Symbolism in Scarlett Letter

To evaluate my assignment

Name – Pandya Riva m

Roll no -23

Paper – 10

Topic :-  Symbolism in Scarlett Letter

Email id- rivapandya.rp@gmail.com

Year :- 2015-2017

Submitted to :- M.K Bhavnagar university, Department of English

vIntroduction:

Nathaniel Hawthorne is one of the most prolific symbolists in American literature .He has a perfect atmosphere for the symbols in The Scarlett letter because the puritans saw the world through allegory.  for them simple patterns like meteor , streaking through the sky became religious or moral interpretations for human events. He represents various symbols in this novel and all symbols are important to understand the novel.

Ø Symbolism in Scarlett letter:

§  The Scarlet Letter "A"

The Scarlett letter is meant to be a symbol of shame, but instead it becomes a powerful symbol of identify to Hester. And also symbolizes her adultery.It  symbolizes  Hester's sin and shame.The letter 'A' is sewn into her clothing,she wears it on her chest and  literally marking her as an adulterer.The letter's meaning shifts as time passes.originally intended to mark Hester as an adulterer,the "A" eventually comes to  stand for Able. For Dimmesdale and Hester, the scarlet letter stands for agony, which Hester displays in her isolated life and which Dimmesdale displays in his deteriorating health. By the end of the novel, the townspeople think that Hester's scarlet "A" stands for Ability, for she has become a generous helper for the poor and downtrodden and a wise counselor for their problems She takes ownership of that letter, which makes it sort of a cool symbol for her identity. She's a marked woman, but she's not going to take the punishment lying down.

The gesture of Dimmesdale's placing his hand over his heart is also symbolic. It is the minister's attempt to cover his mark of sinfulness and prevent his exposure. It also suggests his nervous condition and reflects his grieved state.

§  Pearl

Pearl is Hester's daughter, as well as a symbol for sin and redemption. There's a duality in Pearl's existence, as she's a living reminder and symbol for Hester's adultery, her sin.she represents not only sin but also the vital spirit and passion that engendered that sin. she also represents Hester's blessing or hope of redemption .  As the novel progresses and Pearl matures she symbolizes the deteriation of Hester's like by constantly asking her about the scarlet letter "A". Pearl in a sense wants her mother to live up to her sin and, she achieves this by constantly asking her about the scarlet letter. Another peice of evidence that shows how Pearl symbolizes the sin Hester has committed, is when the town government wants to take Pearl away from her Revrend Dimmsdale convinces the government that Pearl is a living reminder of her sin. This is essentialy true, Hester without Pearl is like having Hester without sin.

thus pearls existence gives her mother reason to live ,bolstering her spirits when she is tempted to give up.It is only after Dimmesdale is revealed to be pearl's father that pearl can become fully human.until then she functions in a capacity as the reminder of an unsolved mystery.

§  The Scaffold

The scaffold is a symbol of penitence and God's platform on the Day of Judgment. It is a reflection of appearing before the Almighty in one's weakness. Because of the comparison, Dimmesdale has great difficulty in standing on the platform and confessing his sins. He first does it under the cover of darkness for no one to see him, as if he were trying to hide from God himself. In the end, however, he bravely stands on the scaffold and confesses his sin in the light of day and before a crowd of people. The confession finally gives him a sense of peace.

§  The Prison

 It  is made out of wooden and reflects the harsh weather conditions with stains on it and subsequently attention shifts to the prison door.

The prison, presented in the opening chapter of the novel, is a symbol of isolation and alienation, foreshadowing the life that Hester will lead even after she leaves its confines. While Hester lives in the prison of alienation, Dimmesdale lives in the prison of his unconfessed guilt, and Chillingworth is imprisoned by his vengeance. Pearl, alone, remains free.So the prison door symbolizes the oldest heritage sinfulness of humanity and how it is a steady legacy from the ancient times.The prison symbolizes a black stain of society on the civilization

§  The Rose Bush

The narrator choose to begin his story with the image of the rosebush beside the prison door.It symbolizes the nature to endure and outlast man's activities.It also represents the futility of symbolic interpretation the narrator mentions various insignificances that the rosebush might have never affirming or denying them never privileging one over the others.

The rose bush growing across from the prison respresents a constant reminder of salvation and hope to all the prisoners. Later in the book Pearl states that she was plucked from the rosebush and was born. This symbolizes that Pearl is the key to not only Hester's salvation, but to Dimmesdale and indirectly to Chillingsworth. Pearl was born into a world of sin and for her to be saved, everyone must find their salvation through her. It represents a light in the darkness of Hester's sin.

§  The Meteor

As Dimmesdale stands on the scaffold with Hester and pearl ,a meteor traces out an "A" in the night sky.To Dimmesdale the meteor implies that he should wear a mark of shame just as Hester does. The meteor is interpreted differently by the rest of the community which thinks that it stands for "Angel" and marks Governor winthrop's entry into heaven .But Angel is an awkward reading of the symbol .The puritans commonly looked to symbols to confirm divine sentiments . In this narrative symbols are taken to mean what the beholder wants them to mean .The incident with the meteor obviously highlights and exemplifies two different uses of symbols puritan and literary.

§  The Forest

The forest is symbolic of Nature, both in its darker and lighter aspects. When the rays of sunshine fall on Pearl but do not reach Hester, they symbolize her inability to find happiness or warmth. The pervading darkness is suggestive of the dull gloom in her life. That darkness is dispelled when she meets with Dimmesdale and plans to flee from Boston with him. As a symbol of her freedom, she throws away the scarlet letter and undoes her hair. Appropriately, a flood of sunshine illuminates the forest, dispelling the darkness.

§  Colors

Hawthorne also gives symbolic meanings to the colors that he employs in the novel. The dark, sober, sable garments that Hester wears represent her dull and gloomy life filled with grief, guilt, and sorrow.

 The color of the letter carries special significance. It is red because that is the color associated with the devil, and the Puritans believed that Hester's sin was a mark of Satan.while black tends to signify hidden sins or the things that society doesn't want to face.

Since Dimmesdale's sin is hidden while Hester's sin is visible to the entire community, he is frequently embodied by blackness. He is burdened by 'the black secret of his soul' .

At one point, Hester talks with Chillingworth and refers to him as 'the Black man that haunts the forest'Here, the black man does not only refer to Chillingworth, but also Satan.Ironically, the innocent Pearl fashions a letter "A" to wear herself, but she makes it out of seaweed that is bright green, the color of life itself. Black is also used in the novel. Mistress Hibbins practices black magic throughout the book, and many suspect Chillingworth of doing the same.

Conclusion:

Nature also plays a vital role in Scarlett letter.Every chapter in The Scarlet Letter has symbols displayed through characterization, setting, colors, and light. Hawthorne's ability to introduce these symbols and change them through the context of his story is but one of the reasons The Scarlet Letter is considered his masterpiece and a peerless example of the romance novel.

To evaluate my assignment

Relationships between Vladimir and Estragon

To evaluate my assignment

Name – Pandya Riva m

Roll no -23

Paper – 9

Topic :-  Relationships between Vladimir and Estragon

Email id- rivapandya.rp@gmail.com

Year :- 2015-2017

Submitted to :- M.K Bhavnagar university, Department of English

Relationships between Vladimir and Estragon

Waiting for Godot is Samuel Beckett's most famous work. Originally written in French in 1948, Beckett personally translated the play into English.He often focused on the idea of "the suffering of being." Estragon and Vladimir are waiting for godot . Godot can be understood as one of the many things in life that people wait for.

The play has often been viewed as fundamentally existentialist in its take on life.

Vladimir and Estragon are the main protagonists of the play, Waiting for Godot. In hearing the play read, even the most experienced theater person will often confuse one of the characters for the other. Therefore, the similarities are as important as the differences between them.

The name Vladimir can mean prince, man of the people or ruler of peace. Estragon has the connotative meaning of estrogen.Vladimir is the soul or mind, the conscious and  practical one and Estragon is the body.

Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot, some indication that life is meaningful or an escape. Both are tramps dressed in costumes which could be interchanged - big boots which don't necessarily fit, big bowler hats, baggy and ill-fitting suits. Their costumes recall the type found in burlesque or vaudeville houses. The opening scene with Estragon struggling with his boots and Vladimir doffing and donning his hat to inspect it for lice could be a part of a burlesque routine. Such comic episodes continue until the characters and the audiences are bored with it.

Estragon represents the physical split and Vladimir the mental split of the assumed person, Estramir.  Beckett strictly limits Estragon to physical awareness. He cannot think, nor act of thinking. He never feels mentally tired, but physically; Whereas Vladimir always thinks philosophically. He also plays at thinking. He, unlike Estragon, feels mentally tired, and does not suffer physically (except kidney disease).When men are too happy or too sad, their physical reactions don’t match with their thinking, and their physical bustles seem strange or absurd.

 We see in this play that Estragon engaged in trying to take off and put on his boots; While Vladimir is engaged in taking off his hat, peering in it and putting it on his head. Hat and boot represents the mentality of people's mindset. Boot is symbolized lower or poor thinking. It also represents Estragon’s poor memory, while hat is the symbol of power. These two extreme behaviors show the affinity of Estragon with body, and Vladimir with mind.

 Vladimir is the person who is aware of his own cog-like existence in the world, and says: "All my life I’ve tried to put it from me, saying Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven’t yet tried everything. And I resumed the struggle.”  But Estragon who represents the physical entity says, having failed taking off his boot, “Nothing to be done” physically. The hat is used to wear on head, and head symbolizes mind/brain. The boot is used to wear in legs, and leg has nothing to do with thinking or mind.

Wherever is body, there is hunger. Throughout the play, Estragon feels hunger thrice. Once he is given bones by Pozzo. And twice he is given carrot by Vladimir. Mind never gets hungry like this; rather it helps body to get its food (carrot). We do not find Vladimir being hungry, but providing Estragon with carrots.

Body has nothing to do with memory and past. If it has any relation with past, it is the marks of wounds that are lefts on it. Estragon hardly remembers about his past. He says,

“That’s the way I am. Either I forget immediately or never forget.”  He could remember the bones, the kick, and so. But he cannot recollect Pozzo and Lucky. He also does not identify the place; While Vladimir recognizes the place, persons, and also remembers the incidents from the past.

Honour and pride are abstract things that only a mind could understand them, not a body. Estragon is found begging for money and bones. But Vladimir suggests him not to beg since they (Estramir) are not beggars.

Estragon, however, is dependent upon Vladimir, and essentially he performs what Vladimir tells him to do. For example, Vladimir looks after Estragon's boots, he rations out the carrots, turnips, and radishes, he comforts Estragon's pain, and he reminds Estragon of their need to wait for Godot. He wants to leave but is restrained from leaving by the fact that he needs Vladimir.Estragon is the less intelligent one; he has to have everything explained to him. Vladimir is more masculine and contemplative and Estragon is more feminine and emotion-driven of the duo

  Vladimir would be the equivalent of the straight man in burlesque comedy. He is also the intellectual who is concerned with a variety of ideas. Of the two, Vladimir makes the decisions and remembers significant aspects of their past. He is the one who constantly reminds Estragon that they must wait for Godot. Vladimir seems to know more about Godot. Vladimir often sees religious or philosophical implications in their discussions of events, and he interprets their actions in religious terms; for example, he is concerned about the religious implications in such stories as the two thieves who were crucified on either side of Jesus. Vladimir correlates some of their actions to the general concerns of mankind. In addition to the larger needs, Vladimir also looks after their physical needs.

Estragon is concerned mainly with more mundane matters: He prefers a carrot to a radish or turnip, his feet hurt, and he blames his boots; he constantly wants to leave, and it must be drilled into him that he must wait for Godot. He remembers that he was beaten, but he sees no philosophical significance in the beating. He is willing to beg for money from a stranger (Pozzo), and he eats Pozzo's discarded chicken bones with no shame. Estragon, then, is the more basic of the two. He is not concerned with either religious or philosophical matters. First of all, he has never even heard of the two thieves who were crucified with Christ, and if the Gospels do disagree, then "that's all there is to it," and any further discussion is futile and absurd.

One cannot separate body from mind. They live together. In the absence of one, another has no value. So, Vladimir and Estragon always live with each other.

As mind controls body, Vladimir controls Estragon in the worst suicide situations. Therefore, Estragon represents the body of a person, to have simple understanding, of Estramir; while Vladimir represents mind (soul) of Estramir.

This is the way that Beckett unconsciously split Estramir into two different aspects of a single person: Estragon as body  and Vladimir as mind or soul

To evaluate my assignment

My presentation sem-2

paper-5
Topic-Theme of marriage  in sense and sensibility

Marriage theme of sense and sensibility from rivapandya

click here to evaluate my presentation

paper-6

Topic-Social issues in Oliver twist

social issues in oliver twist from rivapandya

click here to evaluate my presentation

paper-7

Topic-Northope Frye's five spheres in his schema

Paper no-7 from rivapandya

click here to evaluate my presentation

paper-8
Topic-postmodernism and popular culture

click here evaluate my presentation

postmodernism and popular culture from rivapandya

Victor a true villain in Frankenstein.

       click here to evaluate my assignment

Name: Pandya Riva M
RollNo: 25
Paper: 5
Topic: Victor a true villain in Frankenstein.

                      The novel “Frankenstein” gives a lot of scenarios that could portray a person to think differently on who the real victim is in the story. Many think that Victor is the victim because he loses all that he owns. Others may think that the monster is the victim, because victor betrays and abandons him leaving him to be lost in a world that wasn’t ready for him. In my thoughts it is Victor that is the victim, but not victim to the monster but to himself. Victor play roulette with his work and letting it get too close to his outer life in society. He lets himself become too attach to his work causing him to under think his real life choices. There for because of these un-thought through choices they come back around to hit him in the rear.

                          Part of what makes Victor Frankenstein his own victim is that he would become too obsessed with his work, let it control his life. Victor abandons his family and father in there time of need letting his work get the best of him. Because of this Victor loses his way taking his experiments to levels of unorthodox that the world was not yet ready for. Partly why the university in the story discontinued there support and didn’t want him introducing his studies and ethics to the school and public. He let his work basically drive him mad.  It was that insanity that had fueled his obsession to dive deeper and darker into the place no one dared venture.

                        Victor had gone down a dark path and with that path came clouded decisions. After letting his work and studies cloud his mind he delve into his work even deeper. Because of this he went to extent that wouldn’t be accepted by the public. After the university discontinued their support in Victor’s studies he went to places un-thought of for his supplies and specimens. He would go to graves other the recently desist to dig up their corps for the body parts he would need for his deranged experiments. His devotion to his experiment became too attach and when his mind found clarity, too much damage too had been done.  

                             The real villain of Frankenstein isn't the creature, but rather his creator, Victor. At first glance, the monster in Frankenstein is a symbol of evil, whose only desire is to ruin lives. He has been called "A creature that wreaks havoc by destroying innocent lives often without remorse. He can be viewed as the antagonist, the element Victor must overcome to restore balance and tranquility to the world." But after the novel is looked at on different levels, one becomes aware that the creature wasn't responsible for his actions, and was just a victim of circumstance.

                                                                         
                           Dr.Frankenstein originates from the 1818 novel, Frankenstein, by Mary Shelly. Victor’s full name is Victor Von Frankenstein, and he is a tragic character who started out as a medical student trying to achieve necromancy. He illegally dug up bodies and sewed them together to make a living creature that would later become known as the Frankenstein Monster.

                            Victor wanted his creation to be beautiful, immortal, and super human. Immortal and superhuman? Yes, Beautiful? No. The creature was so hideous, that Dr. Frankenstein fled the lab in horror. The monster was gone the next day, but the unhinged doctor started seeing him everywhere.

                    Victor's fears were confirmed when his younger brother, William Frankenstein, was found dead. On that same night, he saw an evil looking silhouette in a storm. Victor knew that the monster had done it, even when his servant Justine was found with William's locket.

                         If Victor truly cared for Justine, he did nothing to defend her when she was trialed and hanged (though what could he have done?). Dr. Frankenstein set out to the Alps to find the monster and take his revenge on him. When he found the monster, he berated it with empty threats, and cursed it for its evil.

                               The monster took Victor to his hut and told him about what happened to him after he abandoned him, of how he had been hated and shunned mankind. He had lost his mind and set out for revenge against Dr. Frankenstein for creating and abandoned him. He had killed William on finding out that he was a Frankenstein, and framed Justine for the murder. He told Victor that he had reformed, and that all he wanted in life a companion. The monster told Victor that as his father, he owed him some happiness, and promised that if he made him a bride, he would leave human kind alone forever. Victor agreed to do this only for the sake of his fellow man.

                                      Victor did the same thing he did before, and created a female version of the monster. But when he saw the monster watching through window, and thought of giving the monster happiness after what he had done to him, the despicable doctor went into a rage and destroyed the lifeless bride.

                                        He regretted this treachery on his wedding night, when the monster killed his best friend Henry, and his new wife Elizabeth. Victor went insane, and had to be locked up for a while. When he was released, he chased the monster all the way to the Arctic, where he was picked up by a ship.

                                     He told the captain the tale of him and the monster. Victor was in a weakened condition, and when called the captain to talk to him, it would be the last conversation he ever had. He said he no longer hated the monster he created. He now knew that he had failed it, so Victor was responsible for the acts of evil it committed. But he told the captain that it had to be destroyed, and that he, the captain, had to be the one to do it. Dr. Frankenstein then died of exhaustion.

                       As a romantic novel Victor is responsible, because he abandoned his creation. As an archetype novel, Victor is the villain, because he was trying to play god. Finally, Victor as a Gothic novel, Victor is at fault, because, he and the creature are two different parts of the same person. If Frankenstein is looked at as a romantic novel, Victor, not the creature, is truly the villain. When Victor created the creature, he didn't take responsibility for it. He abandoned it, and left it to fend for itself.

          click here to evaluate my assignment

    

       

Derrida and Deconstruction

Click here to evaluate my assignment

Name:- Pandya Riva M.

Roll no:-25

Paper:-7

Topic:- Derrida and Deconstruction

             

                                                                                                                                                                                          Derrida is a French philosopher, born in Algiers in 1930. He is perhaps best known for developing the analytical technique of deconstruction. He was a founding father of deconstruction, a controversial system of analyses which challenges the basis of traditional western thought. Derrida evolves deconstruction as a strategy of critical questioning directed towards exposing unquestionable metaphysical assumsions and literary language. In his celebrated work of grammatology, Derrida unravels in details his main philosophical contention on deconstruction.

Deconstruction

                                      Deconstruction means a way of reading that concern itself with decentering with unmasking the problematic nature of all centres.or it is a critical outlook concerned with the relationship between text and meaning. A close and critical reading of a written text to uncover the ways of thinking that constrain our impressions or conceptualization of the world.

This idea has been extended to other forms of text - for example, visual art and architecture.

The technique may often be (miss)used in a destructive manner. However, Derrida's original aim was not to destroy, merely to point out hidden assumptions and contradictions that shape a text.

Derrida himself is often viewed with deep suspicion, if not hatred, by many academics. It seems that deconstruction has a nasty habit of biting hard into people's pet ideas and theories.

What does this mean for us?

                                  Derrida disputes the idea that a text (or for us, a communication) has an unchanging, unified meaning. He challenges the author's intentions, and shows there may be numerous legitimate interpretations of a text. This is where the idea of "the author is dead" arises: once the text is written, the author's input is finished. The meaning (any meaning) is up for grabs, in other words.

• Identify binary opposition

                              Notice what a particular text or school of thought takes to be natural, normal, self-evident, originary, immediately apparent, or worthy of pursuit or emulation. Or, notice those places where a text is most insistent that there is a firm and fast distinction between two things. It is the most important part of deconstruction .Binary opposition means to look at what is not in a story. There are two part of it,

1) Dominant, 2) Oppressed or no dominant.

                                           For Saussure The binary opposition was the means by which the unit of language have value of meaning..Each unit is defined against which it is not. With the categorization terms and concept tend to be associated with a positive or negative. For e.g.: Man-woman, presence-absence, Reading-writing etc..

                                  Derrida argued that this oppositions were arbitrary and inheritantly unstable. Deconstruction is regarded as a forum of anti-structuralism. It rejects most of assumsions of structuralism and more vehemently binary opposition on the grounds that such oppositions always privilege one term over the other that is signified over the signifier. For e.g.:- The words Light and Dark. Many of us associate light with goodness or positive thing. The same with up and downs with up having the more positive condition.

• Differance

                                                                                                                                                                                       Differance is a French word coined by the French philosopher and deconstructionist, Jacques Derrida. The word is a play on several other words that illustrate Derrida’s meaning. The concept of differance is a complex theory that tries to illuminate the way words are used and how their specific meaning is derived. Derrida called difference a "neographism," meaning a term that is neither a word nor a concept and is used to describe a literary idea. So one word leads to another word and that word leads to other and finally we cannot come out of the dictionary so there is no final meaning to any word ,.for example:- the word, interest if we look at the dictionary it has various meanings like, hobby, money, a group of people etc..2) Bat one meaning of it is cricket bat another is flying animal.

                                Saussurian sign is equal to signifier which signifies something but Derridian sign is free play of signifiers, signifying nothing. This is a chain of signifiers which is never stop.(we assume that we understand), So meaning is always postponed and you can never reach the final meaning.

Logocentricism and Phonocentricism

                                          Logocenricism means logo as centre, source of knowledge or human beings, while Phonocenricism means the speech or writing binary, speech is supposed to single presence of the speaker.
.

                                         To speak a little bit of Derrida, it might be said that like the logocentrics of old we anal-retentive, logo-phallo-centric philosophers privilege logos – that is, meaning, reason, spirit and we take speech to be prior, in the order of signification, to writing. And by privileging speech over writing, we privilege presence over absence. So speech is practice of presence while writing is absence it means that when writer write something, the reader is not present at that time. Language is speaking rather than writing.

Metaphysics of Presence

Derrida borrows this phrase “Metaphysics of Presence” from heideggar.By logos or presence, derrida signifies “ultimate referent” a self-certifying and self-sufficient ground or foundation available to us totally outside the play of language itself that serves to be a “center” to guarantee the structure of a linguistic system.

For instance,

-Hut

-House

-Palace

                             Its relationship to the other words (a house is bigger than a hut but smaller than a palace.) Derrida focuses on the center of it and then tries to deconstruct that center.

Decentring the center

                            According to derrida, the center also closes off the play which it opens up. As center it is the point at which the substitution of contents, elements or terms is no longer possible.Futher says that center is paradoxically “within the structure and outside it” or even “the center is not the center”

Structure, Sign and play:

                                    This essay was read at the John Hopkins international colloquium “The language of criticism and the science of man” Derrida demonstrates how structuralism as represented by the anthropologist Claude Levi Strasuss which sets out as a criticism or rejection of science and metaphysics can be read as embodying precisely those aspects of science and metaphysics which it seeks to challenge. “There are thus two interpretations of interpretation of structure, sign of free play. The one seeks to decipher, dreams of deciphering a truth or an origin which is free from free play and from the order of sign, and lives like an exile the necessary of interpretation. The other which is no longer turned toward the origin, affirms free play and tries to pass beyond man and humanism.”

Derrida in this essay notes that language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique. The essay is considered as inauguration of poststructuralist as a theoretical movement.So Structuralism began as a criticism or attack on metaphysics or science is another.

                                             The centre is paradoxically within the structure and outside it; the totality has its centre elsewhere. The centre is not the centre. As we know that meaning is always postponed. So criticism also can never go outside of the tradition It uses the same assumption that tradition is using .Darrida says that its happens because of a language. Language has always lack of something. So the final meaning can never be grasped its postponed. Whenever we make a philosophical statement the ultimate meaning is already postponed. So the language demands critique. And derrida says that Deconstructive writing is most of the time auto critical, it means that it questions itself.

                                            Finally, Derrida points out the two reasons for schools of interpretations which are irreconcilable yet exist simultaneously: 1) the interpretation which seeks to decipher an original Truth that is uncluttered by free play, and 2) the interpretation which affirms the role of free play within the system.

                                                                                                                                                                                           His philosophy of not being centered in a single one philosophy has validity. Derrida, as taught in the school of deconstruction, encourages the use of several perspectives (several centers, so to speak) to view a concept. This does not help to affirm any holistic view, but it enables a chance to find common ground between perspectives even though the idea seems impossible. To me, if the purpose of free play is to de-center within a system, then it is perhaps possible to use the idea of free play to develop and enlargen the system in order to accommodate new centers for thought. This seems to be the point of the post-modern spirit: finding new ways of viewing the world that is not set in any specific system, but constantly moving around with the principles of free play in order to participate in the world better.

Click here to evaluate my assignment

New Historicism

Name:- Pandya Riva M.
Roll no:-25
Paper:- 8
Topic:- New Historicism
click here to  evaluate my assignment

• New Historicism:-

New historicism is a school of literary theory which consolidates critical theory into easier forms of practice for academic literary theorists of the 1990s. It first developed in the 1980s, primarily though the work of the critic Stephen Greenblatt, and gained widespread influence in the following decade.

New historicism aim simultaneously to understand the work through its cultural context and to understand intellectual history through literature which follows the 1950s displace of History of ideas and refers to itself as a form of “Cultural Poetics”, new historicism concerns itself with extra literary matters-letters, diaries, films, paintings medical treaties- looking to reveal opposing historical tensions in a text. New historicist seeks “surprising coincidence” that may cross generic, historical and cultural lines in borrowings of metaphor, ceremony or popular culture. H. Aram Veeser introducing an anthology of essays, The New Historicism noted some keys assumption that continuously reappears in New Historicist discourse. They were:

1. Every human action is actually the effect of a network of material practice.

2. That every act of unmasking, critique and opposition uses the tools it condemns and risks falling prey to the practice it exposes.

3. Literary and non –literary “texts” are equally valuable.

4. No discourse, imaginative, scientific or archival gives access to unchanging truths not expresses unalterable human nature

5. A critical method and a language to describe culture under capitalism participate in the economy they describe.

New historians see such cross cultural phenomena as text in themselves. From Hayden White, cultural studies practitioners learned how figural relationships between present and past tropes are shaped by historical discourse from Chifford Geetz, they derived the importance of immersion in a culture to understand its “deep” ways, as opposed to distanced observation Carolyn Porter credits the emergence of American studies. “Sub-literary texts and uninspired non literary texts all came to be read as documents of historical discourse, side by side with “the great works of literature”. A typical focus of New historicist critics led by Stephen Orgel has been on understanding Shakespeare less as an autonomous great author in the modern sense than as a due to the conjunction of the world of Renaissance theater- a collaborative and largely anonymous free – for- all- and the complex social politics of the time.

The New Historicists aim to do two things: first, they want to study how a work of literature reflects its historical and archive hunt won’t just reveal that this thing was written in 1385, but also what it was like to live in that year, and what people (or at least poets) thought and felt at that starriest of historical moments

A New Historicist looks at literature in a wider historical context, examining both how the writer's times affected the work and how the work reflects the writer's times, in turn recognizing that current cultural contexts color that critic's conclusions.

“The text is historical, and history textual”

-Michael Warner phrases

“History is always historicized”

New historicism has made its biggest mark on literary studies of the Renaissances and Romantic periods and has revised motions of literature as privileged, apolitical writing. Much new historicism focuses on the marginalization of subjects such as those identified as witches, the insane, heretics, vagabonds, and political prisoners.

• New Historicism and Old Historicism

New Historicism differs from the old Historicism in large measure not based on the approach but rather on changes in historical methodology, the rise of the so-called New history. The term new history was indebted to the French term nouvelle histoire, itself associated particularly with the historian Jacques Le Goff and Pierre Nora, members of the third generation of the Annals School, which appeared in the 1970s. The movement can be associated with cultural history, history of representations, and histoire desmentalités. While there may be no precise definition, the new history is best understood in contrast with prior methods of writing history, resisting their focus on politics and "great men;" their insistence on composing historical narrative; their emphasis on administrative documents as key source materials; their concern with individuals' motivations and intentions as explanatory factors for historical events; and their willingness to accept the possibility of historians' objectivity.

New historicism and Facault:

There is a popularly held recognition that Foucault’s ideas have passed through the New Historicist formation in history as a succession of épitsèmess or structures of thought that shape everyone and everything within a culture (Myers 1989). It is indeed evident that the categories of history used by New Historicists have been standardized academically. Although the movement is publicly disapproving of the periodisation of academic history, the uses to which New Historicists put the Foucauldian notion of the épitsème amount to very little more than the same practice under a new and improved label (Myers 1989).

• Advantages and disadvantages:

Firstly, it is found upon post structuralist thinking. It is written in a far more accessible way. Its present its data and drows its conclusion in a less dense way. Secondly, the material is often fascinating and distinctive in the context of literary studies. Thirdly, the political edge of new historicist writing is always sharp but at the same time it avoids the problems frequently encountered in straight Marxist criticism. Doing new criticism essentially involves the juxtaposition of literary material with non literary text. Literary and non literary texts, reading the former in the light of the latter.

Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice” always shows Shakespeare to be anti Semitic. According to historicist work must be judge in the context in which it was written. Studying the history reveals more about text, studying text reveals more about history.

• Cultural Materialism

Cultural materialism is “a politicized form of historiography.”

-Graham Holderness

Raymond Williams coined the term Cultural Materialism. Jonathan Dollimore and Allen Sinfield made current and defined Cultural materialism as “designating a critical method which has four characteristics:-

Historical Context:- what was happening at the time the text was written.

Theoretical Method: -Incorporating older methods of theory—Structuralism, Post-structuralism etc.

Political Commitment:- Incorporating non-conservative and non-Christian frameworks—such as Feminist and Marxist theory.

Textual Analysis:- building on theoretical analysis of mainly canonical texts that have become “prominent cultural icons”.

Materialism: What does this term mean in the context of Cultural Materialism?

Materialism is at odds with idealism. Idealists believe in the transcendent ability of ideas while materialist believe that culture cannot transcend its material trappings.

• Differences between New Historicism and Cultural Materialism

As we have seen and read in Barry, New Historicism and Cultural Materialism have a significant overlap. In fact the main difference is politics. There are three main differences:

1. Cultural Materialists concentrate on the interventions whereby men and women make their own history, where New Historicists focus on the power of social and ideological structures which restrain them. A contrast between political optimism and political pessimism.

2. Cultural Materialists view New Historicists as cutting themselves off from effective political

positions by their acceptance of a particular version of post-structuralism.

3. New Historicists will situate the literary text in the political situation of its own day, while the Cultural Materialists situate it within that of our own.

click here to  evaluate my assignment

 

Multipulsity of theme in middle march

click here to  evaluate my assignment
Name: - Pandya Riva M

Roll no: - 25

Paper: - 6

Topic: - Multipulsity of theme in middle march

In the novel Middlemarch George Eliot examines the themes and some ideas of society and the risks of all these motives in provincial life. The novel is set in the fictitious middle town of middle march during 1829-1832, and it comprises several distinct stories and large cast of characters. Significant themes, idealism, self interest, Marriage, political reform and education also.

• Theresa complex

Dorothea has what has been called, the Theresa Complex, i.e. “a yearning to do well in the work which is so intense that it must answer to some emotional need in the Theresa herself”. Theresa was a Christian saint who had such a yearning .Dorothea has been referred to in the prelude as a later born Theresa. She is Theresa in her lofty aspirations, “struggling under dim lights and entang circumstances”, to achieve her aspirations. But she lives in a society in which there is no particular demand for Theresa.

• . Love

Love keeps people together, but lacks of love and understanding, let them drift apart. Those who are truly love like Will Ladislaw and Dorothea, Mary and Fred are bound together by it, and are very alike in temperament and outlook. Those who lake it like Lydgate and Rosamond, Casaubon and Dorothea are ii-suited to each-other in marriage, and are very disappointed their unions.

• Prejudice

Lydgate and Will Ladislaw cannot seem to beat. People in Middlemarch dislike anyone who is not from Middlemarch, or anyone who reputation seems questionable. Will and Lydgate are both good people, but it is initial prejudices, sometimes based on invalid or circumstantial a reason, that means that they are never liked or accepted each-other.

• Conformity

An issue that is related to social expectation, but is somewhat different. People are supposed to conform to certain social ideas and norms. Dorothea is supposed to be a proper wife, and then a proper widow and follow society’s set guideline about how to fill each position. Will fits no position that society tries to group him into, he is disliked; he refuses to be conventional or proper.

• Social Expectation

Closely linked to society hierarchy, are ideas about how everyone should act in certain situations. Lydgate proposes to Rosamond because society expects and he should do it. Dorothea is pushed to live with someone else or marry again after she is widow, because society expects that it is right. People don’t necessarily follow these expectations, nor should they’ but they do exist, and play a part in people’s lives.

• Self-discovery

There are certain truths which every characters learns about him in the course of trial; Lydgate and Rosamond find out more about their characters through their money troubles, though they do not always adjust accordingly. Dorothea makes the most dramatic journey of self-discovery; and changes a great deal within the course of the novel.

• Reality vs. Expectations

Many characters pre-conceived ideas, especially of marriage, are proven tragically wrong in the course of the book. Casaubon and Dorothea both have unrealistic ideas about marriage, and are disappointed. Lydgate and Rosamond have the same idea, and are let down. Life often defines what one expects, or could predict of it; and the people who are happiest are the ones who have few expectations or are most flexible.

• Gender roles and expectations

Especially relevant to Dorothea, Middlemarch society has very defined ideas of what people of each gender should do within the society, and people, especially woman, who deviate from this norm, are looked down upon. Dorothea is tolerated because she is of good family and does not disrupt the society. She is in however, she faces a great deal of pressure to change herself, conform to other’s ideas, and submit herself to male leadership at all times.

• Progress

Much is changing in the world of Middlemarch, English society is evolving in social, economic, technologic areas, socially, ideas of gender and class are in flux, as woman are proving more and more competent, and the Industrial Revolution is causing a greater amount of social mobility. The economy of England is changing, from an aristocratic, inheritance based system of holding weather and land, to one based on commerce, business, and manufacturing. Technology is also changing, in medical science, and in areas like transportations, and these are changes that are beginning to sweep through Middlemarch.

• Money

Money is the root of evils, but much good, in the novel. Lydgate gets desperate for want of it, Fred despairs when he is little. Dorothea becomes generous when she has too much, and the garths saved carefully since their money is limited. Money has a profound effect on character within the novel, and through many people is judged by how much money they have, many of the best people in the people, like Will Ladislaw and Mr. Fare brother.

• Strength of Rumor

Rumor can do a great deal of damage in Middlemarch, having even more weight than fact in some cases. Both Bulstrode and Lydgate are blackened by rumors passed around society, and will is blackened as well, though he is falsely accused.

• Politics

Everything is political in Middlemarch, with most people strongly backing the conservative poetry. Personal alliances and versions are based on matters of politics and political identification. But even political matters like all things , get personal ,people decide who or who not to support by how they like them, even more so sometimes than any dependence on issues.

• Family Obligation

People within the novel have varying ideas of family, obligation in the novel, though it is a strong force in Middlemarch society. Mr. Featherstone’s relations believe they are entitled to money; Mrs. Bulstrode believes that she must help her family in order to show support. Sir James shows his regard for his family by being very protective and a constant advisor as well. Casaubon dispenses of his obligation through money and Bulstrode attempts also to do the same.

• Unity of Middlemarch

The decision made by every person in middlemarch.seem to have a direct effect on at least one other person .Mary’s decision to Marry ferd means that Farebrother is without a wife .Dorothea’s decision to choose Casaubon leads, Sir James to choose Celia .Balustrade’s dirty dealings with regard to Raffles mean disgrace to both Lydgate and Ladislaw. Everyone connected and its seems no one can move around without disturbing someone else.

• Social position

Social position means a great deal in Middlemarch; it means how much respect a person’s gets, how people treat them, how they are regarded, etc. People of high status are generally treated more delicately than people with little money, Lydgate and Will Ladislaw. Birth and connections are also important in determining a person’s place, and also what benefits they will receive from society.

It gives us a complex, comprehensive and realistic picture of English provincial society in the 1830s. Middlemarch is a work of extraordinary power, full of subtle and accurate observation’ and gives if a melancholy, yet an undeniably truthful portraiture, of the impression mad society.
click here to  evaluate my assignment