsad by Miss Pross and Jerry Cruncher--make the story less believable or less powerful?

5. How does Dickens reconcile his distaste for the Revolution with his identity as a social crusader? Does he believe in the people's right to revolt under an oppressive government?

6. Examine the motifs of light and darkness in this novel, and trace how they relate to Carton, Lucie, Dr. Manette, and/or Madame Defarge's character development.

7. The most recurrent criticism of this novel is that the characters do not have the psychological depth or development of other Dickensian figures. Does Sydney Carton's transformation undermine this claim? Is this criticism really fair toward the other characters?

8. Examine the theme of resurrection in the novel. Which characters are brought back to life and how? Is there any situation from which resurrection is impossible?

9. Dickens focuses mostly on the lower class in France, but what sense does he give of the lower class in England? Why was there no comparable class struggle in the same era?

10. Analyze Dickens's descriptions of mobs in England and in France. How do they differ? What makes a mob what it is? How do mobs make decisions?

BACON WISEST, BRIGHTEST, MEANEST
If parts allure these think how Bacon shin’d
The wisest, brightest and meanest of mankind.
Bacon was the wisest because of his worldly wisdom, he was brightest owing to his powerful intellect and the art of writing terse essays, and he was meanest due to his treacherous character.

The above mentioned remark on Bacon was made by a renowned and marvelous poet, “Alexander Pope”. If we observe critically, this statement holds its validity. For Bacon appeared to be a true child of Renaissance. Undoubtedly he was a man of wisdom and powerful intellect. But all at once he was a calculating character, keeping an eye on the main chance. He was a true follower of Machiavelli. He failed to harmonize his mixed motives, complex principles and high aims together. He wanted to strive after the selfless scientific truth but he was conscious that nothing could be done without money and power. So, he strived after material success. Bacon belonged to the age of glory and greatness, surprising meanness and dishonest conduct and he could not avoid these evils.

Bacon was a man of multi-talents. His wisdom was undeniable. The thirst for infinite knowledge and his versatility was truly astonishing. He possessed an intellect of the highest order. He was learned in Greek, French, Latin, English, Science, Philosophy, Classics and many other fields of knowledge. He is regarded as the creator of the modern school of experimental research. He held that “man is the servant and interpreter of nature”. He supplied the impulse which broke with the medieval preconceptions and set scientific inquiry on modern lines. He emphasized on experimentation and not to accept things for granted. Bacon was indeed an eloquent prophet of new era and the pioneer of modern sciences.

The essays of Bacon also portray his intellect and practical wisdom. The varied range of subjects too expresses that ‘he had taken all knowledge to be his province’. Bacon could utter weighty and pregnant remarks on almost any subject, from “Greatness of Kingdoms” to “Gardens”. The essays are loaded with the ripest wisdom of experience and observation conveyed through short, compact and terse sentences. One cannot deny the sagacity and shrewdness of his counsels. Bacon’s essays deal with man. He is an able analyst of human nature, and his conduct in public and private affairs. His comments regarding man’s behaviour may at times sound cynical but they are undeniable truths. He says:
A mixture of a lie doth even add pleasure.
Bacon is true here for most of the people would find life terrible without false hopes and false impressions. His views about friendship, though lacks in feelings and emotions, yet these are undeniably true to human nature.

Following are a few examples of his wisdom.
One who studieth revenge, keeps his own wounds green.
And
Men in great places are thrice servants.
So, like a very wise man he coin ideas and teaches them to make people wise in worldly terms.

Bacons brightness is best illustrated in the way in which he clothes his wisdom into brevity and lends the readers a great pleasure. The compactness of thought and conciseness of expression was a virtue in an age when looseness in thought and language was the rule. The essays are enriched with maxims and proverbs. He supports his ideas and arguments with innumerable quotations, allusions and analogies which prove his wide knowledge and learning. The aptness of the similes, the witty turn of phrases and the compact expression of weighty thoughts are evidence enough of the brightness of his intellect.
Suspicions among thoughts are like bats among birds.
Money is like much, except it be spread.
Virtue is like precious adours --- most fragrant, when they are incensed or crushed.
Moreover, the precise and authentic turn of sentences and the condensation of thoughts in them have been enhanced by the antithetical presentation. Such as:


A lie faces God and shrinks from man.
The ways to enrich are many and most of them are foul.
It is a strange desire to seek power and to lose liberty.
Through indignation, men rise to dignity.
<!--[endif]-->
Thus with the tool of antithesis, Bacon made his argument many times stronger and influential than a simple sentence. He created so much wit and strength in such precise writings that they are still valid and famous. No man individually did provide such strength and simplicity to the English language than Bacon. Bacon tried to reach the reader’s mind by a series of aphoristic attacks. Therefore he is considered as the pioneer of modern prose. There is hardly any equal of him for clear, terse and compact writing.

Now, it appears to be an irony of nature that a man with such a tremendous intellect and wisdom had such a mean character. Bacon was not mean in the sense of being a miser. He was indeed reputed to be a very generous. The manner in which Bacon betrayed his friends, especially Es***, proved him most ungrateful and ignoble man. He made friendship and uprightness subordinate to his success. He always kept his eye on the main chance, worshipping the rising sun and avoiding of the setting one.

His marriage was also a marriage of convenience. He did not hesitate to take part in political intrigues in order to promote his ambition. His letter to the king and queen were also full of flattery that it was hard to believe that they came from the pen of such an intellectual man.

Though he was wise yet he showed certain incapacity of emotions and this trait can also be witnessed in his essays. He took the purely personal and domestic matters of a man – like marriage, friendship, love etc in terms of pure utility. Such as:
He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune.
And
Those that want friends to open themselves unto are cannibals of their own heart.
In short, Bacon was a man of the world – worldly wisdom and worldly convenience. He had a “great brain” but not a “great soul”. His complex and contradictory characters will continue to be a psychological enigma for the readers to understand. So, he was definitely the wisest, brightest and meanest of mankind.

Bacon
Bacon challenged the basic beliefs of man e.g. truth, love, friendship, honesty, secrecy and reshaped them. He challenged the most established norm and ideals of mankind.

He questioned everything; he questioned what was, generally, considered unquestionable. He was an iconoclast. His approach was revolutionary. He begins his essays with a challenging statement i.e. what is truth, what is friendship and what is love.

He was very skeptical. He believed that the test of the truth of everything is in practical observation. He believes that experience is the basis of every judgment. This is called empirical approach. And no doubt he was an empiricist. His way of thinking was inductive. It was based upon facts and upon data. His spirit of inquiry and spirit of skepticism was the outcome of Renaissance. Bacon was very utilitarian. Like a scientist, he did only what was useful.

His training had been as a scholastic but his approach was anti-scholastic. He was bitterly against the scholastic approach. He said that the arguments of scholastics appear to be very intelligent and philosophical but actually these are nothing but only mental luxury. He said that scholastic try to prove the proven, means, who is God, what is sin or reward. In philosophy, this attitude is called begging in question. What is to be proved, it is taken as supposed.

Bacon says the reasoning of schoolmen is in fact very smart and full of life but actually this life is like the life of worms in rotten flesh. They appear to be very active but this is a very deadly activity. They are not agent of life rather they are the agents of death. The arguments of scholastics kill the mind than to develop the mind. Thus Bacon demolished the scholasticism with their own tools.

Bacon gave the theory of “duality of truth”. He proved that ideals are definitely good but ideals are only for ideal and perfect people. Imperfect people can’t follow the ideals and when they can’t follow them they go reverse and tell lies. Bacon said that everyone should try to be as good as possible. One must realize his faculties. An imperfect man must compromise with his imperfection. Instead of cursing himself one should compromise with his imperfection. This is called “expediency”. That truth is only for ideal people and for common man expediency should be the principle.

Bacon said that there are two kinds of truths – heavenly truth and earthly truth. He further said that heavenly truth is contained in Bible and it is for “salvation”. But earthly truth is in the laws of nature and in the means of science and it is necessary for earthly success. And this earthly truth is different from heavenly truth. Both are opposite to each other and can’t function for its opposite and one must be able to differentiate between them. This is called relativity of truth or duality of truth. L. C. Knight wrote that Bacon did not give the theory of the duality of truth but he only stated the facts who actually believe in their conducts.

What Bacon’s essays reveal is that:

1. Man in relation to the world and society.
2. Man in relation to himself
3. Man in relation his Maker.

Bacon was, definitely, a worldly wise man. He was the wisest and the meanest of mankind. He was truly of Renaissance; the age of accumulating knowledge, wealth and power. Being a true follower of Machiavellian principles, he led his life for worldly success. He was a man of shrewd and sagacious intellect with his eyes fixed on the main chance. And what he preached in his essays was also the knowledge, needed for worldly success.

There is no doubt that Bacon’s essays are a treasure house of worldly wisdom. The term worldly wisdom means a wisdom which is necessary for worldly success. It does not need any deep philosophy or any ideal morality. But Bacon was a man of high wisdom, as he himself pronounced, “I have taken all knowledge to be my province”. Bacon also preached morality but his morality is subordinate to worldly success and he never hesitated to sacrifice it for worldly benefit. His essays are rich with the art which a man should employ for achieving success in his life, such as shrewdness, sagacity, tact, foresight, judgment of character and so on.

The subject of Bacon in his essays is the man who needs prosperity in worldly terms. Bacon’s essays bring men to ‘come home to men’s business and bosoms’. He teaches them, how to exercise one’s authority and much more. When he condemns cunning, it is not because of a hateful and vile thing, but because it is unwise. That is why the wisdom in his essay is considered a ‘cynical’ kind of wisdom. He describes his essays as ‘Counsels – civil and moral’.

In his essay “Of Truth”, Bacon appreciates truth and wishes people to speak the truth. He says:
"A lie faces God and shrinks from man."
He warns human beings against the punishment for the liar on the doomsday. But at the same time, he considers a lie as an ‘alloy’ which increases the strength of gold and feels it necessary for the survival on earth. He says:
"A lie doth ever add pleasure."
---this is purely a statement of a “worldly wise man”.

The essay “Of Great Places” though contains a large number of moral precepts yet in this very same essay he also preaches worldly success.
"It is a strange desire to seek power and to lose liberty; By pains men come to greater pains."
And
"Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."
Then Bacon suggests that men in authority should work not only for the betterment of public but also for their own status:
"All rising to great place is by a winding stair; and if there be factions, it is good to side a man’s self whilst he is rising and to behave himself when he is placed."
It is purely a utilitarian advice and it surely holds a compromise between morality and worldly success. Even when Bacon urges a man not to speak ill of his predecessor, it is not because of high morality but because of the fact that the man who does not follow advice would suffer with unpleasant consequences.

Bacon’s approach towards studies is also purely utilitarian. In his essay “Of Studies”, he does not emphasize on study for its own sake, but for the benefit which it can provide to man to be supplemented by practical experience.
"Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man and writing an exact man."
And then he says:
"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested."
Bacon also points out the effects of different branches of studies on a man’s mind and thinks it helpful in the cure of different mental ailments and follies.

His essay “Of Suitors” totally reveals Bacon’s shrewd insight. Although he suggests that a suitor should not be disloyal towards his petition and should tell him the truth about the chances of winning the suit without leaving him wandering in false hopes. Bacon suggests that a patron should not charge extensive amounts for a small case. But then he dilutes all this by saying if the patron wants to support the non-deserving party, he should make a compromise between both of them, so that the deserving party would bear not great loss. This is a purely utilitarian approach and it shows what Bacon himself had been in his career, for it was his own profession.

In the essay “Of Revenge” Bacon shows a certain high morality by saying that:
"Revenge is a kind of wild justice; One who studieth revenge, keeps his own wounds green."
He feels dignity in forgiving ones enemy. But then he says that even revenge is just in the cases when one can save one’s skin from the hands of law.
Bacon showed a certain incapacity for emotions. He took the relation of friendship for its benefit and made a purely worldly approach to the subject which intimately deals between two persons. He gave us the uses and abused of friendship. He says:
"Those that want friends to open themselves unto, are cannibals of their own hearts."
This essay clearly shows Bacon’s cynical wisdom and that his morality is stuffed with purely utilitarian considerations.

Bacon considers love as a ‘child of folly’. In his essay “Of Love” he says:
"It is impossible to love and to be wise."
He considers wife and children as hindrance in the way of success and progress. He says:
"He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune."
Afterwards in his essay “Of Marriage and Single Life” he tells the ‘benefits’ of a wife.
"Wives are young men’s mistresses, companion to middle age and old man’s nurse."
In his essay “Of Parents and Children” Bacon puts:
"Children sweeten labour, but they make misfortune more bitter."
All these statements show his essentially mean and benefit seeking attitude, even in the matters of heart. In short, Bacon’s essays are a “hand book” of practical wisdom enriched with maxims which are very helpful for worldly wisdom and success.

Bertrand Russell is one of the greatest masters of English Prose. He revolutionized not only the subject matter but also the mode of expression. He has in him a happy blend of greatest philosopher and a great writer. He was awarded Nobel Prize for literature in 1950. The subject matter of his essays may be very difficult but his manner of expression is so lucid and simple that even a layman can understand him without any special difficulty. It is a rare privilege which only few prose masters enjoy. The precision and clarity which Russell’s prose style possesses are very rare in the bulk of English prose.

Russell has justly been regarded as one of the great prose stylists of the 20th century. Although he is not a literary writer yet his work devoted mainly to problems of philosophy, ethics, morality, political, social life and economics, etc. impresses us greatly by its literary qualities.

Of course, Russell's style sometimes becomes difficult for the average reader who comes across sentences which he has read for more than once in order to get the meaning. Russell’s style appeals mainly to our intellects and very little to our feelings or emotions. He uses words simply as tools, to convey his meaning plain and effective and not to produce any special effects. It is not a coloured or gorgeous style. Nor is there any passion in it. It is somewhat cold.

There are no “jeweled phrases” in his writings nor sentences over which we would like to linger with the aesthetic pleasure. Russell’s style is intellectually brilliant. He can condense an idea or a thought in a few words if he so desires. Russell is always direct, simple and lucid. He knows that the complexity of expression leads to ambiguity. Nothing can be more lucid than such opening lines:
“Happiness depends partly upon external circumstances and partly upon oneself.”
“Of all the institutions that have come down to us from the past, none is so disorganized and derailed as the family.”
Russell’s sentences clearly show Bacon’s terseness. They are replete with so deep thoughts like those of Bacon that we may elaborate them in countless pages. Many sentences are like proverbs, replete with deep meanings like:
“Extreme hopes are born of extreme misery.”
“One of the most powerful sources of false belief is envy.”
“Pride of a race is even more harmful than national pride.”
Russell’s quotations from the Bible, Shakespeare, Roman and Greek writers are harmoniously woven into the texture of his thoughts. The Biblical phrases and quotations lend sublimity to his prose and make his style scholarly. Russell manipulates such allusiveness in order to make his ironical onslaughts more effective.

Irony is a principal instrument of his style. He ironizes the so-called modern minded people. Russell makes frequent uses of wit and humour but his humour is generally not pure fun or frolic.

Russell writes chaste prose and there is a rationalistic approach to life. As a deep thinker and a man with scientific mood, he has infused into his style a new depth and a stream-like continuity and clarity.

His chief concern is to convey his ideas to his readers. That is why his prose style exhibits
Bertrand Russell is one of the greatest masters of English Prose. He revolutionized not only the subject matter but also the mode of expression. He has in him a happy blend of greatest philosopher and a great writer. He was awarded Nobel Prize for literature in 1950. The subject matter of his essays may be very difficult but his manner of expression is so lucid and simple that even a layman can understand him without any special difficulty. It is a rare privilege which only few prose masters enjoy. The precision and clarity which Russell’s prose style possesses are very rare in the bulk of English prose.

Russell has justly been regarded as one of the great prose stylists of the 20th century. Although he is not a literary writer yet his work devoted mainly to problems of philosophy, ethics, morality, political, social life and economics, etc. impresses us greatly by its literary qualities.

Of course, Russell's style sometimes becomes difficult for the average reader who comes across sentences which he has read for more than once in order to get the meaning. Russell’s style appeals mainly to our intellects and very little to our feelings or emotions. He uses words simply as tools, to convey his meaning plain and effective and not to produce any special effects. It is not a coloured or gorgeous style. Nor is there any passion in it. It is somewhat cold.

There are no “jeweled phrases” in his writings nor sentences over which we would like to linger with the aesthetic pleasure. Russell’s style is intellectually brilliant. He can condense an idea or a thought in a few words if he so desires. Russell is always direct, simple and lucid. He knows that the complexity of expression leads to ambiguity. Nothing can be more lucid than such opening lines:
“Happiness depends partly upon external circumstances and partly upon oneself.”
“Of all the institutions that have come down to us from the past, none is so disorganized and derailed as the family.”
Russell’s sentences clearly show Bacon’s terseness. They are replete with so deep thoughts like those of Bacon that we may elaborate them in countless pages. Many sentences are like proverbs, replete with deep meanings like:
“Extreme hopes are born of extreme misery.”
“One of the most powerful sources of false belief is envy.”
“Pride of a race is even more harmful than national pride.”
Russell’s quotations from the Bible, Shakespeare, Roman and Greek writers are harmoniously woven into the texture of his thoughts. The Biblical phrases and quotations lend sublimity to his prose and make his style scholarly. Russell manipulates such allusiveness in order to make his ironical onslaughts more effective.

Irony is a principal instrument of his style. He ironizes the so-called modern minded people. Russell makes frequent uses of wit and humour but his humour is generally not pure fun or frolic.

Russell writes chaste prose and there is a rationalistic approach to life. As a deep thinker and a man with scientific mood, he has infused into his style a new depth and a stream-like continuity and clarity.

His chief concern is to convey his ideas to his readers. That is why his prose style exhibits his balanced personality. ‘Style is the man’ applies to him more logically.

Russell makes long sentences to pour out his feelings with a poetic flash. He thinks deeply and expresses the matter in a logical manner. The sentence is definitely long but the main link of the thought is not broken anywhere. All subordinate clause move towards the main clause with the definite aim of making the sense more clear. No part of the syntax is loose.

Russell does not use metaphors and similes frequently. To him, they are the matter of necessity. These are to be used only when there is a dire necessity of using them. Russell makes a great use of the art of rhetoric to emphasize his point. He does not make his rhetoric pompous and exaggerated.

Bertrand Russell always argues his case in a strictly logical manner and his aim always is exactitude or precision. As far as possible, he never leaves the reader in any doubt about what he has to say. He stresses the need of rationality, which he calls scepticism in all sphere of life.

Each essay is logically well knit and self-contained. In each essay the development of the thought is continuous and strictly logical, with a close interconnection between one paragraph and another. It is a style best suited to an advocate. There are no superfluities in his style at all.

To conclude, Russell is one of the great prose writers of the last century, who wrote an almost all kinds of varied subjects with great force and confidence. The unity of his thoughts goes hand in hand with the unity of his style.

Good morning to all,
Please tell me these notes are excellent, good or satisfy.

Irony is the very soul of Jane Austen’s novels and “Pride and Prejudice” is steeped in irony of theme, situation, character and narration. Irony is the contrast between appearance and reality.

As one examines “Pride and Prejudice”, one is struck with the fact of the ironic significance that pride leads to prejudice and prejudice invites pride and both have their corresponding virtues bound up within them. Each has its virtues and each has its defects. They are contradictory and the supreme irony is that intricacy, which is much deeper, carries with it grave dangers unknown to simplicity. This type of thematic irony runs through all of Jane Austen’s novel.

In “Pride and Prejudice” there is much irony of situation too, which provides a twist to the story. Mr. Darcy remarks about Elizabeth that:

“tolerable but not handsome enough to tempt me…”

We relish the ironical flavour of this statement much later when we reflect that the woman who was not handsome enough to dance with was really good enough to marry. He removes Bingley from Netherfield because he considers it imprudent to forge a marriage alliance with the Bennet Family, but himself ends up marrying the second Bennet sister. Collins proposes to Elizabeth when her heart is full of Wickham and Darcy proposes to her exactly at the moment when she hates him most. Elizabeth tells Mr. Collins that she is not the type to reject the first proposal and accept the second but does exactly this when Darcy proposes a second time. The departure of the militia from Meryton was expected to put an end to Lydia's flirtations, it brings about her elopement. The Lydia-Wickham episode may seem like an insurmountable barrier between Elizabeth and Darcy, but is actually instrumental in bringing them together. Lady Catherine, attempting to prevent their marriage only succeeds in hastening it.

Irony in character is even more prominent than irony of situation. It is ironical that Elizabeth who prides herself on her perception is quite blinded by her own prejudices and errs badly in judging intricate characters. Wickham appears suave and charming but is ironically unprincipled rouge. Darcy appears proud and haughty but ironically proves to be a true gentleman when he gets Wickham to marry Lydia by paying him. The Bingley Sisters hate the Bennets for their vulgarity but are themselves vulgar in their behaviour. Darcy is also critical of the ill-bred Bennet Family but ironically his Aunt Catherine is equally vulgar and ill-bed. Thus, the novel abounds in irony of characters.

The narrative of “Pride and Prejudice” too has an ironic tone which contributes much verbal irony. Jane Austen’s ironic tone is established in the very first sentence of the novel.

“It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”

As Dorothy Van Ghent remark, what we read in it is opposite – a single woman must be in want – of a man with a good fortune. There is much verbal irony in the witty utterances of Mrs. Bennet. He tells Elizabeth:

“Let Wickham be your man. He is pleasant fellow and would jilt you creditable …”

In the words ‘pleasant fellow’ is hidden a dramatic irony at the expense of Mr. Bennet, for Wickham is destined to make a considerable dent in Mr. Bennet's complacency.

Jane Austen did not show any cynicism or bitterness in using her irony to draw satirical portraits of whims and follies. Rather her irony can be termed comic. It implies on her side an acknowledgement of what is wrong with people and society. It is interesting to note that ironically, in “Pride and Prejudice”, it is the villainous character Wickham and lady Catherine – who are responsible for uniting Elizabeth and Darcy.

She uses irony to shake her major figures of their self-deception and to expose the hypocrisy and pretentiousness, absurdity and insanity of some of her minor figures. It is definitely possible to deduce from her works a scheme of moral values. Andrew II Wright rightly points out that irony in her hands is ‘the instrument of a moral vision’.

Jane Austen is not a proclaimed moralist. Unlike Fielding, her aim is not to propagate the morality. She believes in art for the sake of art. She is the pioneer of the novels. Therefore, her plots are well-knit. Her main interest lies in irony and there is a hidden significance of morality as we come across her moral vision in her novels through irony.

Jane Austen is in a favour of social prosperity than individual. She upholds the organic unity of society. She stresses that the duty of human beings owe to others, to society and maintains that individual desires have to be sub-ordinate to the large scale. Lydia-Wickham elopement is passionate and irresponsible. It shows that how society’s harmony is disrupted and how others lives are ruined by the selfish act of the individual. On the other hand the marriage of Elizabeth and Darcy, Jane and Bingley bring happiness and stability to everyone, not simply to themselves.

She discusses individuals ‘short comings’. Even the hero and heroine have no exception. Elizabeth blinds herself absurdly because of prejudice whereas Darcy is full of pride.

“... tolerable but not handsome enough to tempt me.”

But we can see that both learn and understand each other. Their pride and prejudice are vanished. But the shortcomings of the other characters are not changed. Mr. Bennet is careless and irresponsible man. Mrs. Bennet is vulgar and stupid. Charlotte is very much economic. Lydia is lusty and Wickham is a deceiver.

Society is divided into classes. “Pride and Prejudice” is an attempt to harmonize the two extremes of middle class – lower end and the top end – into one. Bingley’s marriage with Jane and Darcy’s with Elizabeth. It is her moral approach to rub the class distinction-line of society.

She also discusses the institution of family which is disturbed. The heads of Bennet family are not mentally bound. This is a matchless couple. Their role as a parent is not active. The disadvantages of such an unsuitable marriage attend the daughters also. On the other hand Bingley family is betraying because there is no head for them but only guided by Darcy.

Jane Austen is concerned with the growth of an individual’s moral personality measured by the most exacting standards of 18th century values. Popes dictum “know thyself” underlines the theme of her novel. The conclusion of her novel is always the achievement of self-respect and principal mean of such an achievement is a league of perfect sympathy with another, who is one’s spiritual counterpart. Jane Austen traces Elizabeth's prejudice and her anguished recognition of her own blind prejudice before she is united with Darcy in a marriage based on mutual respect, love and understanding. As she says,

“How despicable have I acted! I, who have pride myself on my discernment! – I who have valued myself on my abilities.”

In the end she says,

“There can be no doubt of that. It is settled between us already that we are to be the happiest couple in the world.”

Main theme of her novel is marriage. She tries to define good reasons for marriage and bad reasons for marriage. Her moral concern though unobtrusive, is ever-present. The marriage of Lydia-Wickham, Charlotte-Collins and of the Bennets serves the show by their failure the prosperity of the Elizabeth-Darcy marriage.

There is corruption in landed class. Jane Austen reflects this problem in her novel also. The Bingley sisters hate the Bennet for their vulgarity but are themselves vulgar in their behaviour. Lady Catharine is equally vulgar and ill-bred.

Army men in her novel are only for flirtation. They come only for enjoyment. They have no love in them. Some of them are deceiver like Wickham who elopes with Lydia not for love bur for money.

Then she discusses the degeneracy of clergy. Mr. Collins is a clergyman. He comes at Neitherfield in search of life partner. But he is rejected by Bennet’s daughters. Then he turns towards Charlotte. He has some reason for marriage.

“My reasons for marriage are, I think it right thing for every clergy (like me) in easy circumstances to set the example of matrimony in parish …”

Jane Austen throws light on the materialism and economic concern of society. Charlotte is more concern with money than man. She is lusty. Her materialistic approach is judged by her remarks.

“I am not romantic, you know, I never was. I ask only for a comfortable home.”

Collins also has materialistic mind. Mr. Wickham is always thinking about money. He elopes with Lydia only for money.

Pride and prejudice, is in fact, corresponding virtue. Pride leads to prejudice and prejudice invites pride. Darcy is proud, at the beginning. As he says:

“… my good opinion once lost is lost forever”

His first appearance is appallingly insolent and we tend to agree with Mrs. Bennet’s complaint:

“He walked her and he walked there, fancying so very great”.

Darcy’s remarks prejudiced Elizabeth. At ball-party, when he firstly sees her, he says:

“... tolerable but not handsome enough to tempt me.”

Wickham’s biased account about Darcy increased the hatred of Elizabeth. But we can observe that both earn when they go through the process of self-realization. Then Elizabeth thinks that:

“…Darcy was exactly the man, who in disposition and talents; would suit for her.”

We may say that Jane Austen’s main concern was irony. She uses irony to shake the major figures of their self-deception and expose the hypocrisy and pretentiousness, absurdity and insanity of some of her minor figures. It is definitely possible to deduce from her work a scheme of moral value. Andrew H. Wright rightly points out that irony in her hand is the instrument of a moral vision. As Walter Allen comments:

“She is the most forthright moralist in English.”

Analysis of Major Characters
Lemuel Gulliver
Although Gulliver is a bold adventurer who visits a multitude of strange lands, it is difficult to regard him as truly heroic. Even well before his slide into misanthropy at the end of the book, he simply does not show the stuff of which grand heroes are made. He is not cowardly—on the contrary, he undergoes the unnerving experiences of nearly being devoured by a giant rat, taken captive by pirates, shipwrecked on faraway shores, ***ually assaulted by an eleven-year-old girl, and shot in the face with poison arrows. Additionally, the isolation from humanity that he endures for sixteen years must be hard to bear, though Gulliver rarely talks about such matters. Yet despite the courage Gulliver shows throughout his voyages, his character lacks basic greatness. This impression could be due to the fact that he rarely shows his feelings, reveals his soul, or experiences great passions of any sort. But other literary adventurers, like Odysseus in Homer’s Odyssey, seem heroic without being particularly open about their emotions.
What seems most lacking in Gulliver is not courage or feelings, but drive. One modern critic has described Gulliver as possessing the smallest will in all of Western literature: he is simply devoid of a sense of mission, a goal that would make his wandering into a quest. Odysseus’s goal is to get home again, Aeneas’s goal in Virgil’s Aeneid is to found Rome, but Gulliver’s goal on his sea voyage is uncertain. He says that he needs to make some money after the failure of his business, but he rarely mentions finances throughout the work and indeed almost never even mentions home. He has no awareness of any greatness in what he is doing or what he is working toward. In short, he has no aspirations. When he leaves home on his travels for the first time, he gives no impression that he regards himself as undertaking a great endeavor or embarking on a thrilling new challenge.
We may also note Gulliver’s lack of ingenuity and savvy. Other great travelers, such as Odysseus, get themselves out of dangerous situations by exercising their wit and ability to trick others. Gulliver seems too dull for any battles of wit and too unimaginative to think up tricks, and thus he ends up being passive in most of the situations in which he finds himself. He is held captive several times throughout his voyages, but he is never once released through his own stratagems, relying instead on chance factors for his liberation. Once presented with a way out, he works hard to escape, as when he repairs the boat he finds that delivers him from Blefuscu, but he is never actively ingenious in attaining freedom. This example summarizes quite well Gulliver’s intelligence, which is factual and practical rather than imaginative or introspective.
Gulliver is gullible, as his name suggests. For example, he misses the obvious ways in which the Lilliputians exploit him. While he is quite adept at navigational calculations and the humdrum details of seafaring, he is far less able to reflect on himself or his nation in any profoundly critical way. Traveling to such different countries and returning to England in between each voyage, he seems poised to make some great anthropological speculations about cultural differences around the world, about how societies are similar despite their variations or different despite their similarities. But, frustratingly, Gulliver gives us nothing of the sort. He provides us only with literal facts and narrative events, never with any generalizing or philosophizing. He is a self-hating, self-proclaimed Yahoo at the end, announcing his misanthropy quite loudly, but even this attitude is difficult to accept as the moral of the story. Gulliver is not a figure with whom we identify but, rather, part of the array of personalities and behaviors about which we must make judgments.
The Queen of Brobdingnag
The Brobdingnagian queen is hardly a well-developed character in this novel, but she is important in one sense: she is one of the very few females in Gulliver’s Travels who is given much notice. Gulliver’s own wife is scarcely even mentioned, even at what one would expect to be the touching moment of homecoming at the end of the fourth voyage. Gulliver seems little more than indifferent to his wife. The farmer’s daughter in Brobdingnag wins some of Gulliver’s attention but chiefly because she cares for him so tenderly. Gulliver is courteous to the empress of Lilliput but presumably mainly because she is royalty. The queen of Brobdingnag, however, arouses some deeper feelings in Gulliver that go beyond her royal status. He compliments her effusively, as he does no other female personage in the work, calling her infinitely witty and humorous. He describes in proud detail the manner in which he is permitted to kiss the tip of her little finger. For her part, the queen seems earnest in her concern about Gulliver’s welfare. When her court dwarf insults him, she gives the dwarf away to another household as punishment. The interaction between Gulliver and the queen hints that Gulliver is indeed capable of emotional connections.
Lord Munodi
Lord Munodi is a minor character, but he plays the important role of showing the possibility of individual dissent within a brainwashed community. While the inhabitants of Lagado pursue their attempts to extract sunbeams from cucumbers and to eliminate all verbs and adjectives from their language, Munodi is a rare example of practical intelligence. Having tried unsuccessfully to convince his fellows of their misguided public policies, he has given up and is content to practice what he preaches on his own estates. In his kindness to strangers, Munodi is also a counterexample to the contemptuous treatment that the other Laputians and Lagadans show Gulliver. He takes his guest on a tour of the kingdom, explains the advantages of his own estates without boasting, and is, in general, a figure of great common sense and humanity amid theoretical delusions and impractical fantasizing. As a figure isolated from his community, Munodi is similar to Gulliver, though Gulliver is unaware of his alienation while Munodi suffers acutely from his. Indeed, in Munodi we glimpse what Gulliver could be if he were wiser: a figure able to think critically about life and society.
Don Pedro de Mendez
Don Pedro is a minor character in terms of plot, but he plays an important symbolic role at the end of the novel. He treats the half-deranged Gulliver with great patience, even tenderness, when he allows him to travel on his ship as far as Lisbon, offering to give him his own finest suit of clothes to replace the seaman’s tatters, and giving him twenty pounds for his journey home to England. Don Pedro never judges Gulliver, despite Gulliver’s abominably antisocial behavior on the trip back. Ironically, though Don Pedro shows the same kind of generosity and understanding that Gulliver’s Houyhnhnm master earlier shows him, Gulliver still considers Don Pedro a repulsive Yahoo. Were Gulliver able to escape his own delusions, he might be able to see the Houyhnhnm-like reasonableness and kindness in Don Pedro’s behavior. Don Pedro is thus the touchstone through which we see that Gulliver is no longer a reliable and objective commentator on the reality he sees but, rather, a skewed observer of a reality colored by private delusions.
Mary Burton Gulliver
Gulliver’s wife is mentioned only briefly at the beginning of the novel and appears only for an instant at the conclusion. Gulliver never thinks about Mary on his travels and never feels guilty about his lack of attention to her. A dozen far more trivial characters get much greater attention than she receives. She is, in this respect, the opposite of Odysseus’s wife Penelope in the Odyssey, who is never far from her husband’s thoughts and is the final destination of his journey. Mary’s neglected presence in Gulliver’s narrative gives her a certain claim to importance. It suggests that despite Gulliver’s curiosity about new lands and ****** races, he is virtually indifferent to those people closest to him. His lack of interest in his wife bespeaks his underdeveloped inner life. Gulliver is a man of skill and knowledge in certain practical matters, but he is disadvantaged in self-reflection, personal interactions, and perhaps overall wisdom.

Oedipus Rex: Character is Destiny
“Oedipus Rex” is a tragedy of fate. The crucial events in the play have been pre-determined by fate or the gods. Man seems helpless facing the circumstances which mould his destiny. King Laius was told that his own son by Jocasta would kill him. Laius did everything possible to prevent such a disaster. Once Jocasta gave birth to a son, Laius had him chained and handed him over to a trustworthy servant with strict orders that the child be exposed on. Mt. Cithaeron and allowed to perish. But the servant, out of compassion, handed over the child to a Corinthian shepherd who passed him on to the Corinthian King. The child grew up as the son of the King and Queen of Corinth and later killed his true father, Laius, in complete ignorance. Apollo’s oracle was fulfilled even though Laius and Jocasta took the extreme step to escape the fate foretold by the oracle.

Oedipus had also to submit to the destiny which Apollo's oracle pronounced for him. He learnt from the oracle that he would kill his own father and marry his own mother. He, too, tried his utmost to avert a terrible fate and fled from Corinth. His wanderings took him to Thebes, where people were facing a great misfortune. King Laius had been killed and the city was in the grip of the Sphinx, who was causing a lot of destruction because nobody was able to solve her riddle. Oedipus solved the riddle and put an end to the monster. Oedipus was joyfully received by Theban people as their King and was given Laius’s widow as his wife. Thus, in complete ignorance of the identity of his parents, he killed his father and married his mother. He performed these disastrous acts not only unknowingly, but as a result of his efforts to escape the cruel fate which the oracle at had communicated to him.

It is evident that the occurrences which bring about the tragedy in the life of Laius, Oedipus, and Jocasta are the work of that mysterious supernatural power called fate or destiny or be given the name of Apollo. This supernatural power had pre-determined certain tragic events and even informed the human beings in advance. These human beings take whatever measures, to avert those events; and yet things turn out exactly as they had been foretold by the oracles. Oedipus has done nothing at all to deserve the fate which overtakes him. Nor do Laius and Jocasta deserve the fate they meet.

According to Aristotle the tragic hero is a prosperous man who falls into misfortune due to some serious defect or hamartia. No doubt that Oedipus is an able ruler, a father of his people, a great administrator and an outstanding intellect. His chief care is not for himself but for the people of the State. The people look upon him as their savior and worshipped him. He is also a religious man in the orthodox sense. That such a man should meet the sad fate is unbearably painful to us.

Oedipus is not, however, a perfect man or a perfect King. He does suffer from a hamartia or a defect of character. He is hot-tempered, rash, hasty in judgments, easily provoked and somewhat arbitrary. Though in the beginning his attitude towards Teiresias is one of reverence, he quickly loses his temper and speaks to the prophet in an insulting manner accusing both him and Creon of treason and showing a blind suspicion towards friends. His position and authority seem to be leading him to become a tyrant. Creon has to remind him that the city does not belong to him alone. Even when blinded he draws the reproach:

“Do not crave to be master in everything always.”

All this shows that Oedipus is not a man of a flawless character, not completely free from faults, not an embodiment of all the virtues. His pride in his own wisdom is one of his glaring faults. His success in solving the riddle of the Sphinx further developed his inherent feeling of pride. There is in him a failure of piety even. Under the influence of Jocasta, he grows sceptical of the oracles. Thus there is in him a lack of true wisdom which took him on the verge of becoming an impious tyrant.

If Oedipus had not been hot-tempered, he might not have got entangled in a fight on the road and might have not been guilty of murdering his father. Similarly, if he had been a little more cautious, he might have hesitated to marry a woman old enough to be his mother. After all there was no compulsion either in the fight or in his marriage. Both his acts may thus be attributed to his own defects of character. All at once it has to be accepted that the decree of the oracles were inescapable. Even if Oedipus had taken the precautions, the prophecy was to be fulfilled. The oracle’s prediction was unconditional; it did not say that if Oedipus did such and such a thing he would kill his father and marry his mother. The oracle simply said that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother. What the oracle said, was bound to happen.

If Oedipus is the innocent victim of inescapable doom, he would be a mere puppet and the play becomes a tragedy of destiny which denies human freedom. Sophocles does not want to regard Oedipus as a puppet; there is reason to believe that Oedipus has been portrayed largely as a free agent. The attendant in the play insistently describes Oedipus’ self-blinding as voluntary and distinguishes it from his involuntary murder of his father and marriage with his mother. Oedipus’ actions were fate-bound, but everything that he does, he does as a free agent – his condemnation of Teiresias and Creon, his conversation with Jocasta to reveal the facts, his pursuing his investigation despite the efforts of Jocasta and the Theban shepherd to stop him, and so on. Oedipus, freely choosing a series of actions, led to his own ruin. Oedipus could have left the plague to take its course but his pity over the sufferings of his people forced him to consult the oracle. He could have left the murder of Laius uninvestigated, but his love of justice obliged him to inquire. He need not have forced the truth from the reluctant Theban shepherd but he could not rest content with a lie. Teiresias, Jocasta, the Theban shepherd each tried to stop Oedipus, but he was determined to solve the problem of his own parentage. The direct cause of his ruin is not fate; no oracle said that he must discover the truth. Still less does the cause of his ruin lie in his own weakness. His own strength and courage, his loyalty to Thebes and his love of truth causes his ruin. All this shows him a free agent.

In spite of the facts that Oedipus is a free agent in most of his actions, still the most tragic events of his life – his murder of his father and his marriage with his mother – had inevitably to happen. Here the responsibility of fate cannot be denied. The real tragedy lies in the discovery of truth, which is due to his own traits. If he had not discovered the truth, he would have continued to live in a state of blissful ignorance and there would have been no tragedy and no suffering. But the parricide and the incest were pre-ordained and for these fate is responsible.

MODERN NOVEL

• Novel: Most important and popular literary medium. Deals the relations between loneliness and love.

• Modern Novel: Realistic as opposed to idealistic, psychological.

• Realistic: Consider truth to observe facts about outer world, about his own feelings.

• Idealistic: Create pleasant and edifying picture.

• Psychological: Nature of consciousness and its relation to time, made difficult to think of consciousness, tends to see it as altogether fluid, existing, story becomes unreal and unsatisfactory,

STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Origin of the term: William James coined the phrase to describe the flux of the mind, its continuity and yet its continuous change.

Consciousness: An amalgam of that we have experienced and continue to experience. Every thought is a part of the personal consciousness, unique and ever-changing. We seem to be selective in our thoughts, selectively attentive or inattentive, focussing attention on certain objects and areas of experience, rejecting others, totally blocking others out.

• Means of escape from tyranny, indicate the precise nature in a limited time, gives a complete picture of a character both historically and psychologically.
• A technique that reveals the character completely historically as well as psychologically.
• Development in character which is difficult.
• Character can be presented outside time and place.
• First represents the presentation of conscious from chronological sequence of events, and then investigates a given state of mind so completely.

TECHNIQUE OF CHARACTERISATION

Previous methods: Two different methods were adopted in the delineation of character.

(i) Personalities of characters emerge from a chronological account of events and reactions to it as in Hardy’s The Mayor of Casterbridge.

(ii) First a descriptive portrait of the character is given and the resulting actions and reactions elaborate that picture as in Trollope’s Barchester Towers.

• “Stream of consciousness” novelist is responsible for an important development, dissatisfied with these traditional methods.
• Impossible to give a psychological accurate account of a man, interested in dynamic aspects rather than static.
• Present moment is specious denoting the ever fluid passing of the ‘already’ into the ‘not yet’, gives the reaction to a particular experience at the moment but also his previous and future reactions.

"The Prologue Of the Caterbury Tale Complete Text"

AOA sir.....can u give me notes on history,importance of english,diff b/w british and american accent and learning of english accent....???????will you???

brother i have not such kind of notes. i am a student of English Literature not English Language but i 'll try my best. thanks

... i just copied it ... will tell u about it later .... wortwhile or not

FOR GOD SAKE plz plz plz provide all notes from a to z and understandable for a novice

Dear Brother Please can you give me notes on Linguistics paper especially on the topic of Phonetic transcription. I am student of M.A English Part 1. I shall be very thankful to you.

Dear Brother Can you give me Notes of MA English Criticism and Essay Literary Notes