To a Mouse by Robert Burns | Structure, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Robert Burns was a famous Scottish poet who mostly wrote in broad Scottish language. He is generally considered as the national poet of Scotland. One of his most famous poems is ‘To a Mouse,’ which is based on the themes of nature vs. humanity, loss, and the unpredictable nature of life. The poem's full title is "To a Mouse, on Turning Her Up in Her Nest with the Plough" and was published in November 1785.

The poem depicts a young man who accidentally overturns the soil of a mouse’s nest while plowing his field. The poem is addressed to a field mouse whose home is suddenly and unintentionally destroyed by the plow driven by the speaker, a young farmer. In the beginning, the speaker literally addresses the mouse but soon the mouse is used as a Symbol to represent the natural world, especially the elements of nature that are weak, innocent, or vulnerable to exploitation by humans. In addition, the mouse is also used as a Metaphor to express the plight of the society's weak, downtrodden, poor people. The speaker uses metaphor to compare the mouse's nest to a human house, referring to its "silly wa's" (walls) and even noting regretfully that the mouse is without a "house or hald." The mouse is a symbol for all those suffering in the world and can be linked to Burns’s experience of witnessing poor farmhands being turned out of their homes. In 1937, American author John Steinbeck published his popular novel Of Mice and Men whose title was taken from a line of this poem.

Structure of To a Mouse:

The poem is composed of eight stanzas with six lines in each stanza (sestests). Burns wrote this poem using a Double rhyming pattern (Feminine rhyme) with two unstressed two-syllable rhymes, one following the other. The poem follows a consistent rhyming scheme of AAABAB. The first four lines of each stanza are written in Iambic tetrameter while the concluding two lines contain iambic dimeter. The poet used Anthropomorphism in the poem giving human traits to the mouse. Imagery and Symbolism have been extensively used. The plow is a symbol of humanity's domination of nature, of the rule of the powerful over the powerless. The mouse's nest, easily and completely destroyed by the plow, represents "the best-laid schemes o' Mice and Men." The mouse is a symbol of the poor or powerless, downtrodden people of society. In addition, Burns also used Alliteration, Allusion, Aphormism, Antithesis Assonance, and Consonance.

Summary of To a Mouse:

Stanza 1

Wee, sleeket, cowran, tim’rous beastie,

O, what a panic’s in thy breastie!

Thou need na start awa sae hasty,

Wi’ bickerin brattle!

I wad be laith to rin an’ chase thee

Wi’ murd’ring pattle!

The speaker begins with a reassuring apology, addressing the mouse directly, using the child-like diminutives beastie and breastie while attempting to defuse its fears - O, what a panic’s- and telling it directly it is in no danger. Burns used Onomatopoeia (bickerin brattle) to suggest to the mouse that the trouble he caused is insignificant and temporary. The poet used Feminine rhyme to offer more gentleness to the situation. The poet says that he knows that the mouse is small and afraid of the presence of humans but the mouse is in no danger. The speaker says that the mouse should not fear him. It should not “start awa sae hasty,” or run away so quickly. He further says that he doesn’t wish to chase the mouse away or to kill him using a pattle, he is not like those of whom the mouse is afraid, he neither wishes to harm the mouse’s nest, nor wishes to chase it away or kill it.

Stanza 2

I’m truly sorry Man’s dominion

Has broken Nature’s social union,

An’ justifies that ill opinion,

Which makes thee startle,

At me, thy poor, earth-born companion,

An’ fellow-mortal!

In the next stanza, the speaker continues his polite apology but infuses political philosophy and acumen into it. The speaker is still addressing the mouse but he reflects on nature and the impact of human society on nature. Addressing the mouse, he says ‘I’m truly sorry’ for the human’s greedful dominion over nature. Humankind enjoys an unbalanced “dominion” over the world and has been unwilling to accept creatures that are not like them. The speaker clearly disapproves of the disruption of harmony in nature, caused here by himself, representing humanity. His careless destruction of the nest – showing man’s dominion over nature justifies the mouse’s fear of him. Humans are a disruption in the chains of nature, forcing creatures to act as they normally would not. The poet destroyed the nest of the little creature that, he knew was critical for the mouse’s survival during the winter. Thus, the speaker says that the mouse’s fear of humans is genuine. In the next two lines, the poet continues his gentle reassuring approach to addressing the mouse, calling it an “earth-born companion” and a “fellow-mortal.” They are one and the same, living at the same time on the same planet.

Stanza 3

I doubt na, whyles, but thou may thieve;

What then? poor beastie, thou maun live!

A daimen-icker in a thrave

’S a sma’ request:

I’ll get a blessin wi’ the lave,

An’ never miss ’t!

The speaker continues to apologize and reassure the mouse, requesting it not fear anymore. He assures that he does not begrudge the mouse a share of the harvest. Although the mouse does thieve from him, the speaker accepts that survival is more important than social rules about property. The strong monosyllables in ‘Thou maun live’ emphasize the absolute need for survival. Robert Burns made a point about ‘Redistribution of Wealth’ at this point. The fact that the mouse must steal food from humans does not bother the speaker. It is not the mouse’s fault that it has been degraded to this level. The mouse is only a “poor beastie” which “maun” or “must” live. The speaker says that the mouse often steals ‘daimen-icker’ or an ear of corn. When one steals one “daimen-icker” from a “thrave” or bundle of twenty-four, it is only a “sma’” or “small” thing. He will give the mouse his “blessin” through the food it steals.

Stanza 4:

Thy wee-bit housie, too, in ruin!

It’s silly wa’s the win’s are strewin!

An’ naething, now, to big a new ane,

O’ foggage green!

An’ bleak December’s winds ensuin,

Baith snell an’ keen!

In this stanza, the speaker reflects on the consequences his carelessness while using the plow will cause. He addresses the nest of the mouse as ‘housie’ that he has ruined. Now when the walls of the mouse’s nest, or “housie,” are fallen down, it does not have the materials to make a new one. It is not the right time of year to find the “green” it needs. Unfortunately, it is going to be December soon, the “winds [are] ensuin” or “ensuing.” Thus, the mouse has no option but to brave the winter without the security of its housie.

Stanza 5:

Thou saw the fields laid bare an’ waste,

An’ weary Winter comin fast,

An’ cozie here, beneath the blast,

Thou thought to dwell,

Till crash! the cruel coulter past

Out thro’ thy cell.

In this stanza, the speaker expresses his deep empathy towards the mouse. He says that he fully understands the mouse’s current situation who tried to shelter in a “field” where it could “cozie…beneath the blast.” The mouse chose the field to make its nest to avoid the harm of the sharp upcoming winter. It was here it “thought to dwell but then, “crash!” The wind came through and destroyed the home it had built. The poet used alliteration, assonance, and consonance while choosing the words ‘crash...cruel...coulter’ to express the harshness of the consequences of his action.

Stanza 6:

That wee-bit heap o’ leaves an’ stibble

Has cost thee monie a weary nibble!

Now thou’s turn’d out, for a’ thy trouble,

But house or hald,

To thole the Winter’s sleety dribble,

An’ cranreuch cauld!

In this stanza, the poet describes the ruined nest of the mouse that was so humble, and then, the speaker describes the ensuing difficulties the mouse will have to face. It was only a “wee-bit heap o’leaves an’ stibble,” or pieces of grass and hay. It was made from minimal materials but cost the mouse a lot. All of the work has gone to waste as the wind has “turn’d” the mouse out of its home. It now has to face the “Winter’s sweetly dribble” and “cranreuch” or frost. The poet used Masculine rhyme in the last two lines of this stanza while using the alliteration ‘cranreuch cauld’ to emphasize the misery of the mouse.

Stanza 7

But Mousie, thou art no thy-lane,

In proving foresight may be vain:

The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men

Gang aft agley,

An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,

For promis’d joy!

The speaker continues addressing the mouse while he draws a comparison between the mouse and men while indicating the uncertain future they both face. The speaker says that the best-laid schemes of ‘Mice an’ Men’ fail to give any security at all. Despite, the mouse’s hard work in building its housie, it is in ruins now and the mouse has to face the harsh frosty winter. Similarly, the best laid plans of cotters (Tenant farmers) often fail despite their hard work. Terrible weather, poor harvests, and ever-increasing rents, always imposed a danger of eviction of the tenant farmer from the field. Often one’s plans go awry, and “foresight” may often be in “vain” or pointless when one never knows what’s going to happen. John Steinbeck used this line to choose the title of his novel ‘Of Mice and Men.’

Stanza 8

Still, thou art blest, compar’d wi’ me!

The present only toucheth thee:

But Och! I backward cast my e’e,

On prospects drear!

An’ forward tho’ I canna see,

I guess an’ fear!

The speaker continues to compare the situation of the mouse and human beings though his stress is more over the dilemma of humans now, rather, the speaker says that the mouse is in a better position. The speaker anxiously considers his own, and therefore humanity’s view of past, present, and future and comments that the mouse is free of such worries. On the other hand, the speaker can “backward cast” his “e’e.” His prospects appear “dear” when basing them on what has happened to him previously. Then when he looks forward in time he “canna see” or cannot see the “fears” that may come for him. The poet ends the poem on this pessimistic note.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

The Goat, or Who is Sylvia by Edward Albee | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. The Goat, or Who is Sylvia is a three-act, full-length play by Edward Albee that he wrote in 2000 and it was first performed in 2002. The play won many awards and was one of the finalists for the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for Drama. It is a domestic tragicomedy play that explores and questions the limits of tolerance in a modern liberal society. The drama discusses a few transgressions considered taboo in society and explores how marriage and a family can survive when confronted with a once-unthinkable transgression that “shatters the glass” of their lives. The play raises many issues including, what should be accepted and what should be rejected as being within the confines of normalcy. Another issue that is raised in the play is about the value of truth, is Truth fundamentally an Objective good? Or, can a lie, hiding the truth, or keeping it a secret can be a better option?

Characters of The Goat, or Who is Sylvia?

Martin Gray is a 50-year-old successful architect who is married to an attractive wife and has a teenage son. He just won the most prestigious award in the field of architecture and has been hired to design a 200-billion-dollar city of the future. He is about to be interviewed by a popular TV host who happens to be his childhood friend. Stevie Gray is Martin’s beautiful wife. Though she normally bicker and fight with her husband, she is a dedicated and loving wife. They lead an otherwise happy married life except for the problems related to their teenage son Billy Gray who happens to be a homosexual. None of his parents approve of his sexual transgressions, yet they do not oppose it too, they are somewhat tolerant towards it. Ross Tuttle is a childhood friend of Martin and a successful TV program host. He often interviews the most successful people in society and this time, when his friend Martin won the prestigious award for architecture, he decided to interview him for his TV show. However, during the interview, he discovers a secret about Martin that he finds morally questionable. It is up to him either to keep it a secret or spill the beans and ruin Martin’s married life. Sylvia is a goat. She is one of the two loves of Martin Gray’s life. Sylvia is literally a goat who never appears on the stage and thus it can be taken as a metaphor, suggesting a transgression that Martin loves.

Summary of The Goat, or Who is Sylvia?

Scene 1)

The play begins as Martin and Stevie are sitting in their living room. They are waiting for Ross Tuttle, the famous TV show host who is a childhood friend of Martin. Martin is a successful architect who recently won a very prestigious architectural design award and has also been tapped to design a 200-billion-dollar city of the future called World City. Ross is the host of the popular TV show ‘People Who Matter,’ and now that Martin has attained such a prestigious award and business success, he certainly matters. Thus, Ross is going to visit their house to interview him.

Before Ross’s arrival, Stevie and Martin get into an argument and bickering. Though it is common for them, Stevie is appearing a bit concerned this time. She recently noticed an odd odor from her husband’s body and his business card and she jokes about him having an affair with a goat.

After a while, Stevie moves away to the kitchen and Ross Tuttle arrives right at that moment. The two old friends greet each other and then Ross begins interviewing him about his recent success and previous experiences. However, he finds that Martin is not concentrating on the interview. He feels that Martin is somewhat disturbed and thus, he stops the interview recording for a while and asks him if something is bothering him.

Martin tries to avoid the issue but finally, when he is convinced that it will be off the record, he confesses that recently he has fallen into an extramarital affair. Ross encourages him to reveal more about this and says that it is not very uncommon. Martin then says that his affair is a bit odd and maybe forbidden. He shows a picture of his new love to Ross and it turns out to be a disturbing taboo. The picture is of a goat whom Martin affectionately calls Sylvia.

Scene 2)

The second begins in the same living room the very next day. Martin and Stevie are sitting with their teenage boy Billy and the mood of the room is a bit tense. Stevie recently got a letter from Ross and when she read it, she came to know about Martin’s recent flinge. Ross mentioned all the details of Martin’s indiscretions in their entirety with Sylvia in that letter. Stevie is very upset about it and she fails to hide it from Billy. When Billy comes to know about his father’s sexual relationship with a goat, he gets outraged and violently accuses him of immorality. Stevie then reminds him that he too is no better and though they tolerate Billy’s homosexual tendencies, he doesn’t have a right to talk about the issue of Sylvia. Martin asks him to go out of the room and let him have some time with Stevie as he needs to explain some things. Billy feels profound emotional pain but agrees to go out.

Martin explains how he met the goat at a roadside vegetable stand and from the first sight, he fell in love with her. He says that he felt the truest feelings and absolute love for the goat and named her Sylvia. As Martin expresses his transgression as true love, Stevie feels immense anger and a wish to destroy everything beautiful present in the room. Martin feels her anger and pleads to her that he equally loves her too and that his love for Stevie and Sylvia is pure. Stevie insists that he cannot love Stevie now when Sylvia is in their life and that he has ruined her married life. In extreme anger, she leaves the room.

Scene 3)

After three hours, Billy returns to his house but finds that it has been demolished and what remains is a brutally demolished site. He sees Martin and asks where is his mother. Martin says that he doesn’t know where she is, the only thing he knows is that she has determined to destroy him completely. Billy feels emotional at this time and Martin comes near him and hugs him in a parental gesture showing affection and protection. However, Billy feels something different in his grasp and soon the father and son begin passionately kissing each other. At the same time, Ross arrives at the scene and sees Martin lustfully kissing his own son. He reprimands him and accuses him of the basest perversions. Ross says that Martin is a danger to society as he is doing everything against nature and all things normal in the world. Martin tries to defend himself and says that love and sex are not always so clearly defined and desire can very often find a way to disturb the expected course of relationships. He then takes the opportunity to remind Ross of the ethical vacuum existing in writing a letter to another man’s wife discussing private admissions spoken within the expectation of privacy and confidence. He says that had Ross kept his secret, his home and married life might have been saved.

Stevie returns at the same moment but she is not alone. She brings Sylvia with her. Martin is devastated after seeing Sylvia because she is no longer alive. Stevie brutally killed the goat and brought Sylvia’s bloody carcass to show it to Martin. Martin is in deep pain but rather than confronting the woman who murdered the love of his life, he goes down on his knees and pleads for forgiveness from his family. Stevie is still furious. Billy sees his parents in such devastating condition and he feels devasted and ruined. He cries Mom, and Dad as if pleading the things to go back to normal. The play ends at this point.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

Who is Afraid of Virginia Woolf? By Edward Albee | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf? Is a Three Act dark comedy play by Edward Albee that was first performed in October 1962 during the heights of the Cold War. The play is one of the most successful plays belonging to the Theatre of the Absurd and it suggests the imprints of the Cold War and the Berlin Wall built between East Germany and West Germany during that time. However, it is not a political play, rather it tells the story of a dysfunctional and self-destructive marriage between a history professor and his wife during a course of a night at their home on the campus of a small college in New England. At one instance, while arguing against his wife, the history professor shouts "I will not give up Berlin!"

The play investigates the themes of Reality and the importance of illusions in life. The two married couples discussed in the play rely upon their illusions for the success of their married life and as soon as they dare to face reality, they find their marriage is going into shambles. In addition, the play also criticizes the American dream of perfect life.

Despite its title, the play has nothing to do with the late celebrated English novelist Virginia Woolf. Rather it is a pun on Walt Disney’s song ‘Who is Afraid of Big Bad Woolf.’ The title actually means ‘Who is Afraid to Live without Illusions?’ Another theme of the play is the contradiction of love and hate. The married couple love each other but they do feel intense hate against each other too.

Characters of Who is Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Martha is the fifty-two-year-old wife of a college history professor. Her father is the president of that college situated in New Carthage, a town in New England. As a teenager, she fell in love with a low-income earning Gardner and married him against her father’s permission. Though her marriage was consummated, her father succeeded in annulling that marriage, and later on, Martha married George, believing he had the potential to become the head of the history department and eventually to replace her father as president of the university. Despite her father’s efforts, George failed to attain that high position. This frustrated Martha but she always tried to hide her frustration. As time passes away, she becomes bitter and flirts with other faculty members of the college. George is her forty-six-year-old husband and a professor of History who failed to become the head of the department. There are rumors that as a teenager he may have accidentally shot his mother and accidentally killed his father in a car crash. However, it appears as if it is just a fictitious story created by George himself. He knows his marriage is a failure, but he tries to ignore the problems within his married life. As a couple, Martha and George fail to become parents but they assume that they have an imaginary son. Nick is a 30-year-old professor of Biology who is very popular at the college. He got his Masters degree at the very young age of twenty and it is believed that he will soon become the head of the department of Biology. He appears smart and sexy and there are rumours that he often succeeds in sleeping with the wives of other faculty members. However, when he attempts to sleep with Martha, he proves impotent. Honey is Nick’s frail, beautiful wife who belongs to a rich family. She often appears sad and frustrated and she tries to hide her sorrows in alcohol. She faced a teenage pregnancy that failed. Nick married her after her abortion. Honey shares her fears of the pain of childbirth and of getting pregnant and tells him that she and Nick failed to have a child because she takes birth control pills to avoid becoming a mother. Later on, it is revealed that all this is an illusion that she created just to hide from the impotence of Nick.

Summary of Who is Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

It is a three-act play and the first act is titled Fun and Games. The play begins as George and Martha return home after a late-night University faculty party held at Martha’s father’s home. Martha’s father is the president of the college while George is a professor of History at the same college. It is early morning and both George and Martha are a bit drunk. George says that they may take a final drink before going to bed. But Martha reminds him that they are expected to attend some visitors pretty soon. Nick, a biology professor who is new to the university, and Honey, his wife whom Martha describes as a mousy woman without any hips have planned to visit them. George is not happy about their visit but Martha’s father insists him that they must entertain the visitors. George says that they must not talk about their son in front of the visitors. Martha begins singing ‘Who is Afraid of Virginia Woolf to the tune of “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf,” which she seems to have invented at the party and laughs hysterically at it. The doorbell rings at the same time and George opens the door. This startles Martha and she abuses him. Seeing their drunken situation, Nick and his wife Honey feel that they visited them at the wrong time. However, Martha soon manages the situation and welcomes them in. Nick expresses his gratitude for the president’s parties in helping him grow acquainted with the college. Martha and Honey excuse themselves to go to the restroom. George provokes Nick and then tells him about the campus practice of “musical beds”—of sleeping with other professor’s wives. Nick is not very keen to continue the topic and tries to belittle the young professor. He bitterly says that he may soon become the head of the Maths department. Nick informs him that he is not a professor of Mathematics, rather he has joined the department of Biology, and his particular research topic is genetics.

Honey returns to the room and says that she didn't know George and Martha had a son. George is distressed by this and gets furious with Martha. Martha follows her and Nick notices that she has changed to a seductive outfit. She begins telling Nick and Honey about the circumstances of her marriage with George and says that their son’s twenty-first birthday is the very next day. After taking a drink, Honey grows bolder and asks George and Martha when their son will be coming home. Soon, Nick expresses doubt that George may not be the biological father of Martha’s son. Martha reveals that she was pregnant before her marriage to George. Honey says that she is afraid of getting pregnant and that is why she takes anti-pregnancy pills to avoid having a baby. Soon she feels that she is getting sick and goes to the bathroom.

Martha continues to flirt with Nick while belittling George and tells about how she punched George when he refused to join in a boxing match with her father. George grows fed up and leaves the room. Nick couldn’t take anymore and he went away. He soon returns with a rifle and shoots at Martha, but it is a false shot and a parasol hits Martha which lightens the mood. George now continues to talk about his son and begins arguing which one of them has been the worse influence on the boy, and Martha proceeds with her tact of humiliation by telling Nick and Honey how George is a flop who failed to take over the History Department, as she'd anticipated when they got married. As she continues shouting at George, he goes to the bathroom, drags Honey back into the room, and dances around with her while singing ‘Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf.’

Act 2 is titled "Walpurgisnacht." Martha goes to the kitchen to make some coffee and Nick reveals to George that he married Honey because she was pregnant with what ended up being a hysterical pregnancy. The added bonus is that she is rich as her evangelist father left a fortune. He half-jokingly confides his plan to rise to power at the college by sleeping with the wives of important faculty members. Nick comments about getting Martha in a corner and ‘mounting’ her. George shares an anecdote of a boy, whom he says he knew in prep school, who ordered "Bergin" at a gin joint with his friends. This boy had accidentally killed his mother with a shotgun, and a year later, with his learner's permit in his pocket, he crashed into a tree and killed his father.

Soon Martha and Honey return to the room. While Honey again begins feeling sick, Martha becomes more emboldened and openly flirts with Nick. Honey suggests that they may play a game of ‘Interpretive Dance.’ Martha is excited about that and desires to dance with Nick lasciviously. Nick gets furious and shouts that the ‘Bergin’ boy who accidentally killed his mother and father was he and berates about his failed attempt to publish a novel on that story. Martha says that his father stopped George from publishing such a preposterous story. George gets furious and attacks and tries to strangulate Martha but Nick intervenes and separates them.

George says that they must change the game. He says that they have played ‘Humiliate the Host’ and ‘Hump the Hostess’ may be played later, but now they must play ‘Get the Guests.’ He then tells a story about a girl named Mousie who puffed up and whose puff went "poof." Honey interprets that the story is about her. She feels sick again and runs back to the bathroom.

Martha continues to flirt with Nick but notices that George is now ignoring her and she feels frustrated about it. Nick begins to kiss and grope her on the couch while Martha begins getting annoyed that George is not intervening. Nick then drags her to the bedroom and while they move, they hit the doorbell chimes on the way. Honey listens to the sound of bells and returns back to the room. She tells George that she is terrified of getting pregnant and thus, she takes anti-pregnancy pills to avoid having a child. She continues talking about the sound of the doorbell that she heard. This offers George an idea of a new trick to torture Martha. Honey goes back to the bathroom.

Act Three is titled ‘The Exorcism’. Martha returns to the room and finds that both Honey and George are missing. She is drunk and confused. She begins crying and says how much she adores George. She says that she and George cry all the time, then freeze their tears into ice cubes for their drinks. Nick comes back too and wonders what is happening. Martha says that Nick is impotent, he cannot get an erection. She further says that no one but only George can satisfy her. She tells Nick not to believe appearances and praises George's ability to learn the games as quickly as she can change the rules. Nick wonders what games she is talking about. Martha continues to chide Nick and calls him a gigolo and a houseboy. The doorbell rings and Martha orders the houseboy to attend the door. Nick gets furious at this but opens the door. He finds George at the door who came back with a bouquet of flowers. He pretends to be a Western Union man and acts as if he's mistaken Nick for his and Martha's son. Nick gets fed up and calls them vicious, and George and Martha join together in deriding them.

George and Martha again begin arguing over trivial issues. George throws the bouquet on the floor and shouts that his marriage with Martha is a failure. He then goes to the bathroom and brings Honey back to the room. He says that now they will play one last game named ‘Bringing up the Baby’ till death. Honey is very drunk by now and she still holds a bottle of brandy in her hands. She says that she wishes to play ‘Peel the Label.’ George tells her they are playing the same. Then George tells about how Martha’s dominating presence scared their son and he ran away from the home. Martha counters this with her own story of how idealized her childhood was. Honey gets frustrated while listening to all this and begins crying. She reveals that she desperately wishes to be a mother and suggests that Nick is impotent. Martha blames George for bringing their son into the discussion and George shouts at her that he told her not to mention their son. Honey pleads with them to stop fighting. George calms down and deliberately says that he recently got a telegram informing him about the death of their son. He informs that Martha’s son was driving on a country road, swerved to avoid a porcupine, and crashed into a tree. The story exactly matches with the Bergin story that he told before. Martha gets furious and shouts that George has no right to do this and he shouldn’t devise the death of their son. She demands to see the telegram announcing this news, and George says that he has eaten it.

By now, Nick understands that the son is imaginary. He asks George and he confirms this. George informs that they cannot have a baby because Martha cannot become a mother. He then suggests that Nick and Honey should go back to their home. After Nick and Honey are gone, Martha painfully complains that George shouldn’t have killed their imaginary son. George assures Martha that things will be better. Martha requests him to have another baby but George sternly says no to this. He then begins singing ‘Who is Afraid of Virginia Woolf’ which acts as a lullaby to Martha and she sleeps after saying ‘I am.’ The play ends as George tenderly puts Martha into the bed.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

The American Dream by Edward Albee | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. The American Dream is an absurdist play by Edward Albee that was premiered in 1961. It is a satirical play that criticizes the cliche idea of the American Dream and the nuclear family system in America during that period. It is a story of a dysfunctional household that satirizes the suburban family life of America and is thoroughly staged in the apartment of a married couple. The play is a scathing commentary on the fragility of the American Dream and the emptiness that can lurk beneath its surface. The play suggests the emptiness of contemporary moral values and conformity in the general populace while highlighting the societal norms and exploring themes of identity, disillusionment, and the elusive pursuit of happiness.

Characters of The American Dream:

Grandma is an old woman who is the commentator of the play. She is Mommy’s mother. She is sardonic and witty in her observations and comments. She isn’t directly involved in the action and often remains isolated from what is happening in the room as she feigns deafness and senility, though she keenly observes everything. Mommy is the main character. She is a dominating matriarchical woman with a sadistic streak and excessive interest in maintaining discipline. She continues to scorn and ridicule her husband and Grandma. Daddy is Mommy’s pitiful and weak husband who succumbs to her sadistic nature and relies on her to validate his masculinity and searches for punishment, becoming masochistic and infantile. Mrs. Barker is the chairman of a local women’s club and a volunteer for the adoption agency from which Mommy and Daddy adopted a kid. She helped Mommy and Daddy to adopt the child. When she arrives at their flat, Mommy and Daddy fail to recognize her. However, Grandma reminds them that she is the one who delivered the ‘bumble of joy’ to Mommy and Daddy. The Young Man is an archetypal American young man whom Grandma sarcastically calls ‘The American Dream.’ She suggests that the Young Man is the twin of Mommy and Daddy's adopted child, and was rendered unfeeling and incapable of desire because of his twin's mutilation. As such, he is beautiful on the outside but empty within. He serves as a representation of the eponymous 'American Dream'. In the end, he takes the place of the mutilated twin.

Summary of The American Dream:

It is an absurdist play as is clear by the absence of proper names for the main characters. The conversations and actions of the character often appear to be absurd. However, the play itself offers a deep satirical critique of the dilapidating condition of American social life during that era.

The play begins in the living room of the apartment of Mommy and Daddy, a middle-aged married couple. They are sitting in armchairs on either side of their living room. It appears that they are waiting for some visitors as they complain that the visitors are late. Daddy says that years ago when they signed the agreement to lease their apartment, ‘they,’ the visitors were very keen and prompt to collect their money. However, now when Mommy and Daddy are their tenant, ‘they’ do not heed their complaints, not help them in mending the icebox or the doorbell, or the toilet. Mommy is angry and says that people can get away with anything these days. Daddy says he doesn’t want the toilet fixed for his sake but for Grandma’s. Mommy sadly says that Grandma cries lately every time she goes to the bathroom because the worsening leak makes her “think she’s getting feeble-headed.” Daddy reiterates that they must have the leak fixed soon. Mommy, exasperated, wonders aloud why “they” are so late.

Mommy tells about how happy she was when she bought her new beige hat. She notices that Daddy is not listening to her carefully and thus she reprimands him him to pay attention to her and listen to her story, and he swears he’s “all ears.” She again tells him that she was very happy after buying the new beige hat until meeting the chairwoman of her women's club, who insisted her hat was wheat. Mommy returned to the store and made a scene until given a new hat. She says that she was satisfied with the replacement hat.

Grandma enters the room with many neatly wrapped boxes and dumps them on the foot of Daddy and complains that the old cannot talk with anyone because they snap at them. They go deaf to avoid people talking to them in that way; ultimately, the way people talk to them causes their death. Mommy recalls that Grandma has always wrapped boxes nicely. When she was a child and poor, Grandma used to wrap her a lunchbox every day for school, and Mommy would never have the heart to rip into it. Grandma always filled it the night before with her own un-eaten dinner. After school, Mommy would bring back her lunch for Grandma to eat. She remembers the old days when she and Grandma were poor but they loved each other. Mommy became rich after marrying Daddy and she believes she is entitled to use Daddy’s money in exchange for letting him have sex with her. Grandma comments that Mommy had been an opportunist tramp since childhood. Even when she was a girl, she schemed to marry a rich man.

It appears that Grandma is planning to go away as she has packed all her previous things. She eagerly waits for the van boy to take her.

The doorbell rings and the couple thinks that ‘they’, the ‘van people’ have arrived to fix their house. However, no one is willing to get up and open the door. Mommy says that they must decide whether to open the door or not. Daddy gets up and opens the door. "WHAT a masculine daddy! Isn't he a masculine Daddy?" Mommy jeers.

Mrs. Barker enters the living room and Daddy invites her to sit.
Grandma tries to speak up and say something, but Mommy urges her to be quiet, and tells Mrs. Barker to ignore Grandma because she is “rural.” Daddy suggests Mommy let Grandma speak up, but Mommy says that “old people have nothing to say,” and even if they did, no one would listen. Grandma retorts that middle-aged people like Mommy and Daddy think they can do anything—but in reality, they can’t do anything as well as they used to.

Mommy offers a cigarette to Mrs. Barker and goes away to fetch a drink for her. Mrs. Barker appears perplexed and asks Grandma to explain why she visited their apartment. Grandma reminds her of the past and says that twenty years ago, a couple like Mommy and Daddy lived in an apartment quite like their apartment with an old woman very similar to Grandma. The only difference was that “they were all somewhat younger." They contacted an adoption agent, akin to Mrs. Barker, at an adoption agency very similar to Mrs. Barker’s Bye-Bye Adoption Service, and were overjoyed to receive their "bumble of joy."

However, things were not easy after the couple adopted the kid. They were worried that the kid did not like either of his parents. He would often cry and Mommy always noticed that he liked Daddy more and this often made her angry. Mrs. Barker says that in such a case, any self-respecting woman would have gouged those eyes right out of its head. Grandma tells them that the mommy actually did so, but then the baby “kept its nose up in the air” and even worse, "began to develop an interest in its you-know-what." Mrs. Barker replies that in such a case the parents should have cut off the baby’s hands; Grandma tells her that they first cut off its you-know-what. The adamant child, however, still put its hand under the covers, looking for its you-know-what, so the parents had to cut off its hands at the wrists as well. Similarly, its tongue had to be cut off as it had called its mommy dirty names one day. Eventually, the resentful bumble died; its parents, looking for satisfaction, called the adoption agent to their apartment to demand a refund. Mrs. Barker is still confused. Mommy fails to find any water for Mrs. Barker and shouts at Grandma for hiding things and being a troublemaker. Mrs. Barker tells Mommy she’s not being very polite to Grandma, but Mommy reminds Mrs. Barker that she’s a guest, and stalks off into the kitchen. After a moment alone with Grandma, Mrs. Barker tells Grandma it’s been nice talking with her and stands up to go into the kitchen. Grandma asks Mrs. Barker not to tell Mommy about the grotesque story she has told her. Mrs. Barker assures that she won’t say a thing.

The doorbell rings again and a Young Man appears in the living room. He appears smart and good looking and Grandma is delighted by seeing him. She says that he appears familiar. The young man says that he is looking for a job, and would do almost anything for money, and the apartment looked like a "likely building" to him. Grandma asks why he is ready to do any work for money, and he replies that he must compensate for his incompleteness. Grandma asks what that means, and the Young Man tells her that his mother died at childbirth, and he never knew his father. At birth, he came to know that he was not alone in the placenta, and had an identical twin, from whom he was separated while still very young. The Young Man recalls the close bond he shared with his twin brother: their hearts beat at the same cadence, and their stomachs ached at the same time as they cried for feeding. After the separation, he has suffered countless unexplainable losses. He feels like his heart has been wrenched from his body, and he has become unable to love; a "specific agony" has made him incapable of physical lovemaking, and he has been unable to feel and touch as if his own hands have been removed.

Grandma feels pity for him and murmurs that she was wrong, she never knew the Young Man. Although she says that he appears like someone she knew. Mrs. Barker comes back and, Grandma announces the Young Man as the van man. Upon her request, the Young Man takes her boxes outside. Grandma tells Mrs. Barker a trick to make things better and suggests that the Young Man is the solution to Mommy and Daddy’s problem. Mrs. Barker goes back to discuss with Mommy and Daddy.

The Young Man returns after shifting all the boxes outside. Grandma feels sad and wonders why is she taking all the things that she collected over the years with her. The Young Man and Grandma get on the elevator. Grandma assures the Young Man that everything will be explained to him.

Mommy, Daddy, and Mrs. Barker return to the living room and it appears as if the solution suggested by Grandma is accepted. Mommy and Daddy say that they have found satisfaction with that solution. Mommy notices that Grandma is missing. Mrs. Barker informs that Grandma went away with the van boy. Mommy is shocked at that and says that it is impossible because the van boy is not a real person but her imaginative invention. While Daddy comforts Mommy, Grandma comes out near the footlights on the stage, visible only to the audience, looking forward to watching the ensuing events. She then blinks at Mrs. Barker who moves and opens the front door. The Young Man is standing there. Mrs. Barker announces that the Young Man is the replacement for the faulty Bumble. Mommy and Daddy are excited about that. Mommy feels the same satisfaction that she felt after getting the replacement hat and declares a celebration. Everything is happy as they get what they are looking for. Grandma says that she should go now as she has solved the problem and the play ends.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

The Zoo Story by Edward Albee | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Edward Albee was an American playwright known for his Absurdist dramas. He won Pulitzer prizes for three of his dramas; A Delicate Balance (1967), Seascape (1975), and Three Tall Women (1994). He also won two Tony Awards for his plays 'Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf' (1967) and ‘The Goat, Or Who is Sylvia?’ (2003).

The Zoo Story was his first play that he wrote in 1958 and it was performed in 1959. The play can be understood as a criticism of the American Dream. The American Dream is a belief that any person can become successful in American society regardless of the wealth or economic status they were born into. People in America can always rise to the top of society through hard work and sacrifice and by taking risks rather than just pure chance. Freedom and equality are essential components of the American Dream. Just like Arthur Miller’s ‘The Death of a Salesman’, Albee’s ‘The Zoo Story’ is a strong rebuttal of the American Dream which explores the themes of isolation, loneliness, miscommunication as anathematization, social disparity, and dehumanization in a materialistic world. In addition, the play also highlights the controversy regarding the rights of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer community in America during the 20^th century.

Characters of The Zoo Story:

The Zoo Story is a one-act play that includes only two appearing characters. Peter is a publishing executive and family man in his early forties, Peter is reading in Central Park when he is interrupted by a stranger. Their conversation, which eventually escalates into violence, is the centerpiece of The Zoo Story. Peter embodies convention and propriety and seems to have achieved the American Dream. Jerry eccentric transient in his late thirties, Jerry lives in poverty on the Upper West Side and is profoundly lonely. He lost his parents when he was too young and his only romantic relationship was with a boy of the same age when he was a teenager. This loneliness drives him to seek companionship from strangers; that companionship is ostensibly what he seeks from Peter. Jerry is contemplative and critical of society, and he is eager to share his opinions about life, love, and isolation with Peter.

Summary of The Zoo Story:

It is a One-Act play that takes place on a Sunday afternoon in Central Park of New York City. Peter is an upper-middle-class family man and publishing executive in his mid-forties. He is reading a book quietly on a park bench, as he does every Sunday. He is interrupted by Jerry, a sloppily dressed transient in his late thirties who approaches him and announces that he is coming from the Central Park Zoo. Peter doesn’t know him and despite Peter’s apparent reluctance to chat, Jerry insists on striking up a conversation. Peter doesn’t understand why this stranger has chosen to talk to him, but after trying unsuccessfully to return to his book, he begins to engage. Jerry is lonely and desperate for a connection with another person. Jerry quickly becomes an annoyance, with his boisterous personality and his disruption of Peter’s quiet time. He rambles on, telling Peter that smoking will cause him cancer and suggests that having cats rather than dogs is a sign of being effeminate. Jy continues to bring up the zoo repeatedly, suggesting that something mysterious happened at the zoo.

Peter is still sitting on the bench while Jje is still standing nearby. Jerry predicts that Peter is not satisfied with his personal life. He says that Peter wishes to have sons and dogs. Peter isn’t comfortable with such personal talks with a stranger and when Jerry notices it, he apologizes. Jerry says that he doesn’t talk to a lot of people, but that when he does he likes to “get to know somebody, know all about him.” Jerry continues to ask Peter questions about his life, his job, and his interests. Peter tells Jerry that he works in textbook publishing and lives in a nice apartment on the Upper East Side. Jerry tells Peter that he traveled all over New York City to approach the zoo from the right direction—because “sometimes a person has to go a very long distance out of his way to come back a short distance correctly.” Peter too begins guessing about Jerry and says that he might be living in Greenwich Village. Jerry retorts and says that his guess is wrong. Jerry tells him about his miserable apartment in a flophouse on the Upper West Side. He describes his unsavory neighbors and the junk that comprises his possessions – including two empty picture frames. When Peter asks about the picture frames, Jerry explains that he is alone in life. His parents died when he was young, and his only significant romantic relationship was a short liaison he had with another boy when he was a teenager.

Jerry again begins telling Peter about his trip to the zoo but is sidetracked into telling Peter about his landlady, a drunken woman who constantly propositions him. He says that the landlady drinks too much and often comes on to him. Peter is disgusted and comments that it is “hard to believe that people such as that really are.” Jerry tells him that the landlady recently got a dog. Jerry tried to befriend it, but the dog responded only by attacking him. After repeated and repudiated attempts at friendship, Jerry decided to murder the dog by feeding it a poisoned hamburger patty. Although this sickened the dog, it eventually recovered and began to simply leave him alone.

Peter is shocked by these revelations and wonders why Jerry is telling him all this. Jerry tells him that he uses people’s pets as a way to try to start friendships with other people. Peter tries to leave and says he didn’t comprehend his story about the dog. Jerry accuses Peter of lying, insisting that he must understand because Jerry explained everything as clearly as he could. Peter says that he didn’t mean to offend and begins to get up from the bench and leave. However, Jerry resists him and begins to tickle him. Peter is shocked at this physical touch and falls into hysterics, laughing and saying that he must leave as his “parakeets will be getting dinner ready… the cats are setting the table.” Peter sits back and calms down. Jerry says that he went to the zoo to understand how animals and people live calmly in the zoo. He further says that he was disappointed by noticing that all these animals remain separated by bars from everyone else. He then pokes at Peter’s arm and tells him to move aside on the bench so that he may also sit.

Jerry keeps punching Peter and ordering him to “MOVE OVER!,” even when Peter is crowded on one end of the bench. Peter gets angry and, as Jerry gets more violent, begins to yell for the police. Jerry mocks Peter, calling him a “vegetable.” Peter is aware that Jerry’s conduct is irrational, but for some reason finds himself feeling possessive of the bench that was “his” before Jerry arrived. Jerry pulls out a knife and says that the two of them should fight. Peter is surprised by this and refuses. Jerry then gives the knife to Peter who holds it as if protecting himself. Upon seeing this Jerry runs at Peter and into the knife. Jerry loses control at this point but then becomes calm and he accepts that death is upon him. He thanks Peter and as his life leaves him, he wipes Peter’s fingerprints off the knife handle so that Peter will not be accused of his murder. Before anyone might pass by and see the dying Jerry, Peter retrieves his book and leaves.

Jerry’s death may appear as a sudden accident but it is foreshadowed throughout the play and is the logical result of his personality and behavior. In telling Peter his life story, Jerry reveals that he is poor, socially isolated, and haunted by a traumatic past — three factors that, then as now, put individuals at risk for suicide. He also demonstrates rapid mood swings and a high level of impulsiveness. These qualities are evident most prominently in the dog story, in which Jerry rapidly shifts from liking the dog to wanting to murder it, but they manifest throughout the story, including when he insists that Peter fight him for space on the bench.

There are a variety of possible explanations for Jerry’s choice to involve Peter in his suicide. Social isolation and alienation are the dominant forces of Jerry's life, they might be his prime motivation for wanting to die. And yet, even so, it is interesting that he feels compelled to involve someone else in the act. Certainly, this inclusion could be the result of an unconscious desire, one that he might not have the strength to carry through himself. Jerry’s behavior may appear absurd but it seems far more deliberate than an unconscious impulse would explain, as if he planned his own murder while affirming that Peter remains free of any accusation. While guessing that Peter too isn’t satisfied with his life, Jerry suggests that the American dream isn’t proving true to Peter either, however, Jerry himself is the poster boy of the failure of the American dream.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

Fire on the Mountain by Anita Desai | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Fire on the Mountain is a women-centric novel by Anita Desai that was published in 1977. This novel is considered one of the best works by Anta Desai that is based upon the themes of loneliness and aging while highlighting the issues related to oppressive patriarchy, gender inequalities, and the importance of taking out social responsibilities. The characters of the novel symbolize the alienation of women under patriarchy and of postcolonial identity in India. In addition, the novel also discusses the perils of motherhood and suggests that motherhood isn’t always a naturally acceptable situation rather it can be something that can be problematic.

Characters of Fire on the Mountain:

Nanda Kaul is an aged, reclusive widow. She is a proud and stern woman who doesn’t like to exhibit her feelings. Her husband was the vice chancellor of Punjab University. He was a reputed, influential but selfish person who never loved his wife. He had an affair with a co-worker, Miss David, a mathematics teacher. Though her husband didn’t love her, he had many children with her and she often found herself solely responsible for caring for her kids. Ila Das is a friend of Nanda Kaul. She has a shrill and loud voice as well as a club foot, which makes her a subject of laughter and jibes wherever she goes. She had been raised in grandeur but was left poverty-stricken after her brothers squandered their family money and died. She is a hard-working welfare officer in a village in Kasauli. Ram Lal is the cook servant of Nanda. Preet Singh is a local man who tries to marry his under-age seven-year-old daughter to an old man and when Ila Das opposes and aborts the marriage, he kills her. Asha is one of Nanda’s daughters. She is a beautiful woman who ruined her life in frivolity and glamour. Tara is Asha’s daughter who was married to a cruel and sadistic man named Rakesh. Rakesh is a reputed diplomat but he is an alcoholic and abusive. Tara is a depressed and anxious woman due to her abusive and philandering husband, and she suffers numerous mental breakdowns. Raka is Tara and Rakesh’s daughter and Nanda's great-granddaughter, Asha decides to leave Raka to live with Nanda after her parents, an abusive father and oppressed mother, move to Geneva while Raka is recovering from typhoid. The Priest of the village is a wicked man who instigates the village people against Ila Das.

Summary of Fire on the Mountain:

The novel is divided into three parts. Nanda Kaul is living a reclusive life in a village in the hilly area of Kasauli. After her husband’s death and the marriage of her children, she is living a lonely life and lets no one intrude on her isolated life. She had spent many years caring for her husband, their children, and many grandchildren. She has become a recluse and stays secluded from everyone including a great-grandchild. Her relationship with her husband was an unhappy one. She led her life as he wanted her to live out of a sense of duty. Her life as a Vice Chancellor’s wife though crowded and full of social activity was meaningless and unsatisfying. Her husband had an extra-marital affair and he never cared for her. Although her busy schedule lacked warmth and understanding, she carried on because of her obligations to her husband and children. Once she discharged her duties she does not want any disturbances. Emotional deprivation is at the root of Nanda Kaul’s disillusionment with human bonds. Her husband did not love her as a wife and treated her as some decorative and useful instrument needed for the efficient running of his household. She enjoyed the comforts and social status of the wife of a dignitary but deep down she felt lonely and neglected. Nanda believes every attachment to be the preface of a new betrayal and all socialization is fake. She lives a lonely life in her clean and spare house on a hilltop in Kasauli.

One day, she notices a postman coming towards her house and she gets annoyed by this. The postman brings a letter for Nanda from Asha, her frivolous and self-centered daughter, who is asking her to keep Raka, Nanda Kaul's great-granddaughter, for some time. Raka has just recovered from typhoid but her depressed mother, Tara, is going to Geneva to try to work things out with her cruel and abusive husband, a diplomat. Raka needs to recover outside of the heat and humidity of Bombay; otherwise, Asha would take her herself. Thus, Raka will be sent to Nanda Kaul. Nanda isn’t happy about this as she believes this will ruin the tranquility of her current life. However, she is worried about Tara as she had been a wife to a stern husband and had spent her life taking care of little children.

When Raka arrives at Kasauli, Nanda realizes the little girl is as reclusive as her. Raka lives in her own type of seclusion as she retreats into a world of inner fantasy where she creates adventures of chasing snakes, animals, and ghosts in the peaceful hills that surround her and her great-grandmother. Nanda feels that the two of them have things in common but that a major difference exists as well. Nanda has chosen to be a recluse while the young girl appears to be sad and reclusive because of the violent relationship between her parents. Gradually Nanda begins trying to be a part of the child’s life and wants to share her world with her. Her attempts, however, appear to be in vain. Ram Lal and Nanda devote themselves to the proper care of Raka. Ram Lal suggests that Raka should have an ayah to bathe her and take her to the club to play with other children. When Nanda asks her if she would like to go to the club, Raka refuses. Nanda asks her why she doesn’t wish to go to the club to which Raka replies that Nanda doesn't go either. Surprised and pleased, Nanda Kaul bursts out that Raka is exactly like she is. Raka is loath to hear this, and both are embarrassed.

Nanda decides to try harder to win the trust and emotions of Raka. She tells Raka of her childhood in Kashmir and describes the lakes, forests, orchards with great fruit trees, and the animals her father would keep. Raka cannot understand why her great-grandmother has become so talkative and wants to get away from her. When Nanda Kaul stops, both are slightly angry at the growing attachment and change of routine. When Raka returns from her expeditions, Nanda Kaul tries to interest her by telling her tales about the animals she had kept. The stories that Nanda conjures serve to pique the interest of the young girl and a connection between the two begins to develop. Nanda continues to talk of the idyllic place in which she was born and offers stories about Kashmir that are significantly embellished with unusual tales of a house that has a private zoo and a back that leads to flooded rivers. As the child, Raka, listens, she begins to wonder about the accuracy of the stories. She asks why Nanda would have left such a wonderful place and why she does not return there. As she realizes the trick the old woman has been playing, she begins to slip back into her private world.

Nanda notices that Raka prefers spending her afternoons in the wild and begins to miss her. She realizes that Raka likes nature more than she likes her neat and clean house; even if Nanda attempts to fill the house with things to interest Raka, she will not stay.

One day, Nanda receives a call from Ila Das, her childhood friend, who asks to meet Raka. Nanda is annoyed by this, but she agrees as she thinks that Ila Das may change the mood of Raka and invites her for tea. Ila Das gets late for the tea which irks Nanda but then she notices her coming towards her house followed by a group of schoolboys teasing her for her attire and voice. They knock her umbrella to the edge of the road, where she is rescued by Ram Lal who makes the boys run away. Nanda greets Ila Das and takes her to the verandah where she meets Raka. Ila greets and kisses a hesitant Raka. The kiss irks Nanda Kaul and makes her smug at the same time, and they conduct the tea party. Ila Das begins to describe their old days, and Raka is weary with their talk. Raka was uncomfortable and out of place. Ila Das mentions Nanda Kaul's house and the comfort she felt there. When she mentions playing badminton with Nanda Kaul’s husband and Miss David, a teacher, she falls silent suddenly. Nanda cracks her knuckles. She asks Raka to fetch Ram Lal to clear the teacups and muses about how well she knows Ila Das. Ila Das had once belonged to a rich family whose fortune was squandered by her brothers till there was nothing left for the two sisters. They had to divide every morsel until Nanda Kaul arranged for a job for Ila Das at the university. Ila reveals that she is finding it difficult to make ends meet but says she is much better off than the villagers who starve if the harvest goes bad and, due to a superstitious and misogynistic priest, does not visit the health clinic. She is also frustrated by the inability to make headway against child marriages. Nanda feels that she should invite Ila to live with her but is reluctant. Ila is rejuvenated after meeting Nanda and Raka and prepares to leave.

In high spirits, Ila decided to walk through the bazaar before heading home. Raka grabs a packet of matches from the kitchen and climbs down to the ravine. Ila Das leaves and Nanda Kaul feels like protecting Ila from any harm that might come to her, as is her natural instinct. Night fell as Ila Das walked home, and she was attacked and murdered by Preet Singh, who was mad at her for trying to dissuade him from marrying off his young daughter. Nanda Kaul received a phone call from the police shortly after asking her to identify the body, and the news shocked her. Nanda Kaul was overcome with despair and the realization that her whole life, everything she told herself about her motivations and her entire constructed sense of self was fabricated as a means to get through life. As this crisis or epiphany takes place, Raka tapped at the window saying “Look, Nani, I have set the forest on fire.” The novel ends as Nanda observes the black smoke engulfing the mountain.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of Indian English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

Where Shall We Go This Summer? by Anita Desai | Characters, Summary, Analysis

‘Where Shall We Go This Summer?’ is the fourth novel by Anita Desai that was published in 1975. It is considered to be the shortest existentialist novel. Anita Desai is a diaspora writer from India. She has been thrice short-listed for the Booker Prize for her literary excellence. Anita Desai has introduced psychological novels into Indian- English Literature. She has always expressed her deep interest in unfurling women's psyche in her writings basically fiction. Where Shall We Go This Summer? is a woman-oriented novel where the novelist deals with the disturbed psyche of the female protagonist Sita. The story also highlights the increasing gulf between the life of modern-day technopolis and conservative village life. The differences between the two often create a very different culture and breeding grounds for people and affect how they behave and what things they value.

Characters of Where Shall We Go This Summer?

Sita is a 45-year-old married woman, mother of four kids and expecting her fifth child. She is a hyper-sensitive neurotic woman who is fed up with giving birth to children and raising them. Her husband Raman is 10 years older than her. While he is a dedicated family man and an honest husband, he is not as emotionally attached to his family as Sita. Raman is a modern man who devotes most of his time to his business. Raman too doesn’t wish to have another child. When Raman questions her if she wants an abortion Sita says, “I mean I want to keep it-----I don’t want it to be born.” Raman realizes her internal turmoil and the fact that she is irritated with her other four kids. Karan is Sita’s younger son and Menaka is her younger daughter. The family lives in Bombay. While Raman and all their four kids are accustomed to the busy urban life, Sita finds it difficult to adjust to the modern way of living and wishes to return to her island village Manori. Raman is against her wish to move to Manori as he realizes there will not be any nursing or healthcare facility there to aid her delivery. Sita’s father was a freedom fighter and her mother was a housewife who died when she was still a child. Jivan is Sita’s younger brother.

Summary of Where Shall We Go This Summer?

The main character of the novel is Sita, a forty-five-year-old married woman. She lives in the busy city of Bombay with her husband and four children. She spent her childhood in Manori, an island village and she misses the free environment and simplicity of the village life. She was married to Raman when she was 19 years old while Raman was 29 years old at that time. Sita’s father was a businessman and a freedom fighter and Sita was very much inspired by her father. Some people of Manori believed that her father had miraculous curing abilities and he was always ready to help the people of the village. Sita’s younger brother Jivan and she were leading a carefree life when a lethal flood devoured the village in which Sita lost her father and brother. She was rescued by Raman, a 29-year-old young man. Raman was the son of a friend of Sita’s father. He recovered her and took her to his home in Bombay where they married. It was not an arranged marriage, nor it was a love marriage. Sita was nineteen years old then and Raman, who saved her life, felt pity and a surge of lust for her and married her. Sita found it difficult to live with her in-laws and thus, Raman decided to shift to another city and since then, they have been living together in Bombay. Gradually, the family developed and they now have four children. Sita still misses her father and brother. Sita and Raman are the two different poles where there is no attraction but repulsion always. Raman is an ordinary man who has a practical approach to life. But Sita is a woman who gets disturbed easily and fails to adjust to her family and society. Sita wishes special care and pampering from Raman like her father did. Raman who is pragmatic in his approach fails to understand her. He is more busy with his business and financial responsibilities. Sita fails to understand her husband and this leads to a change in her behaviour. She notices that her children too are too materialistic and financially success-oriented and begins disliking her children for being like their father. When she realizes that she is pregnant for the fifth time, some strange feelings strike within her. Now she feels too irritated by her four children and husband and wishes to move away from her family.

When Sita informs Raman about her pregnancy, he gets astonished and somewhat irritated and questions why she didn’t take care and avoided the pregnancy. He asks her if she wants an abortion Sita says, “I mean I want to keep it-----I don’t want it to be born.” Raman realizes that Sita is disturbed and tries to soothe her. But when Sita says that she wishes to go back to Manori, her village, and wishes to give birth to her fifth child there, Raman opposes her and says that she will find it difficult to get proper medical care in the village. This further frustrates Sita as she strongly wishes to go back to Manori, away from her family. Raman asks her if she is expecting some miracle on the island. Sita replies that she is sure of that, on the island of her childhood. Sita recalls from her childhood memories how her father used to treat those people from the mainland. People called his treatments a ‘miracle cure’. Sita remembers how one day a fisherwoman came running and flung at his feet saying that her boils had been cured. Sita recalls how another fisherwoman Phoolmaya conceived and brought so many gifts to her father. Once he had cured a child bitten by a scorpion, the mother of the child said to the villagers that he had done magic. The villagers believed that he knew magic for taking death out of all creatures. All the strange experiences and sensations on the island made Sita think that there was a miracle on the island.

Internally, Sita is disturbed by the materialistic and busy lifestyle of the metropolitan. When Raman insists that delivering the baby in Bombay under proper medical care would be a better choice and going back to Manori would be madness, she tells her husband: "What I am doing is trying to escape from the madness here, escape to a place where it might be possible to be sane again...”. Though she rebels against the birth of the fifth child, she has certain longing in her heart which she misses entirely. She wants to protect her unborn child against the cruel atmosphere in which she is living. In a freak of madness, she aims for an abortion and flies to the Island.

She remembers the days she spent with her husband's parents after marriage. There she felt like a square peg in a round hole. The sub-human atmosphere in the house made her inward-looking and placed her in a suffocating existence. She failed to adapt herself to society. She moved into a small flat and lived alone with her husband and children. Her life there is hardly better, her privacy is disturbed, she finds her existence at stake, and she struggles with the monotony of life.

She is pained to see in the normal life of the household some act of unthinking violence: her boys fighting a duel like their heroes in the films, Menaka wantonly rippling buds off a plant or shedding her paintings, the youngest, Karan, demolishing his toys with Karate blows, Raman stolidly munching his breakfast while she battles with a popgun to frighten away the crows while they are bent upon feasting on a fallen eagle. Each act is more horrible than the other and makes her shrink into herself. It frightens her and appalls her with its cruelty. The violent news in the papers, the endless fights in the block of flats, and the streets outside sicken her and she longs to protect herself and her unborn child from them. There are other incidents which haunt her and she cannot forget those incidents. One of them is the ayahs fighting like cats. While they fight, the children play beside them but these ayahs remain unaware of the crying and frightened children in their midst. Sita describes this scene to her husband and says that all this represents the myriad faces of a mad and violent society.

There is another situation that brings her into contrast with her husband: Sita sees a whole crowd of crows attacking an eagle. The eagle was perhaps wounded or else too young to fly. The crows mock at it and tear it into pieces with their beaks. Sita tries to scare away the crows with her son’s toy gun and keeps a watch over the eagle until the night falls. She identifies herself with the proud and defiant eagle because this situation objectifies the conflict in her own life. The eagle does not survive. Her husband’s reaction to the death of the eagle is in sharp contrast to Sita’s.

Sita begins thinking that her children failed to get the same morals that she got from her father and decides to go back to her village with her younger son Karan and daughter Maneka.

After reaching there, she is sure that Manori will definitely bless her with some miracle. But to her utter surprise, Manori is no longer the island of her childhood. It fails to attract her the way it did earlier. Still, she has not lost hope. Sita tries to adjust to the limited resources and facilities she has found on the island. But her children find it quite impossible and they show their displeasure. The monsoon has made their life much more miserable on the island. The children accuse her of every mishap and misfortune. They are waiting for their mother to realize that life exists in their house in Bombay city and her so-called ‘escape’ to the island that is madness.

Meanwhile, Sita comes to know more about her father from the elder people of the village. Many people believed that he was an honest freedom fighter and a miraculous man, while some doubted him. Some people believed that he was a conman who fooled common people. Sita learns that he mother left her father when she and her brother were too young because she came to know about the extra-marital affairs of Sita’s father. All these rumors further break Sita, yet she maintains that Manori will offer some miracles to her. She feels a better life in Manori where the sea, the palm trees, and the house are her companions. They are so lively that sometimes they speak to her. She assures her unborn child “I’ll keep you safe inside.” Suddenly the news of Raman’s arrival on the island makes Sita feel one violent pulsation of grief inside her. Sita refuses to go back to Bombay first. She has many reasons not to return to the mainland. Finally, she realizes that she can’t escape from the reality and decides to go back with her husband. While packing for their return journey, Sita’s mind is occupied with different thoughts as she begins thinking of rearing her fifth child in a better manner. She realizes that Raman, her husband has saved her life not once, but twice.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of Indian English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!