Conversational dialogue between the two fantastic duo of Romantic age

Mary Shelley & Jane Austen

Welcome readers!

Communication is the base of each and every activity, without communication nothing can be done, but equally essential is to communicate it correctly otherwise it would be wrongly interpreted/wide-spreaded, which is equivalently harmful for anyone, who gets involve in it. Her is my "conversational blog" -assigned by Vaidehi Ma'am, specifically to see how good we are at conversation...

Outline: Conversation between Mary Shelley &Jane Austen.

• A formal conversation between the two.
• Inspiration for their writing.
• A brief discussion on their respective novels.
• Conveyance of the message to the readers(through their novel).

JANE AUSTEN: Myself, Jane Austen!

MARY SHELLEY:  Mary Shelley...

JANE AUSTEN: Nice to meet you!

MARY SHELLEY: Same here!

JANE AUSTEN: Hmm..

MARY SHELLEY: What do you do?

JANE AUSTEN: I am a writer.

MARY SHELLEY: What a coincidence! I am also a writer!

JANE AUSTEN: What are you saying, tremendous!

MARY SHELLEY: Yes right now I am penning for "Frankenstein novel".

JANE AUSTEN: Frankenstein...! Lemme guess, it is the same novel in which the protagonist himself is responsible for his downfall. Right?

MARY SHELLEY: Very well guessed! And also I have applied my own over imaginative ideas, inspired when in "Germshein" by the supernatural activities. When referred by the reader, it may seem as illogical and morally distortive, because it is highly based on fantasy.

JANE AUSTEN: Overimagination?..How?could you please explain me this aspect of your novel?

MARY SHELLEY: Yaa yaa sure.. See mechanized human can exist but not the chemical one. Who himself is being generated by the stitches, taken on his void anatomical body, empty of the required organs and then by passing current, with the help of two required chemicals they are generated..

JANE AUSTEN: wow! This sounds somewhat interesting and I'm really fortunate that l met you and learnt about such ideas of yours!

JANE AUSTEN: Really your idea of generating void anatomical human being is still giving me thrilling effect with surprise that how it can be...

MARY SHELLEY: It can be anything. With the help of imagination one can go anywhere, where one is willing to...Seems somewhat foolish but as science isn't much developed, I have to utilize what is at the hand with me and I preferred solely to imagine and apply my ideas.

JANE AUSTEN: Hmm..

MARY SHELLEY: Something say about yourself,  on what you are working nowadays?

JANE AUSTEN: I had written "sense&sensibility" that represents two different identities; Elinor and Marianne. Elinor represents "logic and pragmatic aspect" while Marianne represents "emotions".

MARY SHELLEY: That's nice, sounds interesting!

MARY SHELLEY: Can  you please throw some more light on this aspect..

JANE AUSTEN: Actually I am getting late...But ok no problem, lemme do..

MARY SHELLEY: It's ok. If you are getting late, you can leave now. We will have a session some other day!

JANE AUSTEN: No it is ok. I will share with you  rather it will give me more pleasure ..

MARY SHELLEY: Your nicety!

JANE AUSTEN: My pleasure! Ok see as you know I just reinstated two different representative characters of the novel. It is the novel in which I have highlighted that how a person barely with emotions can be driven to no place, while the other representative, though at times being logical, cannot sense at proper time, who is her well-wisher and who is for her a wrong-doer. But eventually by balancing both the aspects, how one can live a healthy kind of life. I think for further understanding you should refer to the novel, it will help you more...

MARY SHELLEY: Thanks a lot, for contributing  your precious time in giving me the basic understanding of your novel. I'm not free right now so I won't be able to go through your work. But I assure you after getting free I will read it and perhaps if I get some new ideas or reflection, I will mirror those with you!..

JANE AUSTEN: Yes you should. And incase you find anything to be questioned or beyond your understanding, you should ask me, it will add up to my information as well as I can rectify for my upcoming works also.

MARY SHELLEY: Hmm. Thanks for saying that, I will help you out with it..

JANE AUSTEN: Please well-document me also!..

MARY SHELLEY: No need to say that.. Now we are friends!

JANE AUSTEN: Hmm..well said!

JANE AUSTEN: Now I think I should leave, as I have much work to do regarding my upcoming work, we will keep on meeting, whenever it is possible. Thanks for sharing ideas!

MARY SHELLEY: Yaa sure, we will be meeting at our convenience. It was my pleasure to share my ideas with you and I equally like to share and discuss, whatever I like to.. Ok babye, nice to meet you!

JANE AUSTEN: Same here!

MARY SHELLEY: Hmm...


Thankyou!

Worksheet-Frankenstein-Mary Shelley

Post viewing tasks

Difference between the movie and the novel:

Both the things differ, concerning their featural aspects. when we see the movie we can literally see each and every minute particles of every scenes. where the producer has made changes as per himself and the movie's conveniences. While in novel we can densely and widely study and with this particular help we can accordingly visualize, if it is read rightly then only it is possible. Otherwise can be said "when there is nothing in mind, it becomes as child's mind equal to the plain paper, and what is feeded to it, it will be stored for further utilization".

Thus is the difference between movie and novel.

Does the movie help you to understand the narrative structure of the novel:

In some manner the movie has helped to understand the narrative structure(box within box technique) of the novel but for thorough understanding of aforementioned respective aspect, one needs to refer the novel, as per one's convenience.

Thus in some manner it helped a lot.

Do you think movie is helpful to provide thorough understanding of the view points of the different characters:

Yes it is helpful in providing the thorough understanding of some view points, as we can see by characters expression/attitude/manner how they may be thinking in accordance with their life and after performing each and every actions of their life and accordingly we can sketch them into our writing with the help of the words.

Thus in some manner it can be utilized.

Lady monster and Elizabeth monster in the movie and in what manner one has rejection and another has acceptance:

Both the monsters are constitution of the same chemical, but both differs in their respective demands. One is demanded and another is the cherishing wish of Victor. One is going to be created as it is the Victor God's son's wish  as God(in Paradise lost) creates Eve as Adam's companion out of Adam's rib, the Monster wants "Victor" to create for him a companion as inspired by "the Delzi family" living around him. But as realized by "Victor" that this another creation would add to this particular race and perhaps they would have one after generations as humans have, he stopped him and as a result the Monster determines to kill the Victor's beloved called "Elizabeth".

After Elizabeth has been killed by Monster and as he is very much obsessive with his love, he resolves to create an another chemical monster called "Elizabeth" the whole part of body, except the neck is of "Justin" his maid and the neck portion is of "Elizabeth".

When seeing him cutting other female's body to create a "female monster" doesn't seem to be so much horrific or weird because he is doing as usual as he had done with the "Male monster".

But here with Elizabeth he has "true bondage of emotions" or can say very much obsessive in that emotions that unconcerning the proper sense and resolving to create "a chemicalizing Elizabeth" and he creates. Though by structure and face she has a very great resemblance with Elizabeth but now she has turned into monster, she is mere an empty anatomy, which has a structure but empty "as pyramid" and as one is voided(without organs) one may not have such feelings to contemplate and such is the case with "Elizabeth" that she hasn't come out of the natural process of how human beings are generated and so they are having the mutual bondage with their creator but here the creation is made up of "Galvanizing" where only the mechanism like things works and where emotions don't have that stand as technicalit has. Thus is the case with "Victor" and out of fear "female monster" is rejected and out of love, though ugly in look and a void anatomy but Elizabeth is accepted by "Victor" and eventually  by self-immolating herself coming to a lethal end.

Hence in respect of intimacy and emotions both have differences so one is accepted and another is rejected.


Do you think director is faithful to the novel:

We may say "Keneth Brenagh" is faithful to the novel and he has to be. Because as a director one must know what is essential, how he will direct his play,on what depth and consistency and if it isn't marring the taste of the audience. One has to keep multisensory aspects in his/her mind(CONCERNING HIS AUDIENCE) so the charm of watching the movie isn't ruined and retaining as long as an audience want. But yes he can't picturize the whole novel in it, he has to cut off many unwanted scenes which are looking excessive and has to add scenes which are essential for the movie, especially for rendering the public's charm for the movie  and the director has done its duty very well, concerning this novel.

Hence we see here how a director is becoming faithful towards his dedicated movie.


Thankyou!

Source: Movie Screening in department-Heenaba Zala ma'am. Something based on my own understanding contemplated in my answers.

Worksheet-Frankenstein-Mary Shelley

 while viewing movie:

Beginning and the ending of the movie:

 While viewing the beginning of the movie and as the movie is moved further through the storm, shown in the movie, where water is forcefully afflicted on ships, people, soil and everywhere around the scene. That gives a  slight thrilling and terrific effect but not in precise way. Beginning is also embarked with water, equally with its respective ending. In commencement of movie it seems as water is naturalised according to the law of nature, it has become a disaster, which perhaps swept away all the respective creatures from the Earth or situated at any other place. We see "fire&ice" in contradiction manner at the end. Where the Monster himself, by going through the water, reaching the funeral pyre of his father and immolate himself with her father, with a touch of a blazing wood and two of them are turned into ashes.

Can we assume here Victor as representing "fire" and Monster as representing "water". As we have seen in movie as well as in novel that: Victor's idea of evolution is very severe and which is only the reason of destroying everything and he himself come to that deserving end. While on the other side we see "Monster" as a form of water. He is originated with humanly form but he doesn't have that shape of emotions, culture and lifestyle as the humans have.

Thus we see here two contradictory effects in respect to movie's beginning and ending. 

Effect of horror in the movie:

Darkness and gloomy atmosphere itself is giving horrific effect. But particularly when his beloved/wife is killed by the Monster and Victor himself endeavors to create a new specimen of "Elizabeth" and when wroughting anatomy of "Justin" that isn't making literally effect on readers/audience, while precisely this act in itself is horrific, but when he tries to cut the "neck portion" of Elizabeth it gives more horrific effect as it makes one feel that how one can thrash his own dear ones, though the reason is anything but at times it seems to be only the act of selfishness, although this selfishness is interpreted as love for Elizabeth.

We may see many similarising scenes as this, but to have an idea of horror, one is at hand to see.

The character of the Monster: 

The character seems to be inferior as it isn't given the deserving identity, which perhaps readers are expecting from "Victor" to attribute. So it has to face many unknown/known challenges in his life and as his respective mind isn't shaped as human's minds are shaped. he succumbs to every difficulties and challenges coming in his  life.

For example: His situation when having food among the crowd of the people, he can't say anything in his own defense, and hurls himself to that particular situation, from which he hasn't any way out than to surrender and he does).

As tried often to obtain his identity but as refused from his creator, adds up to his inferiority and inferiority transforms into severe extremity and it turns into brutality and cruelty. At the end we can literally see his love/dependence for his identity from his father but when realized that till now for what he was striving , not gained and now there isn't any possibility so he altogether with his chemical (Galvanism)father burns himself.

Hence in brief the character can be evaluated in such a way.

The conversation between Victor &Monster:

The conversation seems to be "conditional one": When encountered with the emotions of the family, Monster himself realizes his loneliness and carve for a female partner. When read about his own evolution from chemical hands of Victor, he tries to meet him and set a condition(as we know he has already created anarchy in Victor's life, by killing some of his belonging ones) where he places a condition that: "If Victor won't generate/unable to generate female monster, he will kill Elizabeth". While concerning this, he says that he will generate a Female Monster as his companion, but he shouldn't leap/peep into library during ongoing process and if incase it is going to happen, he won't be able to and literally it all result into disaster.

Thus we see a glimpse of conversation, taking place between Monster and Victor.

The replacement and omission of some scenes in movie:

Some scenes are replaced and omitted in the movie as per the producer and the convenience of the movie's time, concerning the movie along with maintaining the balance among all its interconnected scenes.

Perhaps as per these aspects changes have been done.

The appropriate symbols in the movie:

There are many symbols in the movie such as "the contrasting picture of Victor and Christianity" that at one side shows darkness(but peace) particularly where the symbol is situated and at another side shows light(but the character himself as squeezed out from its own experiments). While "fire and water" is also used as symbols, where we may say Victor symbolizes "fire"(who has destroyed everything and also with the same fire, Elizabeth immolate herself at the end) also we see at last, though in Christianity they have "burial system" and Victor himself belongs to Christianity, but he is burnt out at last on a funeral pyre along with his son. While "water" as symbol can be related to fluidity/formless/distortion/continuance that is symbolized in accordance with "Male Monster".

Hence we have many but we are keep it till here and as it provides enough association to the movie, it can be considered as used with appropriation to the movie.

Thankyou!

Source:
Movie screening held in our department-Heenaba Zala Ma'am, and something based on my own understanding, which I have reflected in my answers.

Worksheet-Frankenstein-Mary Shelley

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein v/s Kenneth Branagh's movie Frankenstein:

PRE-VIEWING TASKS

 "Gothic scientific fiction" : It is a sub-genre, where irrational with supernatural and rational foundation of scientific fiction weave together a revealing story where the universe can still surprise us: 

For example:here "the Monster" of whom we don't know, how it can be originated only by stitching only the covering outer parts of the anatomy, and solely by stimulating galvanizing effect it can be generated and can live as a human being in the society, concerning his humanly structure.

It seems as a result of over-imagination, which isn't based on rational foundation of scientific novel.If perhaps it is literally based on science then perhaps it would be generated technically/mechanically rather than chemically as the Monster is created in the novel. 

It also comprises terror, horror, thriller, the grotesque or macabre effect. Which we can see literally by watching movie.

Frame Narrative: It is a technique, utilised in Frankenstein novel's narrative style, based on story within the story technique/box within the box technique. Where Monster passes to Victor, he hand overs  to Captain and from him to Saville.

Can be said as when one has his frame work, it is seen by someone's point of view and in this respect, it has a form of a new edition, which is handed over to another one and the another also has his own reflection to reflect and in this manner it passes on from person to person, the difference is "the style of narration/mannerism of particular thing".
Hence can be said the specific style of narration.

Coming to the point of view of the Author: Perhaps here "Marry Shelley" wants to show that how when an individual pre-maturely tries to do anything, what will be its consequences, as Victor Frankenstein is also facing(he has to pay the price in the form of his wife, his brother, Henry only for generating "Monster" with the help of science) or perhaps we may assume here that "the aspect of science&technology" at that time was in a raw form(with forethought).

Through "Monster" perhaps she is trying to show "the societal aspect" that how when one is peculiar to others(here specifically by his ugly look) one is ignored and humiliated, how for his sole survival he has to constantly strive, and besides this he isn't accepted as the human beings are given acceptance.

We can assume here as she has also tried to put forward her point of view of how when one goes against one's nature, disaster is going to follow him/her.(e.g:Victor)

She has also tried to show that how a person can be considered as "monster" on what aspects/views/attitude(e.g: we have 3 characters in the novel to identify, whether who is the real monster).

Hence she has tried her best to give the touch of society, their attitudes, relationships(Victor&Elizabeth), nonacceptance of one's own generated thing as one doesn't similarizes one and so thrown to one's own fate, but eventually how one's karmas follow that particular person till his own ultimate end. We also have patriarchal aspect, prevailing at that particular time and perhaps she, through "monster" trying to symbolize 'science' which was perhaps not abruptly accepted by the people of that time.

Coming to the view points of different characters, we have four main characters in the novel; 
Captain Robert, Victor, Saville and Monster. But we will specifically discuss solely two characters, named Victor & Monster:
Victor, who has a main role to play in the novel as he is the sole creator of the monster. Perhaps when seen his mother, died after giving birth to the baby, he may be thinking that if he can technically generate human being then perhaps a human mightn't die when giving birth to any of the other human being. But didn't think that it is the law of nature and one shouldn't try to change it otherwise one is to face unaware consequences of committed deed and as tried to take nature in his hands, he met the lethal end, which according to him is unexpected, unassumed and undigestive.

He seems to be rigid follower of patriarchy(e.g: when Elizabeth is coming to his lab, where he is mechanizing monster, and he refrains her from reaching there). We find in this novel that he creates monster by denying to accept it as his own part(son) seems as not taking responsibility of what he himself has done and trying to put that thing in fate's hand, while doesn't realizing that unnatural beginning has, unnatural(unusual end) beyond one's understanding.

While monster seems to be alone, and wants to live as human beings are living(inspired by the particular family shown in the movie) but doesn't know, who is his sole creator and to associate himself in this particular arena, he also learns the language, read "Paradise lost" but whenever strived to survive usually he faces contemptuous gestures from the society(e.g: When eating food from one of  the stalls, and hitted by the societals due to his ugly look). What he wants? A usual life, for  which humanbeings are given priviledge and he isn't !

Hence we see here two contrasting characters, who are striving but to make their own ways.

Coming to the confusion for the title of the novel called "Frankenstein": When refering to the novel, question arises in our mind that: to whom we should consider a monster. We must consider here only the interconnected characters known as "Victor" and "Monster". 
Victor who is the creator of the monster, but denies to take the responsibility of his own part and throws him to his fate. Pragmatically if we see this character creates a contemptuous effects on the readers/audience side. While aparting ourselves from all these designs of evaluation we may see here that it was only his creation, which perhaps he was willing to do, though got succeeded but not in the same consistency as he himself has thought about and that perhaps lead him to anxiety and guilt. Perhaps if he would have accepted that Monster, he may have struggled a lot to give the monster his deserving position and perhaps the movie/novel was ended in very different manner.
While seeing this same aspect from the monster's side, we see here it is only the society that leads him to do such things in his life, which according to the audience "leviathan" can do, no one dare to attempt such type of deeds in their lives. When he came to know of his creator from the book, and when seeing "Henry" tries to talk with him but suddenly he moves away from their and "victor's locate" fells down and that stimulates in him the "hatred aspect" and gives more density to contemplate this emotions upon "Victor".
Hence we see here both are made such due to their willingness/circumstances, nobody wants to end their life in such a manner as being reflected in the novel by the author.

Reaching to the conclusion of "the real monster" creature or the creator:

You can refer to the aforementioned answer to understand this question's answer in a better way. Perhaps through director's point of view this idea seems to be justifiable but not by the audience, and as the reader differs in their point of views, their ideas are on equal measures, going to differ, concerning "the real monster identification".

Tabula Rasa:
It has relation in regard of this novel: As it has been said: "a child can be nurtured in his/her parents lap/particular environment". While here Monster is Victor's son and as he is to influence Monster as per her personality in respects of attitude, behaviour, actions towards society, he isn't. But his denial leads him to brutality and cruelty and he kills people on a large scale in the novel, with ignorant passionate attitude.
Hence it gives an idea as when one fails to perform one's responsible duty, then only something unaccepted is happened which is beyond repairing. While  Tabula Rasa gives a thrilling effect as it is effected when internally something dark, gloomy is happening, which can't be narrate to anyone, but the readers/audience who are fully aware of all these things are getting pleasure when documenting the respective characters.

Significance of the subtitle called "the modern prometheus": In "Ancient Greek Mythology" Prometheus is credited for bringing knowledge and enlightenment to the mankind. He has stolen fire from "Olympus" the God, who wants to keep fire for themselves, but as he went against the God, he was chained to the rock, where in day his heart was eaten out by the eagle and at night it was transformed back as it was before.
With reference to the novel, we may see here that "Mary Shelley" is also serving accordingly through his novel, as we have already seen the contemplation of the knowledge and when well-documented the characters with all positive and negative aspects, it serves enlightening to the readers/audience.
Also we can relate this "moral approach". Victor's wrong(perhaps not his creation was responsible for his downfall, but his attitude of denying his own karmical responsibility to shoulder)deed lead him to disaster, similarly Monster's deed were unfair but we can say here lack of proper training, which can be done by his father, wasn't taken into consideration and the circumstances, while there wasn't his own individual idea to reflect and so that it may have good/bad consequences. But Monster can't be evaluated on this respective approach.
Thus is the enunciation of "modern Prometheus subtitle".

Does Mary Shelley's Frankenstein stands on the brick of revolutionary changes:

One may say this by referring to this novel, as Victor's evolution of "Sapien" seems to be a pre-mature and raw experiment, and so it has dire/terrific consequences.

Thus it can be assumed it must haven't much developed at that time but it is taken perhaps to show the people that how anything in raw form works.

Thankyou!

Sources:
To refer "Galvanism" switch on to the site: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/galvanism

Wikipedia: the concept of frame narrative(something from ma'am's lecture)tabula rasa(something added from my own understanding), Gothic scientific novel(as usual).

Mathew Arnold : Characteristics-good poetry-criticism.

A warm welcome to all!

Introduction:"Mathew Arnold" is one of the pioneers and beginners of the 20th century, dates from 1822-1888.He contributed his half part of career 'to poetry' and the rest of his career 'to prose/critical writing',so he is considered as one of the "Neo-Kantis", concerning prose writing. It isn't like he hasn't experienced various movements of his preceding ages in his writing but somewhere as referring to T.S. Eliot, he lacks "Historical sense" which according to T.S. Eliot 'a writer must have, then only he/she can create a great work, otherwise one cannot. New things can be solely used to add a little bit to the 'organised/existing/ordered form of old one'. Though he said that 'a critic should keep himself aloof from historic and personal fallacies, but he himself is unable to, as he has expressively criticized "Shelley(as overtly using moral values) though he himself favours philosophical depth in poetry, which would be able to supplant religion and science.

views on poetry and criticism:

simplifying this idea, perhaps the common people, illiterate/aloof people from literature/ would be thinking of 'good poetry', which has music, funny language, rhyming on each end, in between, whether it conveys any meaning or not that doesn't matter, but at least it should yield happiness to its spectators. which can be said a form of pre-matured poems but not poetry.

Mathew Arnold's views on good poetry:

He says: "Poetry is 'a criticism of life'". Governed by Philip Sidney and Mathew Arnold insist on the instructive and moral purposes of the poetry. While "criticism of life" idea for poetry is often marred due to his naive moralizing(which we are going to discuss in detail under Arnold's views on criticism).

 Sidney regards poetry "as the highest form of teaching owing to its power to move"!

According to "Arnold": Poetry is one of the most adequate ways of governing our thoughts and actions, but he also sees poetry instinct with the deeper meaning of life(that is philosophy)

Meena Kandasamy:

"."The pot sees just another noisy child

the glass sees an eager and clumsy hand

the water sees a parched throat slaking thirst

but the teacher sees a girl breaking the rule

the doctors sees a medical emergency

the school sees a potential embarrassment

the press sees a headline and a photofeature

dhanam sees a world torn in half.

her left eye, lid open but light slapped away,

the price for a taste of that touchable water".

https://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2015/09/just-poems.html

(click on the link to refer to this poem)

In above mentioned poem we see all aspects of 'criticism of life'. where a girl(a school girl) is thirsty, wants to drink the water. Here teacher is described as rigid follower of discipline, where he finds a girl breaking rules, so perhaps he/she has slapped her on face as a result she was shifted to hospital, where she was treated as per her injuries and so the whole incident is featured in the newspaper to make public appraise of prevailing incidents, happening around. 

once upon a time such happenings were happening in societies/cities/states/countries but now it has little bit lower down. It seems to be still going on, but sometimes it is suppressed or sometimes with the boon of technology, it is wide-spreaded to make public aware of it.


Here we also see the poetic beauty&truth, "as how poet solely starting with the pot, relating it to all associative essentials, developing the incident of the girl very rightly that it instantly from the last line "the price for a taste of that touchable water " reveals an idea that this poem must be on "touchability concept" as it emphasize on "touchable water" phrase. As it is for a dalit girl, who must have known as 'dhanam'. As per the language rules a name's first letter should be written in capital form, but here it isn't the case. Perhaps as "dalits" at that time weren't given recognition so the name is written in 'inferior manner'. We also see here how the truth and seriousness of matters, felicity and perfection of diction and manner, regarding 'criticism of life' are being produced.


Hence we can see here how the three consecutive views of "Arnold" is justified in this poem.

• Coming to the poetry's interpretation: According to "Arnold" poetry interprets life in two ways:

1. Having natural interpretation magic in it and moral profundity.
2. Achievement of this aim: He should cultivate excellent seriousness in all he writes

• Has two essential qualities:

1. The poet should choose those selective actions, which he sees subsist permanently in the race and most powerfully appeal to the great primary human feelings.
2. The grand style: the form, choice of words, drawing its force directly from the matter which it conveys(e.g: above mentioned poem).

If both the things(qualities&both the ways of interpretation) have been merged rightly in the poem, then only it would be made inseparable from superiority of diction and movement marking its style and manner. One will only be superseded, if he/she is truly watchful of two kinds of estimate called "historic" and "personal", both of which are fallacious, while he likes the real estimate for judging poetry and he says: historical and personal mars the aforementioned estimation.

• Furthermore he says about "the future of poetry". Which  according to him is an idea that is related to the poetry( with emotions )and idea is the fact, while the rest of the world is illusion, a divine illusion. It is solely the poetry that will go on to stay in surer way, from one after another race and also when the world is uninfluenced by religion and science.

Hence we learnt here how he has reinstated his views of judging "good poetry" and how one should refrain himself/herself from such estimations, which are considered to be the fallacies for judging any works, and also we saw an example of "Meena Kandasamy's poem(one eyed)" evaluated on given parameters of the critic. Lastly we gain an idea from this that as the time changes, ideas/parameters/methods of the particular era transits and as a result we are having new ideology and new things to follow, concerning its influence.

Mathew Arnold's views on criticism: 

The first great principle enunciated by Arnold was: Disinterestedness or detachment: Disinterestedness on the part of the critic implies freedom from all prejudices,personal or historical. Regarding his "Touchstone method" he also says: historical and personal estimates are to mar the real estimate.

1. Historical estimate: May affect our judgement, when we deal with ancient poets, concerning thier times literary works.

• For example: The position of Caedmon, an Anglo-Saxon poet/the French romance.

2.   Personal estimate: May affect our judgement, when we deal with contemporary writers.

• For example: One can evaluate one's contemporaries of his age by depersonalization of that particular thing, artifact or poet/writer.

 3.  Real estimate: Real estimate means : "a recognition and discovery of the highest qualities which  produce           the best poetry.

Inadequate idea of morality:

 His "criticism of life" idea is often marred by his naive moralizing, his inadequate perception between 'Art &morality' and his uncritical appreciation for "ancient Greeks". While Arnold is unable to practice the principle idea for "criticism of life" called disinterestedness. This idea is also criticized by T.S. Eliot of "merely being a repetition of  Aristotle's idea and also  as he seems to be only the propagandist, he doesn't have his own idea".

Follower of new critical approach yet becomes the victim of old criticism:

As unable to follow the ideology of his age, at times he becomes personal and criticizing "Shelley" and "Keats" for being too much follower of moral values, as "Shelley" for her works and "Keats" for writing letters to Fanny.

He doesn't like "the spasmodic expression of Romanticism". He advocated discipline in writing and recommended classical writers: On the latter ground he rejected Pope, Dryden, Wordsworth, Chaucer, Burns and considered "Gray" to be the 18th century's classicist but he was also accepted superficially as his production of works were scanty and frail. On equally grounds he favors Shakespeare(Rival of Burns), Virgil and Homer as they are belonging to "Classical era".

W.J. Long :

1.  He also says that "A critic is expected to know "the best which has been thought and said in the world" and by using this knowledge to create a current of fresh and free thought, but he/she should neither find faults nor display the critic's own learning and influence. 
2. Furthermore he says: We cannot speak with confidence of his rank in literature; but by his crystal-clear style, his scientific spirit of inquiry and comparison, illumined here and there by the play of humor  and especially by his broad sympathy and intellectual culture, he seems destined to occupy a very high place among the masters of literary criticism".

Touchstone Method: "Which introduced scientific objectivity to critical evaluation by providing comparison and analysis as the two primary tools for judging individual poets".

Applicable Touchstone method theory: A critic should compare passages taken from works of great masters of poetry, and these passages should be applied as touchstones to other poetries.

For Example: A stanza from John Milton's "paradise lost":

that Sea-beast

Leviathan. which God of all his works

Created hugest that swim th’ Ocean stream:

Him haply slumbring on the Norway foam

The Pilot of some small night-founder’d Skiff,

Deeming some Island oft, as Sea-men tell,

With fixed Anchor in his skaly rind

Moors by his side under the Lee, while Night

Invests the Sea, and wished Morn delayes:

So stretcht out huge in length the Arch-fiend lay.

leviathan(click on the same word, metioned above to know the full applicable idea of the word)is a sea monster's name, that is referenced in "Hebrew bible" the book of job, psalms, the book of Isaiah and the book of Amos. The word later came to be used fro "the great whale" and also a monster in general.

We may have an idea from the very first phrase "sea-beast"/sea-monster. We also have here reference of the great whale(created hugest that swim th' ocean stream).

Hence we learnt here how "Arnold's critical values has its space" and how on some parameters it is failing to prove the real motto of the critic, how he himself and the other critics are criticizing him for inadequate like concept, what is the touchstone method and how it can be made possible to be applicable as shown above. Moreover we may say here that audience/readers and spectators(it can be also the writer/critic/poet of that or preceding age) seems to be the great critic than the critic of the particular age himself, because with what parameters/criteria the others can evaluate someone, he himself cannot. Thus we may assume here that the people and time are great than the writer/critic himself and perhaps in absence of both these aspects the critic is mere an unribbed puppet, who is supposed to be of no use.

                                                                                                                        -Task Assigned by Dilip Barad (sir)

Thankyou!

Respective sources:

https://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2014/11/mathew-arnold-study-of-poetry.html

http://down02.putclub.com/virtual/backup/update/Download/Literature/ParadiseLost.pdf

https://www.google.com/search

A questionnaire:Traditional-Individual _talent"

Welcome readers!

Again you all are welcomed in the arena of questionnaire, based on T.S. Eliot's "Traditional and Individual talent" essay. As we are given this activity, you all may be(readers)  given or have given such things to do but solely our purpose is to raise questions based on our shaped understanding, so that the new ideas can be generated and may give tendency to something which is lying idly/distortive manner.

-assigned by (Dilip Barad) sir.

To have full understanding of the question, click on the given link:

https://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2014/12/t-s-eliot-tradition-and-individual.html

Questionnaire (Traditional&Individual talent essay):

Video-1: 20th century critics

Q-1: As "Sanjay Mukherjee" sir is saying that: T. S. Eliot says, "he is a royalist in politics". A question arises in mind: In what manner he can be considered "as royalist in politics"?

Video-2: Conept of tradition and individual talent.

Q-2: As T.S. Eliot is saying: that the existing monument order is there, but the poet/writer has to solely add a marginal contemporary bit to it(as Sanjay Mukherjee is giving an example of 'minara' in his video) Can it be said that, he considers universality in traditional sense?

Sub question to the same question:

1: If it is there(as aforementioned in Q.2 area) then, can it be supposed that in some manner T.S. Eliot similarises Shakespeare's literary style?

2: On what parameters an individual talent(referring to T.S. Eliot's essay) may got recognition?

{Doesn't it depend on how the particular era's audience/readers look at it?}

Video-3: Depersonalization.

Q-1: Can you please answer "the process of the combination of unified sensibility of emotions and intellectualism"?

Q-2: Refering the above mentioned question, is he giving acceptance to Dryden's dramatic Poesy's idea of(psycology of passions), either good or bad, can be given depth on either stages?

Video-4_The chemical reaction process:

Q-1: H20 as a compound element to S04 can be understood, but why he only sticked to this particular element rather than other chemicals associating with it?

{Is there any connection of attributive qualities (of  chemical)}?

Video-5_Summation of T.S. Eliot's "traditional and Individual talent":

Q-1: Won't depersonalization of personality and emotions, make the work scientific one(barren from emotions and personal values)?

Q-2: Does T.S. Eliot relate classicism with greatness?

Q-3: Is T.S. Eliot trying to say that "contemporary writers by doing labour work are suppose to take inspiration from the predecessors of the preceding age?

It  was very difficult to raise questions from this particular essay, to raise questions one has to thoroughly refer to each and every theory and ideas of the writer and then probably one may have questions.

Place your respective comments if you any doubts or any ideas to share on the respective questions served above!


Thankyou everyone!

SEER {source educational evaluation rubric)

Come come all along with me to the bitter yet truthful journey!

Let's have a  look on the manner of SEER(Source Educational Evaluation Rubric) affiliated academic writing/research content...

A workshop was held in our 'English Department' 

- Dilip Barad(sir)

At first he tried to get the aim of introducing "SEER" from students. Then gradually in self-paced manner it gets embarked.

Then as it goes on, he enunciated how for different sites and on different parameters, this rubric is working. First he showed how some sites are specifically categorised, as per their authenticity, and how they are required to serve a specific kind of menu as per the authority's command.

Some specimen of rubric evaluated sites were shown, based on the given parameters(authoritative, educational value, intent, originality and quality) such as; Newyork times, enotes and 123helpme.

Examples of technical rubric evaluation on enotes, Newyork times and 123helpme sites.

Then we were assigned to evaluate those sites, which we are used to use on daily basis. I had in my mind many but I went with some recently utilized sites which I had used most. Those are mentioned below, with evaluated points.

1. "DILIPBARAD'S BLOG":

-AUTHORITATIVE : 4 

-EDUCATIONAL VALUE: 4

-INTENT: 4

-ORIGINALITY: I gave 4 points but sir told it should be given "only 2 points" as he is also including some videos to explicate his views on some specific ideas or intent and according to him(Dilip Barad sir) that cannot be considered as cent percent original as it is merged by the two, he himself and another one "an appointee".

-QUALITY: 3 {as it is based on academic writing and to make clear some specific view points, it is necessitate to include some outsider sources based videos/pictures/poems etc and perhaps as I didn't specifically mentioned any specific data, taken for evaluation so it was felt thus by me}

Description to the aforementioned site:

It yields more than enough information, instructions and directions(later on he differentiated between the two prior things) along with the ideas but somewhere in between to provide the establishment of good coverage(as it is mentioned above under the quality parameter).

Subsequently for "Wikipedia": I preferred to give below average points, respectively like 1 and 0 both, 1, in between 2-1, 0 and in between 1-0.

Description: As it has less than superficial information, it cannot come into any of the highly categorised sections of any parameters.

Jimmy wales

{He also showed us a biographical video of Jimmy Wales(an inventor of wikipedia site) if he would have thought to be "the Mark Zuckerberg" [a creator of  Facebook- like site] he would have perhaps done. But he wants people to learn something as he invented this site, where readers, evaluators, analyzers are allowed to edit and have full priviledge to share their ideas with public and if their data is qualitative and hygienic they are also given the deservable reward for it. He doesn't demand anything to pay for his site as it is based on 'non-profit organisation but wants people should serve his site with donation}.

Ultimately for "Times of India":  I gave respectively 4,2,4,2,3 like points for chronologically coming sections one by one.

Description: As it is the news site and as it is based on evidence and truthful events, it is enough competent to provide information, instructions along with the ideas satisfactorily(later on sir also told to check its authenticity with "Newyork times site").

He also reinstated different types of plagiarism done by the academicians in academic field.

Different types of facilitative yet fair cheating done by students, knowingly/unknowingly.

How it is harmful if it is done by student and if that particular student has been trained under an expertise then it would cause harm to both.

It is like, "hum toa doobe hain sanam tumko bhi le doobenge".😌

This we're not going to discuss, if you want to learn further, you should Google it out and see how technology is more faithful than humanbeing.  Human being seems to be egoistic but it cannot be. Just a step ahead and it would provide you a spurious response, which you haven't even wondered of!

For example: As our sir showed a document based on (ctrl+c category of copying) where there were two sections, 'copied one' and 'edited one' (can be categorised as smarter copier). While clone for "precise copy of data", remix(mixup of two types of datas), find&replace(a portion of the founded word is highlighted to replace it with the selected word) etc.

Then he also differentiated between aggregation of the data and what is the originality of it, as asked by one of my seniors.

To sum up this workshop, I must say it was extremely fruitful in a way, as it provided many ideas regarding digital literacy skills, and how with specific kind of key words one can exactly get what he/she is seeking for and how one should rather relying on fake/fabricated data, try to retain alive his/her curiosity of learning and by trying to avoid particular type of sites, prefer to the most reliable/authenticative  sites.

To know furthermore in Gujarati language, what had taken place in our department, you may have a glimpse on the headlines of the topic(mentioned below) this tremendous work was done by our senior named "Dhaval Diyora" with the help of the members of "media committee".

Just type a few keywords, and you would be able to access through the entire Chronicle of this happenings.

https://samiyakagdi313.blogspot.com/2019/10/academic-writing-workshopessay-type.html

You may also have some ideas by tapping on the link below, shared in our previous session on "academic writing workshop". Where also sir had reinstated some of the things from plagiarism(regarding urkund system).

If someone is getting something fruitful, there is someone's dedication, who is constantly striving  for... and he knows very well "how to serve"! and "what to serve"! And this is sir (Dilip Barad) without whom it can't be ever made possible.

Thanks a lot sir!

Thankyou everyone!


Source: SEER workshop held in department of English - Dilip Barad Sir.