Friday, 17 March 2017

Assignment - Paper no.(14) The African literature

Name: Hariyani Vaidehi C.

Roll no- 18

Year - 2015-17

M.A Semester - 4

Paper no.(14) The African literature

Email Id: - vaidehi09hariyani@gmail.com


Assignment topic:
 Can the subaltern speak? But are they even heard?


Submitted to:
Smt.S.B.Gardi
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH,
MAHARAJA KRISHNAKUMARSINHJI  BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY,



Can the subaltern talk? is a well-known exposition by Gayatri Chakraborty Spivak.


Gayatri Chakraborty Spivak is an Indian researcher, scholar, and feminist. She is University Professor at Columbia University, where she is an establishing individual from Institute for Comparative Literature and Society. Considered "a standout amongst the most persuasive postcolonial scholarly people", Spivak is best known for her exposition "Can the Subaltern Speak?" and for her interpretation of and prologue to Jacques Derrida's De la grammatologie.

In "Can the Subaltern Speak?" Spivak examines the absence of a record of the Sati work on, driving her to ponder whether the subaltern can even talk. Spivak relates how Sati shows up in local chronicles. Spivak shows that the Western foundation has darkened subaltern encounters by accepting the straightforwardness of its grant. Spivak explains on the procedure, the attention on the Eurocentric Subject as they reject the issue of portrayal; and by illusion the Subject of Europe, these learned people constitute the subaltern Other of Europe as unknown and quiet.

Gayatri Spivak moreover specifies the second rate position of third world women, and she utilizes the expression "subaltern" to depict them. She ponders on basically colonized females who are twofold colonized economy and sexual orientation. Furthermore, she makes it clear that there are not two fundamental orders of individuals and countries as colonizer and colonized, yet there is another gathering aside from this, and it is the ladies mistreated by both the colonizer and colonized.  
The harassment of imperialism and patriarchy makes it terrible for the females, thus non-white ladies were quieted and no one can hear them.

Here we are going to analyse the women characters in the African Literature. We know that the colonizers mistreated the male as well as the female natives. Here we will see that the colonized man also treated the women in a bad way along with the colonizers. In recent years we see that the condition of women is improving, but are they really heard?

“Mumbi” – in Ngugi wa Thiango’s “A grain of Wheat”:-
Mumbi is a blameless spectator in all of the misbehaviours. She is sister of Kihika. One might think that being a sister of an activist; she must hold a high place in society. But she is exploited. She becomes a mere victim in this struggle. Kihika is not able to save her sister Mumbi from this exploitation.
Mumbi is raped by Karanja, a British collaborator when her husband Ginkoyo is imprisoned in the British Concentration Camp. Mumbi is left without any identity and she is almost used as a thing for the male; colonised as well as colonizers.  Of course his brother or the male members of that place didn’t try to save her or even support her.  Thus, we can see that she was mistreated by all the colonizers used her and the colonized couldn’t protect her.

The role of women in Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart:-
Okonkwo is a well-known wrestler of the Ibo community. He is a man of courage and strength, but what is the courage in mistreating his wife.  The Ibo allowed wife beating. The novel describes two instances when Okonkwo beats his second wife, once when she did not come home to make his meal. He beats her severely. He beat her again when she referred to him as one of those "guns that never shot”.
So we can observe that he has more than one wife. That may be the culture but is the position of women praiseworthy in that society. On one hand the colonizers ruled over them by torture and hard work, on the other hand their own male family members beat them. There is no place for them to complain and to speak. Even if they speak the main question is that are they heard or not?

Desala in “The Swamp Dwellers”:-
Desala symbolises the modern life. She is seen by all the family members as an unfaithful woman. We can’t blame Desala because as a young girl when she married to Igwezu she also must be having some young dreams for her life and when she tried to fulfil all her dreams she is also not wrong. The society doesn’t give her that position of good women. Here we see the role of her own people not considering her as a good person.

The archetypal mindset is same everywhere. When countries like Africa, India etc. were colonized by the colonizers at that time we saw that how the females must be treated. Women were always kept in inferior position by the Patriarchal society. Whether the men are colonizers or colonised or of any position, they keep the women always in periphery.

For example:-
In the play “Hamlet”, we see Ophelia in subaltern position. She is just treated as a thing by her father and Hamlet too. We don’t find her raising voice. Even she raises her voice who was going to listen to her in that patriarchal mindset society.

Another example we can see of Hester Prynne. She was not guilty yet the patriarchal society troubled her a lot.
This was about literature. Now let’s see the real examples of the recent time.

In 21st century we say that the position of women is changing. They are coming in the centre but now of they are coming in the centre then they should be heard.

Are they heard???????

No

The situation is still the same.

With the help of technology we can see now there are many tools available were girls can also share their views. Twitter, Facebook and many social media platforms gives women a chance to post something. There are many ways but are women heard on this platform also. In the past women were getting some kind of punishment of speaking or they were completely ignored. In this time women are trolled if they speak something. There are many examples about this act of trolling. Let’s analyse some of them.


Actress Shruti Seth was trolled on Twitter for making comments on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s selfie with daughter plan.
She twitted,
“A selfie is not a device to bring about change Mr. PM Try reform. #selfieobsessedPM “
— Shruti Seth (@SethShruti) June 28, 2015
This was her opinion. It is not necessary that all the women like this idea of Selfie. So what is wrong if someone doesn’t agree with others? Especially when a woman speaks something it becomes problematic.

Let’s view another example:-

Zaira Wasim, the young actress from 'Dangal' was also being trolled on the social networking site Twitter. She was forced to apologise publicly after her pictures with Mehbooba Mufti went viral on social media, and the Jammu & Kashmir chief minister described her as a "Kashmiri role model".

The 16-year-old from Srinagar, who was  trolled on Twitter, made two Facebook posts explaining her position. Trolls laid into her and the J&K CM for being "Indian agents".

Spivak in Can the Subaltern Speak talks about how people(Here we can say women) oppressed by colonizers(Present time – The Patriarchal society are not allowed a voice because they do not have importance to be heard.  Women act out in acts of violence to make a point, and no one understands or does anything to change the way the subaltern is being treated today.

Conclusion –

Kyu sach ka sabak sikhaaye
Jab sach sunn bhi naa paaye
Sach koi bole tto tu niyam kanoon bataye
Tera darr, Tera pyaar, teri wah
Tu hi rakh rakh saala
Sadda Haq Aithe Rakh


All the women can speak but they also should be heard. Other males should protest against this type of treatment given by any male to women. All the women have right to speak what they want. Well we don’t know whether anything will change in future or not.

CLICK HERE to evaluate my assignment

Reference:-
CLICK HERE to evaluate my assignment
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, 14 March 2017

Assignment Paper 13 - The New Literature

Name: Hariyani Vaidehi C.

Roll no- 18

Year - 2015-17

M.A Semester - 4

Paper no.(13) The New Literature

Email Id: - vaidehi09hariyani@gmail.com


UNIT : - 4

Assignment topic:
 Objectification of Female Characters in Movie Adaption of Literary Texts.


Submitted to:
Smt.S.B.Gardi
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH,
MAHARAJA KRISHNAKUMARSINHJI  BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY,
 BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT.



Introduction:-
Women are always seen as an object or things. In this 21st century there are many advertisements, songs, serials and movies where women are objectified. They are used as mere things to sell something. Since the starting of advertising many spans ago, women have been objectified, and in some instances, insulted or degraded. Well still the same pattern of objectification and the mindless use of semi-naked women continue in different popular media. 
Here in this assignment we will see that how women are objectified in the film adaptation of literary text. With the help of examples we will see the topic in detail.

                      “Objectification of Female characters”

Film adaptation of literary text is now a new trend growing worldwide. In India also we find many directors also in this business. Here we are going to talk about the Hollywood film adaptations of literary text.
There is a wide difference between portrayal female characters in literature and movies. The objectification comes into picture when the director gives a visual image to the female character.

We can come to a question here that,
Do all the film objectifies women characters in a similar way? What difference can we see in the portrayal of 'Ophelia' (Kate Winslet) in Kenneth Branagh's ‘Hamlet’, 'Elizabeth' ( Helena Bonham Carter) in Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or ' Hester Prynne' (Demi Moore) in Roland Joffé's The Scarlet Letter' or David Yates's 'Hermione Granger' (Emma Watson) in last four Harry Potter films - and 'Sophie Neveu' (Audrey Tautau) in Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code?

Let’s try to find out this answer…

Kenneth Branagh’s ‘Hamlet’ is famous literary film adaptation of William Shakespeare’s play ‘Hamlet’.

When we read the character of Ophelia in the play we don’t read her as an object. Of course feminist reading of the text do say that she was the only one who is been cheated by the male characters of the play, but the film tries to materialise her character. Ophelia many times is show nude which is not that needed. Women are in love with someone but love should not necessarily connect with nudity. Love is something to feel not to objectify.



Also we can question that why only women or Ophelia is portrayed that way???

While reading the play we can see that Hamlet is in love with Ophelia, but the film is showing sexual relations which was not that much needed. After all it is a revenge play, then why Ophelia is objectified so much without any reason.

The same portrayal of the character can be observed in'Elizabeth' ( Helena Bonham Carter) in Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or ' Hester Prynne' (Demi Moore) in Roland Joffé's The Scarlet Letter' . Hester Prynne and Elizabeth are also showed nude in the movie. Hester Prynne in the book is portrayed in a good way. She is the one who becomes ‘Angel’ in the book, but here the angel is used to gain more audience or profit. Hester is physically described in the first scaffold scene as a tall young woman with a "figure of perfect elegance on a large scale." Her most impressive feature is her "dark and abundant hair, so glossy that it threw off the sunshine with a gleam”. The girls shouldn’t be shown nude to show the beauty.

The argument is that female figure is used as product. Women are exploited in a way.



David Yates's 'Hermione Granger' (Emma Watson) in last four Harry Potter films , her portrayal is also a bit problematic in a way. Of course she is the heroine of 21st century and has given much space.  She is portrayed as very intellectual girl. She is strong and powerful. Right from the first she is one of the best witches of the year. Coming from the muggle family, she enters the school with all the knowledge of wizardry. Like Sophie Neveu, she accompanies Ron and Harry in all the adventures in the book and movie as well.
Alas! In the movie she is used as an object of rivalry between Harry and Ron. She could challenge both the male characters. She had that capacity, but instead she is been used as an object to make friends fight. Her portrayal is not as problematic as of Ophelia, Hester or Elizabeth, but there is a slight touch of objectification. This type of objectification is not presented anywhere in the text or play. Writer could have used something else for rivalry between two friends. If we compare Hermione with Ophelia (Hamlet) or Hester Prynne (The Scarlet Letter) then definitely Hermione is far better female character.

Sophie’s character in Ron Howard’s “The Da Vinci code” is very clever and gorgeous. The main theme of the novel is FEMININE SACREDNESS. This theme is also captured in the film quite beautifully. We never see camera moving on the female body to make movie more sensual. Sophie has been portrayed as smart girl who is curious to solve the puzzle. Here feminine sacredness is shown when Robert Langdon kisses Sophie on her forehead. Kiss on the forehead represents the respect and care one has for any women.

All the female characters are beautiful and their description is also presented well in the book, but not in the movies.

In Dan Brown’s ‘The Da Vinci Code’, Sophie is described like this:-

“Langdon turned to see a young woman approaching. She was moving down the corridor toward them with long, fluid strides…a haunting certainty to her gait. Dressed casually in a knee-length, cream-colored Irish sweater over black leggings, she was attractive and looked to be about thirty. Her thick burgundy hair fell unstyled to her shoulders, framing the warmth of her face. Unlike the waifish, cookie-cutter blondes that adorned Harvard dorm room walls, this woman were healthy with an unembellished beauty and genuineness that radiated a striking personal confidence.”

Ron Howard captures this simplicity of beauty while portraying Sophie.

Even in the Bollywood film adaptations like ‘Haider’ is not far behind in the objectification of women. Bollywood also objectifies women.
For example: - The item songs in Bollywood.
These songs are just to increase TRP or profit of the film

If we compare Ophelia with Hermione or Sophie Neuve, then there is a vast difference. 21st century female characters are getting more space. Female characters have grown a lot.  They are equal or smarter than male characters. Sophie and Hermione both accompanies to male members in the journey. But in novel, the depiction is different in the movies.

Conclusion:-


All the movie makers or directors should understand that Women have their own identity. They are not any objects used to increase their wealth or popularity. Recently in the Bollywood movie “Badrinath ki Dulhania” a satire is made on how women or girls are taken as liability in India. Not only in India but everywhere we can see this. The Archetypal Patriarchal mindset is same everywhere in the world.

O, Patriarchy!
How long, how far will you go on to objectify female?
To condition woman as perpetual 'giver',
You gendered Earth and Nature as Mother Earth and Mother Nature.
You named farmer as the father of the world.
And thus eternal exploitation of the 'body'.
To condition woman as entertaining tool,
You gendered Language as Mother Language.
And more feminine names to Other languages.
Why is it that you do not call Father Earth or Father Language?

CLICK HERE to evaluate my assignment

Works Cited

  • Barad, Dilip. Blogger. 17 January 2014. 11 March 2017 <http://dilipbarad.blogspot.in/2014/01/worksheet-screening-movie-da-vinci-code.html>.
  • Barad, Dilip. Facebook.com. 14 March 2015. 11 March 2017 <https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153168497412472&set=a.401829287471.180440.533772471&type=3&theater>.
  • Dave, Nimesh. Blogger. 4 March 2016. 11 March 2017 <http://nimeshdave22.blogspot.in/2016/03/the-da-vinci-code-by-dan-brown.html>.

  

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 21 November 2016

MY PRESENTATIONS - SEMESTER 3 Batch 2015-17

1.)Paper no. 9 – The Modernist Literature
Title:- “Waiting” in “Waiting for Godot” and Bollywood movie “Waiting”(2015)

To evaluate my presentation, click here...





To evaluate my presentation, click here...
2.)Paper no. 10 – The American Literature

Title:- Deconstruction of “Solah Shringar” with reference to “The Scarlet Letter”


To evaluate my presentation, click here...


Deconstruction of Solah Shringar with reference to "The Scarlet Letter" from vaidehi Hariyani


 To evaluate my presentation, click here...
3.)Paper no. 11 – The Postcolonial Literature

Title:- Use of colour in Popular Media with reference to “Black Skin and White Masks”

 To evaluate my presentation, click here...




Posted by at 4 comments:

Thursday, 10 November 2016

Summarise “Discourse on Colonialism” by Aimé Césaire

Summarise “Discourse on Colonialism” by Aimé Césaire


Prepared by
Vaidehi Hariyani
Roll no. 18
Paper 11 – The Post-Colonial Literature
Email – vaidehi09hariyani@gmail.com

Submitted to – Smt.S.B.Gardi, Department of English

Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

 CLICK HERE TO EVALUATE MY ASSIGNMENT

Introduction:-

Discours sur le colonialisme (French; Discourse on Colonialism) is an essay by Aimé Césaire, a poet and politician from Martinique who helped found the négritude movement in the Francophone literature. Césaire first published the essay in 1950 in Paris with Editions Réclame, a small publisher associated with the French Communist Party (PCF).The 1955 edition is the one with the widest circulation today, and it serves as a foundational text of postcolonial literature that discusses what Césaire described as the appalling affair of the European civilizing mission. Rather than elevating the non-Western world, the colonizers de-civilize the colonized.





Césaire’s Discourse on Colonialism argues that colonialism was not—and had never been—a benevolent movement whose goal was to improve the lives of the colonized; instead, colonists' motives were entirely self-centered—i.e., economic exploitation. By establishing these colonies and then exploiting them.

Césaire begins his discourse by a severe acquisition on the Western Civilization.

“A civilization that proves incapable of solving the problems it creates is a decadent civilization.
A civilization that chooses to close its eyes to its most crucial problems is a stricken civilization.
A civilization that uses its principles for trickery and deceit is a dying civilization.”


According to him, the western civilization has done all the above crimes and it is the victim of such crimes. As we say, the circle of life. What we give to others we get.

With the help of Marxist theory Césaire proceeds further that Western civilization has been shaped by “two centuries of bourgeois rule” and is incapable of solving two major problems to which it has given rise:

“the problem of the proletariat and the colonial problem; that Europe is unable to justify itself either before the bar of reason or before the bar of conscience; and that, increasingly, it takes refuge in a hypocrisy which is all the more odious because it is less and less likely to deceive.”

The colonized very well know that their “masters” are lying therefore they are weak. Therefore Europe is indefensible.

 Colonialism is “a collective hypocrisy that cleverly misrepresents problems, the better to legitimize the hateful solutions provided for them” as caesar writes. Colonialism’s supposed to be on a civilizing mission,and that is the biggest lie of Western civilization. Colonialism  was never out to do any good.It was purely  designed to discover, to control, to exploit, by deceit and force, the lands, goods and persons of other people. The chief culprit in the hypocrisy of colonialism, Cesaire argues, “is Christian pedantry, which laid down the dishonest equations Christianity = civilization, paganism = savagery, from which there could not but ensue abominable colonialist and racist consequences whose victims were to be the Indians, the Yellow peoples, and the Negroes”

Colonialism uncivilized, dehumanizes, maltreats and destroys the colonizer. Anytime colonialism commits a crime against the humanity of the colonized, there is consistent erosion and degrading of the colonizer’s humanity and civilization.

 He puts it expressively:

“ . . . each time a head is cut off or an eye put out in Vietnam and in France they accept the fact, each time a little girl is raped . . . each time a Madagascan is tortured and in France they accept the fact, civilization acquires another dead weight, a universal regression takes place, a gangrene sets in, a center of infection begins to spread . . .” a poison “is distilled into the veins of Europe and slowly but surely, the continent proceeds toward savagery”

Here he gives example of Hitler. Why this dictator was there in Europe only?
The generation has to pay prize of their forefathers who exploited the people like Niggers, Indians etc. Their sweat and blood oozes in form of Hitler.

Césaire makes the bold statement that Nazism is so infamous in Europe because it committed the same atrocities that the Europeans did to other, non-white nations. Slavery, mass extermination, economic exploitation, racial/social engineering, and so forth.

 He cites the Soviet Union as a possible source of post-colonial liberation. That state is just imperialism with a new coat of paint. He also does make a few wrong statements which modern anthropology has corrected, but he'd likely be fine with that. In fact, he'd be proud to see the advances in some of these fields.

Colonization, Césaire places with "thingification". The relations inborn in colonization are relations of force and control. They are relations in which

 "there is room just for constrained work, terrorizing, weight, the police, tax collection, robbery, assault, obligatory harvests, question, pomposity, self-smugness, swinishness, brainless elites, debased masses . . . of control and accommodation which transform the colonizing man into a classroom screen, an armed force, a sergeant, a jail protect, a slave driver, and the indigenous man into an instrument of creation".

The colonized are not individuals deserving of human rights or human regard, however things simply to be utilized, driven around, beaten and, when the need emerges, slaughtered for the sake of a peace established in bad form and savageness.

For Césaire, imperialism is an absolutely damaging undertaking.

It is "about social orders depleted of their quintessence, societies stomped all over, foundations undermined, lands seized, religions crushed, heavenly aesthetic manifestations obliterated, phenomenal conceivable outcomes wiped out . . . men yielded . . . torn from their divine beings, their property, their propensities, their life . . . educated to have a feeling of inadequacy, to tremble, bow, lose hope and carry on like flunkeys . . . about common economies obliterated . . . horticultural advancement situated exclusively toward the advantage of the metropolitan nations; . . . about the plundering of items . . . of crude materials"

 He rejects Europe’s guarantee that it conveyed material advance and Europeanization to Africa. In all actuality, colonization had really harmed material advances.

Cesaire claims that the racism of Europe does not bother him. He only examines it. And he is appalled at the hypocrisy and ignorance with which the cream of French society pretended that the French people were a superior race, destined to rule the world and to keep the black and yellow peoples in their own places.

While rejecting the Europe, Césaire warns the colonized to be aware of United States of America
 Césaire ends his discourse on colonialism by writing that the salvation of Europe,

 "is not a matter of a revolution in methods. It is a matter of the Revolution - the one which, until such a time as there is a classless society, will substitute for the narrow tyranny of a dehumanized bourgeoisie the preponderance of the only class that still has a universal mission, because it suffers in its flesh from all the wrongs of history, from all the universal wrongs: the proletariat".

Conclusion:-

Thus, in a simple style Aimé Césaire has described and analyses a question that long has been on top. It's that "Europe is Indefinable". Colonizers says that they are coming to improve the life of Barbary, but in fact they come just to accomplish their profit, and this is what they are doing  in the past and for the moment.

Reference:-
·       file:///C:/Users/HP/Downloads/CesaireDiscourseonColonialism%20(1).pdf
·       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Colonialism

·       Google Images

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, 6 November 2016

"To the Lighthouse" as a Daily Soap

Name: Hariyani Vaidehi C.

Roll no- 18

Year - 2015-17

M.A Semester - 3

Paper no.(9) The Modernist Literature

Email Id: - vaidehi09hariyani@gmail.com


UNIT : - 2

Assignment topic:
 "To the Lighthouse" as a daily soap


Submitted to:
Smt.S.B.Gardi
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH,
MAHARAJA KRISHNAKUMARSINHJI  BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY,
 BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT.
"To the Lighthouse" as a Daily Soap


“To the Lighthouse” is a 1927 novel by Virginia Woolf. The novel centres on the Ramsays and their visits to the Isle of Skye in Scotland between 1910 and 1920.



With the development of Television, there is tremendous increase in the series of Daily Soaps. By hearing the word “daily soap” we get a visual effect of the typical family drama, the over down to earth female protagonist, tension between husband and wife, some young people with independent thinking and so on. In the contemporary time, there are shows reflecting the social awareness, but here are we talking about the typical daily soap. Of course there is one character that is offbeat.

In this assignment we will see “To the lighthouse” as a daily soap.
Mostly daily soaps are divided into episodes. “To the lighthouse” is also divided into three episodes.




“To the lighthouse” is a story of Mr. Ramsay and Mrs. Ramsay and their eight children (Cam, Nancy, Rose, Prue, Roger, Jasper, Andrew, James), set in the summer home in the Hebrides (a group of islands west of Scotland). This story also contains many guests of the Ramsays like Charles Tansley, Lily Briscoe, Paul Rayley, Minta Doyle, William Bankes and Augustus Carmichael. There are many other characters like Mrs. McNab, Macalister and Macalister’s boy.

First Episode – “The Window”

The first episode of this show is “The window”. It begins with the entry of the main heroine of the novel Mrs.Ramsay. The atmosphere in the beginning few minutes is quite happy. Mrs.Ramsay is busy in conversation with her son James Ramsay. He is the apple of her eye. James is overjoyed with the idea of visiting the lighthouse. Mother and son both seems to be happy and excited.

“Yes, of course, if it’s fine tomorrow,” said Mrs Ramsay. “But you’ll have to be up with the lark,” she added.
To her son these words conveyed an extraordinary joy, as if it were settled, the expedition were bound to take place, and the wonder to which he had looked forward, for years and years it seemed, was, after a night’s darkness and a day’s sail, within touch.

Six-year-old James Ramsay wants desperately to go to the lighthouse, and Mrs. Ramsay tells him that they will go the next day if the weather permits. James reacts delightedly,

But but but…..soon there is

“Kahaani mein twist hai”

 Mr. Ramsay tells him coldly that the weather looks to be foul. James resents his father and believes that he enjoys being cruel to James and his siblings.

“But,” said his father, stopping in front of the drawing-room window, “it won’t be fine.”

Thus the beginning of this episode is quite dramatic.

Mrs. Ramsay can be analysed as the typical Indian telly  “Bahu” who takes care of the household as well as all the family members, pampers the male members of the house, perfect host for the guests and like Tulsi, Paravati etc. she is a “Pativrata Patni”. She also has a default application of “Match-making” in her mind. In this episode, Mrs. Ramsay wants Lily to marry William Bankes, but Lily resolves to remain single. Mrs. Ramsay does manage to arrange another marriage, between Paul Rayley and Minta Doyle, two of their acquaintances.

Lily Briscoe is an offbeat character of this story. She is opposite to Mrs.Ramsay. Lily is an artist and she portrays the independent woman, who is against pampering male ego. She is the one character which gives the main heroine a bit complex.

Further in this episode we see, the course of the afternoon, Paul proposes to Minta, Lily begins her painting, Mrs. Ramsay soothes the resentful James, and Mr. Ramsay frets over his shortcomings as a philosopher, periodically turning to Mrs. Ramsay for comfort. That evening, the Ramsays host a seemingly ill-fated dinner party. Paul and Minta are late returning from their walk on the beach with two of the Ramsays’ children. Lily bristles at outspoken comments made by Charles Tansley, who suggests that women can neither paint nor write. Mr. Ramsay reacts rudely when Augustus Carmichael, a poet, asks for a second plate of soup. As the night draws on, the guests come together to make a memorable evening.

The joy, however, like the party itself, cannot last, and as Mrs. Ramsay leaves her guests in the dining room, she reflects that the event has already slipped into the past. Later, she joins her husband in the parlour. The couple sits quietly together, until Mr. Ramsay’s characteristic insecurities interrupt their peace. He wants his wife to tell him that she loves him. Mrs. Ramsay is not one to make such pronouncements, but she concedes to his point made earlier in the day that the weather will be too rough for a trip to the lighthouse the next day. Mr. Ramsay thus knows that Mrs. Ramsay loves him. Night falls, and one night quickly becomes another.
This way the first episode ends.

Second Episode – “Time Passes”

The second episode “Time passes” passes quickly. It takes place in ten years. It takes a leap of time. Normally things changes in serials when there is a leap of time. Similarly here we see things are changed.

 World War 1 breaks out across Europe. Mrs. Ramsay dies suddenly one night. Andrew Ramsay, her oldest son, is killed in battle, and his sister Prue dies from an illness related to childbirth. The family no longer vacations at its summerhouse, which falls into a state of disrepair: weeds take over the garden and spiders nest in the house. Ten years pass before the family returns. Mrs. McNab, the housekeeper, employs a few other women to help set the house in order. They rescue the house from oblivion and decay, and everything is in order when Lily Briscoe returns.

Mrs. McNab is the housekeeper, like all the houses in the soap has that “Wafadar Naukar”. She plays a vital role in organising things like Mrs.Ramsay with the help of Lily Briscoe.

The death of the main protagonist makes everything chaotic, but when Lily Briscoe returns everything is in order. We can say that, in serials many times a main female character dies and is replaced by other female character. Similarly here Lily Briscoe who might be able to replace Mrs.Ramsay.
For that you need to catch up the next episode.

Third Episode – “To the Lighthouse”

This is the last episode. It is similar to the first episode as the plan of visiting the lighthouse is again been discussed and also executed, but this time it is Mr.Ramsay who takes the initiative.

We can say that he has finally realised the value of Mrs.Ramsay.  Mr. Ramsay declares that he and James and Cam will journey to the lighthouse. On the morning of the voyage, delays throw him into a fit of temper. He appeals to Lily for sympathy, but, unlike Mrs. Ramsay, she is unable to provide him with what he needs. Lily is not the one, who will replace Mrs.Ramsay. She is an artist with a vision and her focus is on that rather than becoming the typical women.

The Ramsays set off, and Lily takes her place on the lawn, determined to complete a painting she started but abandoned on her last visit. James and Cam bristle at their father’s blustery behaviour and are embarrassed by his constant self-pity. Still, as the boat reaches its destination, the children feel a fondness for him. Even James, whose skill as a sailor Mr. Ramsay praises, experiences a moment of connection with his father, though James so wilfully resents him. Across the bay, Lily puts the finishing touch on her painting. She makes a definitive stroke on the canvas and puts her brush down, finally having achieved her vision.

In this way the story ends in three episodes.

In most of the serials, we are taken into the interior monologue of the characters whenever they are upset or they are planning and plotting. 



Virginia Woolf has used this technique very well in her writing with the help of brackets. It is quite easy to show this on television with the help of audio visual effect, but difficult to show in writing is quite well. Though in daily soap mostly the vamps are shown this way, but here we are given idea of each and every character.

For example-
In the first episode, when Mr.Ramsay rudely denies to visit the lighthouse. At that time James feels something like this….
Had there been an axe handy, a poker, or any weapon that would have gashed a hole in his father’s breast and killed him, there and then, James would have seized it. Such were the extremes of emotion that Mr Ramsay excited in his children’s breasts by his mere presence; standing, as now, lean as a knife, narrow as the blade of one, grinning sarcastically, not only with the pleasure of disillusioning his son and casting ridicule upon his wife, who was ten thousand times better in every way than he was (James thought)

In the end, we see the happy reunion of father and children (especially James). Also completion of the art by the artist gives us the feel of happy ending. This is the partial end which is seen in all the daily soaps.
If we give some stress to our mind, many new things can be interpreted. It is a story with open ending.

So we can say,


“मेरे दोस्त पिक्चर अभी बाकी है………….”


Reference:-

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)