Analysis of short story “Udancharkaldi” by Mahendrasinh Parmar with help of Cultural Studies.

To Evaluate my assignment, click here. 

Name: Hariyani Vaidehi C.

Roll no- 19

Year - 2015-17

M.A Semester - 2

Paper no. (8) Cultural Studies

Email Id: - vaidehi09hariyani@gmail.com

Assignment topic:

 Analysis of short story “Udancharkaldi” by Mahendrasinh Parmar with help of Cultural Studies.

Submitted to: Dr. Dilip Barad

Smt.S.B.Gardi

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH,

MAHARAJA KRISHNAKUMARSINHJI  BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY,

 BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT.

Postmodern Literature:-

Postmodern literature is a form of literature which is marked both stylistically and ideologically, by a reliance on such literary conventions as fragmentation, paradox, unreliable narrators, often unrealistic and downright impossible plots, games, parody, paranoia, dark humour and authorial self-reference. Postmodern authors tend to reject outright meanings in their novels, stories and poems, and, instead, highlight and celebrate the possibility of multiple meanings or a complete lack of meaning, within a single literary work.

Many critics and scholars find it best to define postmodern literature against the popular literary style that came before it: modernism. In many ways, postmodern literary styles and ideas serve to dispute, reverse, mock and reject the principles of modernist literature.

Instead of following the standard modernist literary quest for meaning a chaotic world, postmodern literature tends to eschews, often playfully, the very possibility of meaning.

Postmodernism:-

·       Does not follow on “from modernism”

·       Has a different outlook

·       Generally less pessimistic

·       Black humour return to satire

The postmodern literary author makes use of comic elements to highlight the serious issues. Before postmodern writers, the other writers used serious and dark tone to talk about serious issues. A postmodernist author tries to break the basics. The postmodern literature is full of laughter, but the aim of the author is not to create laughter but to think on the serious social issues.

Here I would like to analyse a short story ‘udancharkaldi’ by contemporary Gujarati writer Mahendrasinh Parmar from his book “Polytechnic” ( a collection of short stories).There two more stories in this chain and with the same theme. They are 'Polytechnic' and 'Have kai?'. The importance of a theme is extended in these three stories.

About the Author:-

Mahendrasinh Parmar is born on 2^nd October 1967 in Naliya (Kutch, Gujarat). At present he is a faculty member at Department of Gujarati, Maharaja krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University. Recently, In February 2016 he launched his two books.

1.)            “Polytechnic”

2.)            “Rakhdu no Kagal”

The Plot:-

The plot of the story revolves around the female protagonist ‘Jivi’. Jivi is a girl from rural area. She gets married with Mansukh and moves to his urban house. The new house was very nice with good flooring and the most important facility   was “Toilet”. She cleans the toilet with finial and keeps it so clean.  In village, Jivi and her friends had lots of problems as they didn’t have facilities of toilet.

Jivi loves her new house so much that when her mother and brother invite her for her brother’s wedding. At first she denies going with them and promises to come soon. Jivi was so attached with the new house and specially the facilities, which it was hard for her now to live without this facility. Mansukh also explains Jivi that they should go for her brother’s wedding. The end of the story is open for interpretation that whether Jivi visits her mother’s home or not.

After reading this plot, a question may arise that Can the story be so funny?

Laughter is used as a device. It is used as the expression of thoughts that society usually suppressed or forbade. It shows selfishness and unfeeling cruelty of the subconscious. Paradoxical situation and reactions of the characters and readers makes us think. With laughter the story frustrates the readers.

 Many of you also must be laughing. By laughing at Jivi, we are laughing at our own self or in a wider sense the whole society.

This is where the postmodernist literature differs from others. It represents social issues in a comic manner.

Many times it is been observed that, people never listens or accepts the reality if shown or represented directly.For example we all know that our ex-ray image is the real inner self image of ours. Do we keep that image as our profile picture or at our home? No we won't.We will like to keep our picture where we are painted with make-up. Similarly, people never accept reality directly.

 So, the postmodernist author represents the reality in a comic way.

The people who can understand the deeper meaning of this comedy can grasps the main aim of the story and others just go on laughing.

In this story, the author has used a very interesting metaphor “Raamsabha” for the nature’s call in nature. Jivi and her friends use this metaphor to talk about the nature’s call in nature. It generates laughter among the readers. This metaphor is used several times in the story.

Example:-

This dialogue is spoken by ‘Savli’; Jivi’s best friend. When Jivi’s Bidaai is taking place, Savli tells her that she is very fortunate to have the facility of sanitation, but she has the same “Raamsabha”.

It shows how the girls suffer due to lack of facility of sanitization. The girls can get it only if they get married. The question is why????

Here we can see how an old lady sings song of “Raamsabha”. It reflects the problems she might have suffered and must be seeing the younger girls suffer.

Here we can see a glimpse of a conversation between Jivi and her husband. Jivi tells her husband about “Raamsabha”. Here is a very interesting line which reflects the salient feature of postmodernist literature.

“Bai ne hasta hasta, rovai gayu”

This is what we as a reader should understand the hidden meaning behind the comic elements. Both Jivi and her husband cried on the situations faced by Jivi.

A woman faces this serious problem of poor or no sanitation facilities. It not only creates problem about hygiene of women but also security of women. In August 2014, two girls in Uttar Pradesh were raped during their visit to farm for relieving themselves. Many women in India are still facing the problems. Nowadays we also see the advertisement of the Government program for the use of toilets with a tagline.

“Jaha soch waha sauchalay”

Note:- Our government has now started the campaign, but this was written many years back.

Rather than portraying Jivi in a tragic way, the author gives her a 

touch of comedy mixed with innocence. We might wonder that can there be anyone who doesn’t want to go at her mother’s place. We should imagine the condition of Jivi and the problem girls like her faces. Jivi reflects every girl who is the victim of these kinds of social issues. With the use of pure local Gujarati language, use of metaphors and the comic elements makes the story worth reading.

Many times people are also ashamed of talking about toilet facility or maybe they think these are not important things to be discussed or talked. Postmodernist literature makes use of comedy, satire and irony to highlight the dark side of the society.

 As you must have laughed a lot….Now think about this and many other serious issues going around.


To Evaluate my assignment, click here.

Deconstruction of Some events and slogans of the myth 'Ramayana'.

To Evaluate my assignment, click here

 Name: Hariyani Vaidehi C.

Roll no- 19

Year - 2015-17

M.A Semester - 2

Paper no. (7) Literary Criticism and Western- 2

Email Id: - vaidehi09hariyani@gmail.com

Assignment topic:

 Analysis of the some events and slogans of the myth Ramayana with the reference to "Ramcharitmanas" by Saint Tulsidas and "Scion of Ikshvaku" by Amish Tripathi.

Submitted to: Dr. Dilip Barad

Smt.S.B.Gardi

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH,

MAHARAJA KRISHNAKUMARSINHJI  BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY,

BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT.

Before trying to analyse some event and characters of “Ramayana.” Let us see what the theory of Deconstruction by Jacques Derrida is.

Deconstruction:

 In the criticism of literature, Deconstruction is a theory and practice of reading which questions and claims to ‘subvert’ or ‘undermine’ the assumption that the system of language provides grounds that are adequate to establish the boundaries, the coherence or unity, and the determinate meaning of a literary text. Typically, a deconstructive reading sets out to show the conflicting forces within the text itself to dissipate the seeming definiteness of its structure and meaning into indefinite array of incompatibility and decidable possibilities.

Derrida was the most influential philosopher in 70s and 80s of last century. His philosophy is the further extension of structuralism and is better called as Post-Structuralism. He carries this Structuralist movement to its logical extreme and his reasoning is original and startling. We have seen in this movement that as in New Criticism, the attention was shifted from the writer to the work of literary text; consequently textual analysis became more important than extra textual information. Further, the author disappeared and only the text remained. This is what we called the stylistic and Structuralist position. The meaning as it emerges from the text (the illocutionary force) alone counted. In this process the importance of the reader and his understanding increased, and the Reader Response or Reception Theory came into being. Derrida gives the same process a further and final push according to which what matters is the reading and not the writing of the text. At times one feels, though not quite justifiably, that, in Derrida even the text disappears and what is left behind is an individual’s reader response to it. Now the reader rules the supreme, and the validity of his reading cannot be challenged. However, the structure of each reading has to be coherent and convincing.

Deconstruction could not be understood by anyone properly because Derrida himself denies defining it. Derrida strongly believe that to define something is to make boundaries around it. Deconstruction can be taken as a process of inquiring the origin and construction of the text. Deconstruction does not destroy the construction of any text but questions it's 'origin of origin', so one can get the idea of the existence of that text. Deconstruction gives an idea of free play of words and not believes in dictionary meaning, as dictionary gives only another word for one word. Deconstruction as a process happens to its own, by reading the text or watching the movie our mind gets such symbols and signs and mind works on that, and when it feels or identifies something not appropriate it attacks the work with arguments and questions the problem. It is like blasting the text and what survives is the origin of text.

Here I would like to analyse some events, some slogans and bring in some marginalized characters of the great Indian myth “Ramayana” with reference to “RamCharitmanas” by Saint Tulsidas and “Scion of Ikshvaku” by Amish Tripathi. It is not possible to analyse all the events, so I tried to take some of the aspects.

Let’s start this analysis by the famous line of the Ramayana,

‘Raghukul reet sadaa chali aayi, praan jaye par vachan na jaaye’

As we know that the Raghuvanshi are very well known for their promise. Once they promise someone, they fulfil that promise for that they can sacrifice anything. King Dashrath also sacrificed his life by fulfilling the promises asked by Queen Keikaya. Promises hold so much value at that time, that fulfilling promises was a matter of prestige.

According to this line promises are important, but the question is that are the promises always fulfilled or it was just about priorities. Marriage is very important system in India especially. The Bride and Groom exchanges seven vows. All the seven vows are as old as the concept of marriage. But it has not followed truly from the ancient time as we have an example of our mythological characters, which mostly considered as perfect 'man' Lord Rama in "Ramayana"  but on the other side Sita  has followed it well.

Sita always stood by his husband. She went with him for banishment in the forest. She could easily refuse to go with him, as we know she was the princess of Mithila. She could live her life in Ayodhya happily, but as she promised to be with her husband in good and bad situations. Same applies to a husband also to be with his wife in both situations. Ram went to Lanka to protect her, but then why the agnipariksha?????

Even Ram was alone in the forest, so she could also ask him to prove his chastity.

‘Dhol shudra pashu aur nari, sakal tadna ke adhikari’

Even these words are quite problematic. How Dhol, shudra, pashu and nari are portrayed in a negative way. They all are responsible for the destruction. This line reflects the patriarchal society of that time. If we take a close look, it is seen that indirectly Sita; a nari is responsible for the fight of Ram and Ravan. Also Queen Keikeya is shown responsible for Rama’s banishment.

First let’s see Sita’s character,

Sita was princess of Mithila. Princesses are treated in a very royal manner. If Sita asks her father he would have given her as many golden deer as she wants. But it seems that the writer has only put this incident to make her responsible about the whole thing.

Queen Keikeya is made responsible for Rama’s banishment, but she just asked promise for the welfare of his own son. And it was King Dasaratha who gave her the right to ask her to demand two promises whenever she feels like. Also King Dashrath by mistake killed the innocent Shravana. So, we can say that it was a circle of life. He made a son away from their parents without any reason, same happened with him. So how Queen Keikeya is responsible?

The Epic poem ‘Ramcharitmanas’ is very sacred text in the Hindu Religion. But we try to see as an Epic poem or literature.

There are many people who have written Ramayana in different ways. One of the contemporary writers Amish Tripathi also started a series of stories of Ram in his book “Scion of Ikshvaku”. Again all the events are not possible to analyse. So I would like to analyse one incident from this book as well.

From childhood we are been told to respect our teachers or guru as Lord Ram used to do it.

 

In the above conversation we can see that how Ram converse with his teacher.  The teacher tells that in a prince tradition a father, mother and teacher have the right to decide child’s marriage. Ram was also a normal guy who had a problem with it, we can make out from his words. And it is quite appropriate. Who would like to get married with a condition to win a competition first? If that was the case then people would think about it. And we can see that as a prince also an individual doesn’t have any right on his own life.

 After reading the dialogues spoken by Rama’s guru we can see that how power is reflected through his lines. Although Ram was a prince, he is powerless. He also has to follow the decision of the authority.

Derrida in this theory talks about the metaphysics of presence and bringing in the periphery in centre. In the both the works many of the characters are voiceless.

For example: - The character of Urmila

Laxman also joined Ram and Sita for banishment. He left Urmila alone to take care of his parents, but after this incident she is forgotten by the writers. What happened to her? How did she feel? No concern to her is shown.

She might be willing to n went live with her husband Lakshman as Sita wanted and even went in forest. In “Scion of Ikshvaku” Lakshman in worried for Urmila that she might not be able to live in forest. Sita and Urmila were brought up in the same atmosphere. So if Sita can live in forest then why can’t Urmila. How Urmila passed 14 years in Ayodhya? None of them talks about this. There are many such characters in the text that are voiceless.

Conclusion

This theory can be applied in many ways and one can only try to complete it, because it's a kind of a process which never ends what you have deconstructed, it can also be deconstructed by another person and it's never ending chain.

To Evaluate my assignment, click here

"Middlemarch" as a cobweb of relations.

To Evaluate my assignment, click here

Name: Hariyani Vaidehi C.

Roll no- 19

Year- 2015-17

M.A Semester - 2

Paper no. (6) The Victorian Literature

Email Id: - vaidehi09hariyani@gmail.com

Assignment topic:

 “Middlemarch” as a cobweb of relations.

Submitted to: Dr. Dilip Barad

Smt.S.B.GARDI

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH,

M.K. BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY,

 BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT, INDIA.

Author:-

Marry Ann Evans (22 November 1819 – 22 December 1880) was well-known English Novelist, poet, journalist, translator and one of the leading writers of the Victorian era. She is known by her pen name ‘George Eliot’. She wrote many novels like “Adam Bede”, “Silas Marner”, “Middlemarch” and many more. Most of the novel are set in provincial England and known for their realism and critical insight.

Middlemarch: A study of provincial life is novel by George Eliot.  It was first published in eight instalments during 1871-72. The novel is set in the fictitious midlands town of Middlemarch during 1829-32. It comprises several distinct stories and large cast of characters. It is based on many themes including the status of women, the nature of the marriage, idealism, self-interest, religion, hypocrisy, political reform and education.

List of Characters:-
1.) Aurther Brooke

  2.) Celia Brooke

  3.) Dorothea Brooke

  4.) Nicholas Bulstrode

  5.) Harriet Bulstrode

  6.) Elinor Cadwallader

  7.) Edward Casaubon

  8.) Sir James Chettam

  9.) Mr.Dagley

 10.)    Peter Featherstone

 11.)  Mary Garth

 12.)   Will Ladislaw

 13.)  Dr.Tertius Lydgate

 14.)   Captain Lydgate

 15.)   Miss Noble

 16.)   John Raffles

 17.)  Joshua Rigg Featherstone

 18.)  Walter Tyke

 19.)   Mr. wrench

And Many more…………………………………

The plot of the novel:-

Dorothea Brooke is a young woman living with her uncle and sister in the small-but-growing town of Middlemarch, England in around 1830. She's got all the makings of a Victorian heroine: she's beautiful, intelligent, and generous. But she's also so idealistic, it's almost laughable. Her main ambition in life is to take on a noble project – so she marries a dried-up old scholar named Casaubon, thinking that helping him in his research will be the project she's after. Not so much. Dorothea quickly discovers that he cares more for his own scholarly pursuits than he does for her, but she can't do much about it (this is in the days before divorce was allowed for anything other than adultery or physical abuse).

Meanwhile, an idealistic young doctor named Tertius Lydgate moves to Middlemarch to set up a practice with his new-fangled ideas about medicine and science. But he encounters a lot of obstacles. First of all, most of the residents of Middlemarch have lived in the town for their whole lives, and they don't trust newcomers. Second, they don't trust new ideas, and Lydgate is all about scientific progress. Lydgate falls in love with Rosamond Vincy, the sister of one his patients, and marries her.

More unhappiness in marriage! Lydgate discovers that Rosamond is a superficial and selfish, and Rosamond learns that Lydgate will always be "married" to his work as a doctor. And then they run out of money because neither of them knows how to stick to a budget.

These two unhappy couples (the Lydgates and the Casaubons) are connected by Mr. Casaubon's young cousin, Will Ladislaw. Will is a handsome, young artist with a sparkling wit. Seriously, he sparkles. Lydgate finds Will to be sympathetic to his ideas about science and medicine, and since Will is an outsider in Middlemarch, too, they quickly become friends. Everyone seems to like Will. Especially Dorothea, who finds that he understands her in a way her husband doesn't. But don't worry – Dorothea's halfway to sainthood, and she's not about to cheat on her husband. The thing about marrying a much older man, though, is that they pass away and leave you free to remarry.

But there's a catch: Mr. Casaubon was always jealous of the friendly bond between his cousin, Will, and his wife. So Mr. Casaubon leaves a codicil in his will (basically a postscript) saying that Dorothea will lose all the money she's supposed to inherit from him if she remarries Will Ladislaw. Dorothea hadn't even thought about marrying Will until she reads the codicil. She thought they were just friends! After some serious thinking, and some misunderstandings (Dorothea thinks that Will likes Rosamond), Dorothea and Will decide to get married. They live happily ever after, despite the fact that they forfeit the large inheritance from dead Mr. Casaubon. And Rosamond and Lydgate live unhappily ever after – or, until Lydgate dies at a tragically early age, leaving Rosamond free to marry someone who's more willing to cater to her whims.

Multiplicity of characters:-

 We can see a large number of characters in Middlemarch. There are more than 25 characters which make the novel difficult to understand. It also creates confusion in remembering the sequence of the plot also. There are many families living in Middlemarch. Middlemarch is in middle and all the families march around it in different direction.

The town is also divided into two parts: - old and New. Old was more dominant on new. Even the religion was divided in this town. This divided the town as well as the characters in different ways.

The plot of the novel moves around four different stories apart from other small episodes which contribute in the main plot. They are:-     

Dorothea – Casaubon – Ladislaw story

        Rosamond – Lydgate story

      Fred Vincy – Mary Garth story

     Bulstrode’s Episode

Let’s see the cobweb of relationships in “Middlemarch”:-

All the characters have their own different stories which lead to the main plot. There many stories interwoven in the main story.

For example:-

Let’s look at the story of Dorothea-Casaubon-Ladislaw:-

This story itself is very confusing. Dorothea marries Casaubon to help him in his research, but doesn’t find that happiness she craved for. She falls for Will Ladislaw, but Will Ladislaw is relative of Casaubon. Casaubon hates Ladislaw and makes a condition in his will that if Dorothea marries Ladislaw after his death, she won’t get any money. In between we also see that Dorothea is in a misunderstanding that Ladislaw is in love with Rosamond Vincy. At last the confusion gets clear.

Another example is of Mr. Casaubon and his family. As we saw before that Will Ladislaw and Casaubon are relatives. Julia Casaubon is grandmother of Mr. Casaubon and aunt of Ladislaw. Later in the novel it is known that she was first wife of Nicholas Bulstrode. More confusion we can find that Mr. Bulstrode’s 2^nd wife Harriet Bulstrode is sister of Mr. Walter Vincy (father of Fred Vincy and Rosamond Vincy).

So, we can see that the characters as well their stories interwoven with each other which creates so much confusion. This confusion makes it difficult as a reader to understand the plot. The novel looks like a cobweb, where ones you enter you get stuck and with great difficulty you come out of it.

Many novelists of English Literature use multiplicity of characters.

For Example:

“The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling”, often known simply as “Tom Jones” by Henry Fielding. It also has a large crew of characters and small episodes which puts the reader in a dilemma.

Narratology in Middlemarch:-

Though a lot of confusion is seen in this novel, but the narrator has very interestingly presented the stories. It is narrated in very intelligent way. It is the third person Omniscient way: temporal, spatial & psychological. Although the author gives us birds view, she has paid attention to every character. There maintenance of continuity of the flaw. This continuance makes the novel more explicit and clear. She also uses the style of fictional rhetoric. The story is about the people lived in the town named ‘Middlemarch’. Every character has his or her own dream to fulfil. The special and notable thing is that each chapter is started with a beautiful quote. She has created romantic atmosphere balanced with reality. Although Dorothea is focalized, other characters are also portrayed well. It seems that she talked about how woman should choose a man for her. But for her every event is important comparatively to the Jane Austen.

Conclusion:-

The plot of the novel becomes complicated due to large number of characters. The novel gives us realistic, vivid and comprehensive picture of provincial life of England. The number of characters belongs to different age group and profession. All the characters has its own story. Therefore, there are many different stories in this novel which makes the novel more complicated, but an interesting one.


To Evaluate my assignment, click here

Assignment on Analysis of "Ode on a Grecian Urn" - John Keats

To Evaluate my assignment, click here

Name: Hariyani Vaidehi C.

Roll no- 19

Year - 2015-17

M.A Semester - 2

Paper no. (5) The Romantic Literature

Email Id: - vaidehi09hariyani@gmail.com

Assignment topic:

 Analysis on “Ode on a Grecian Urn” – John Keats

Submitted to: Dr. Dilip Barad,

Smt.S.B.GARDI

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH,

MAHARAJA KRISHNAKUMARSINHJI  BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY,

 BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT.

John Keats:-

John Keats (31 October 1795 – 23 February 1821) was an English Romantic poet. He was one of the main figures of the second generation of Romantic poets, along with Lord Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley, despite his work having been in publication for only four years before his death.

In 1819, John Keats composed six odes, which are among his most famous and well-regarded poems. They are

1.)            "Ode on a Grecian Urn"

2.)             "Ode on Indolence"

3.)             "Ode on Melancholy"

4.)             "Ode to a Nightingale"

5.)            "Ode to Psyche"

6.)            “Ode to Autumn”

“Ode on a Grecian Urn” was written in 1819 and published in 1820.

Now before we proceed further, let’s take a look on

What is an Ode?

Ode itself is of Greek origin. It is a short lyrical composition proper to be set to music or sung. It is a lyric poem characterised by sustained noble sentiments and appropriate dignity of style.

In 1918, Keats had attempted to write sonnets, but he found that form did not satisfy his purpose because the pattern of the rhyme worked against the tone that he wanted to achieve. When he turned to ode form, he found that the standard “Pindaric” form used by poets such as John Dryden, but it was inadequate for proper discussion of philosophy. So, Keats developed his own type of ode in “Ode to Grecian urn.” Odes were one of the classical verse forms reintroduced and experimented with in the Romantic period. Romantic odes were often used in meditative tributes. This ode consists of five 10-line stanzas, each composed of a quatrain followed by a sestet. The quatrains have an ABAB rhyme scheme, sometimes employing off-rhymes. The sestets have a rhyme scheme that varies. On the printed page, the lines in the sestet that rhyme are indented by the same amount. The base meter of Ode is iambic pentameter.

1 Stanza:-

Thou still unravish'd bride of quietness,

       Thou foster-child of silence and slow time,

Sylvan historian, who canst thus express

       A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme:

What leaf-fring'd legend haunts about thy shape

       Of deities or mortals, or of both,

               In Tempe or the dales of Arcady?

       What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?

What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?

               What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?

The first four lines serve to present the urn first as a bride, then as a foster-child, then as a historian. These comparisons are productive, if fully visualized. It is a foster child of silence and slow time, since it is passing so slowly that it has not been able to destroy the grandness of the urn. Just as a bride remains calm and quiet, maintaining her beauty so also the urn remains undisturbed and untarnished for a long time. The poet sees the urn which has been standing at its place for many years untarnished by weather etc. he calls it a bride of quietness, a foster child of silence and slow time and a woodland historian. The urn is an as yet unravished bride of quietness. It is not a wife. This may mean that the pictures and engravings on the urn are as sharp as the day it was made; if it had been ravished by quietness, the figures on the urn might not speak to the poem's speaker as strongly as they do. The urn is an adopted child of silence and slow time. This may refer to the urn as a product of the business and industry of an artisan's workshop that now, probably in a museum, stands separate from the bustle and noise of human life.

2^nd Stanza:-

Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard

       Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;

Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear'd,

       Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone:

Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave

       Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;

               Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,

Though winning near the goal yet, do not grieve;

       She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,

               For ever wilt thou love and she be fair!

‘Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter , therefore, ye soft pipes, play on!’ because in heard music there is no place for a flight of imagination, while in unheard music fancy gets a free play. Imagination gives an exquisite sweetness and richness which can never found in the heard music. unheard music appeals to the soul, it has spiritual, not the physical appeal. The imagery in stanza 2 is straightforward, yet it is used to express complex ideas: unheard melodies are sweeter than heard melodies, so "pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone"; the lover who will never kiss, yet who will love forever. The "sweeter unheard melodies" is an expression of the speaker's great respect for imagination. Few of us would suggest that it is better to imagine hearing great music than to actually hear it. The whole stanza seems a tribute to the imagined ideal as being greater than the actual could ever be. Or perhaps it is a tribute to the process of imagining as being greater than any of its products.

3^rd Stanza:-

Ah, happy, happy boughs! that cannot shed

         Your leaves, nor ever bid the Spring adieu;

And, happy melodist, unwearied,

         For ever piping songs for ever new;

More happy love! more happy, happy love!

         For ever warm and still to be enjoy'd,

                For ever panting, and for ever young;

All breathing human passion far above,

         That leaves a heart high-sorrowful and cloy'd,

                A burning forehead and a parching tongue

It tells about Keats’s feeling that he is extremely unhappy. This expresses the difference between life and reality. The green trees will never shed their leaves and will enjoy the perpetual summer. The melodies will always remain young and his song will remain ever fresh and new. The urn is record of lovely yet fatal enchantment.

4th  Stanza:-

Who are these coming to the sacrifice?

         To what green altar, O mysterious priest,

Lead'st thou that heifer lowing at the skies,

         And all her silken flanks with garlands drest?

What little town by river or sea shore,

         Or mountain-built with peaceful citadel,

                Is emptied of this folk, this pious morn?

And, little town, thy streets for evermore

         Will silent be; and not a soul to tell

                Why thou art desolate, can e'er return.

 Imagery of sacrifice: - There he sees as scene of sacrifice where people are going in large number, and wonder who these people are. There is the priest going with the people. He calls him mysterious because he knows the secret reason of offering sacrifice.

5^th Stanza:-

O Attic shape! Fair attitude! with brede

         Of marble men and maidens overwrought,

With forest branches and the trodden weed;

         Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought

As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!

         When old age shall this generation waste,

                Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe

Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,

         "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all

                Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

The word "pastoral" suggests warmth, spontaneity, the natural and the informal as well as the idyllic, the simple, and the informally charming. The urn itself is cold, and the life beyond life which it expresses is life which has been formed, arranged.

And the description of "cold pastoral" is pitch perfect. It's a summary of the whole paradox fashioned so carefully in the piece: a cold, inanimate surface (the urn) that depicts a warm, lively scene (a pastoral).

When the urn says "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," then, Brooks wants us to keep our eyes open for irony. It's a "cold pastoral," and a "silent form" that "say'st" riddles. So we probably shouldn't trust the urn to be honest with us, and take "beauty is truth, truth beauty" at face value.

       

 The beauty of the scene on the urn isn't quite real, is it? But we loved it nonetheless.

Cleanth Brooks defines the paradox that is the theme of "Ode on a Grecian Urn" somewhat differently: "the world of imagination offers a release from the painful world of actuality, yet at the same time it renders the world of actuality more painful by contrast. “

Douglas Bush noted that "Keats's important poems are related to, or grow directly out of...inner conflicts."

Pain and pleasure are intertwined in “Ode on a Grecian Urn” and; love is intertwined with pain, and pleasure.

Conflicts observed in “Ode on a Grecian Urn”:-

1.)            Transient sensation or passion / enduring art.

2.)             Dream or vision / reality.

3.)            Joy / melancholy.

4.)            The ideal / the real.

5.)            Mortal / immortal.

6.)            Life / death.

7.)            Separation / connection.

8.)            Being immersed in passion / desiring to escape passion.

9.)            Identity is an issue.

Keats' Theory of Negative Capability

“'The concept of Negative Capability is the ability to contemplate the world without the desire to try and reconcile contradictory aspects or fit it into closed and rational systems.”

“Negative Capability” — the willingness to embrace uncertainty, lives with mystery, and makes peace with ambiguity.

The excellence of every Art is its intensity, capable of making all disagreeable evaporate, from their being in close relationship with beauty & truth. Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason, with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration, or rather obliterates all consideration.

Keats' theory of "negative capability" is concerned with a particular state of poetic receptivity that makes literary creation possible. It concentrates on capturing the intensity of emotion and communicating this feeling via the imagination.

This involves a key action: the poet must throw himself into an object in order to obliterate his personal identity.  The purpose of this is to fuse emotional intensity with the object so that the object becomes symbolic of the emotions.

This complete fusion of poet and thing is so intense that all "disagreeable," all associations that are not particularly relevant to the poet’s key insight are displaced.

As a result, the beauty and the truth that are present there are a union of the perceived object and the poet’s emotions. This is especially important to Keats because it removes the need to establish a kind of scientific certainty; instead, the poet (and audience) reveal in the mystery, the undefined ambiguities. It represents openness to experience. Keats' theory breaks down as the following:

1.)            Imagination communicates an intense emotion.

2.)            The poet gives up personal identity to focus on the object being described.

3.)            As a result, the object becomes symbolic of these intense emotions.

4.)            And all other matters not important to this emotion are side-lined.

5.)            The poem's beauty/truth is a combination of poetic emotion and perceived object.

6.)            This leaves open the enjoyment of mystery because the poem is a subjective truth.

The urn in "Ode to a Grecian Urn," is an object that speaks a truth and a beauty, but that truth and beauty are understood by the negative capability of the artist.  The urn's message is one that is finally open-ended and mysterious.

“Ode on a Grecian urn” is one of the most remarkable Odes by John Keats.

To Evaluate my assignment, click here