The World is Too Much With Us by William Wordsworth | Structure, Summary, Analysis

 

The World is Too Much With Us by William Wordsworth | Structure, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. ‘The World is Too Much With Us’ is a poem, a sonnet by William Wordsworth published in his poetry collection ‘Poems: In Two Volumes’ in 1807. William Wordsworth is one of the central figures of the English Romantic movement. The English Romantic movement wasn’t a lovey-dovey stuff, rather it was about an obsession with nature, spirituality, and humanism. The Romantic poets wrote about mountains, lakes, flowers, birds, and serenity of the rural life, and they also wrote about gross inequalities among social classes, industrialization, the government, etc. In ‘The World is Too Much With Us’, the speaker laments the withering connection between humankind and nature, blaming industrial society for replacing that connection with material pursuits. Wordsworth composed the poem in 1802, a period of the First Industrial Revolution that thoroughly transformed British life.

Structure of The World is Too Much With Us:

William Wordsworth composed this poem as an Italian sonnet, also known as the Petrarchan sonnet. A traditional sonnet contains an Octave ( two quatrains) in which the speaker discusses or raises a problem or ‘proposition.’ The other part is a sestet beginning with a volta or a ‘turn’ in which the speaker offers a resolution to the problem or his individual perspective about the problem.

The Word is Too Much With Us follows the traditional form. In the Octave, the speaker explains the problem and its consequences, which is that industrial society has killed humankind’s connection with nature. The poet introduces the volta in the ninth line by using an ‘apostrophe’ in the middle line, ‘Great God’ asking for Almighty's intervention. In the remaining lines of the sestet, the speaker uses first-person singular pronouns, offering his personal perspective and resolution.

The sonnet generally follows Iambic Pentameter though there are significant variations as he has used spondee and trochee in some lines.

Assonance, Alliteration, Consonance, Apostrophe, Anaphora, Personification, Metaphor, and Simile have been used in the poem.

Summary of The World is Too Much With Us:

Lines 1-2

“The world is too much with us; late and soon,

Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;—”

The poem begins as the speaker laments that ‘the world is too much with us.’ It becomes clear that he is talking about worldly cares and concerns such as money, possessions, and power, and that ‘us’, or we are too much greedy. The world may refer to the natural world but the first person plural pronoun ‘us’ makes it clear that the speaker is talking about the corruption, and pollution of the natural world by us, human beings. He says that by using our time, minds, and energy in “getting and spending” we “lay waste our powers”. He is accusing the materialistic pursuit of pleasure or consumerism. We continue to strive to attain more and more power to spend on wasteful things and thus, we waste our energies while corrupting the world.

Lines 3-4

“Little we see in Nature that is ours;

We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!”

In these lines, the speaker mentions the rift between society and nature. He says that while people spend their time acquiring worldly possessions, the true beauty of the earth cannot be owned. He says that while people are greedy for land, property, and natural resources to squeeze more and more of materialistic wealth, very few things that people see in Nature actually belong to them. He laments “We have given our hearts away,” that instead of taking pleasures from the wonders of the natural world, we continue to exploit it, ruin it, corrupt it.

Lines 5-8

“This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon;

The winds that will be howling at all hours,

And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers;

For this, for everything, we are out of tune;”

In these lines, the speaker describes the wonder of beautiful nature that we are ignoring, corrupting, and destroying for our greed. He depicts the sea, the wind, and the flowers and uses Personification to offer a greater connect with the nature. In the fourth line, he laments again that we, the greedy humans are unable to observe them. We are missing out on these by being caught up in worldly possessions and greed. He exclaims that “we are out of tune” with nature because we are so caught up in worldly wealth.

Lines 9-10

“It moves us not. Great God! I’d rather be

A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;”

In the ninth line, the speaker brings the ‘turn’ or ‘volta’ to change the rhetoric and begins using first-person singular pronouns, offering his own perspective towards the drastic situation he mentioned before. The poet uses ‘apostrophe’ to address the Christian God, mentioning that the destruction of nature doesn’t move ‘us’ the human society, and thus, he would rather be a Pagan than be out of touch with nature. So why does the speaker wish to be a Pagan?

Lines 11-14

“So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,

Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;

Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;

Or hear old Triton blow his wreathèd horn.”

In these lines, the poet clarifies why he would rather prefer to be a Pagan rather than a modern human harming nature. Pagans used to worship and revere various parts of nature by imagining a deity representing them. Being nature worshipers, they used to maintain the sanctity and beauty of nature instead of obsessionally exploiting it for their own greed for power. He mentions Proteus, the Greek Sea God in line 13. Homer mentioned Proteus as ‘The old man of the sea.’ Proteus had the power to foretell the future but he avoided wasting his power. The speaker says that he would rather be close to Proteus and learn how to avoid wasting his powers. In line 14, he mentions Triton, another Greek deity representing the Sea. Triton is often depicted with his conch shell that he would blow to calm down the wild waves of the sea. The speaker mentions these Pagan gods to suggest that he would rather be a Pagan than be alienated from nature and engaged in corrupting it.

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!

Interpreter of Maladies by Jhumpa Lahiri | Characters, Summary, Analysis

 

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. ‘Interpreter of Maladies’ is a short story by Jhumpa Lahiri, the third and titular story in her short story collection, published in 1999. The 'Interpreter of Maladies' story collection won the Pulitzer Prize in 2000. The poem's main theme is communication or the lack of it. The story is told in the third person, closely expressing the point of view of Mr. Kapasi, a tourist guide who observes an American-Indian family who came to India. The story also highlights the cultural differences between Indians and American Indians, who though appear similar, yet, are quite different. Despite this difference, the story suggests that a lack of communication leads to the disintegration of a family. Another theme of the story is guilt and the importance of taking responsibility. The story suggests that refusing to take responsibility for one’s actions results in a sort of toxic stasis that leaves families vulnerable. The story also depicts the dangers of romanticism. The main conflict of the story centers on two people who romanticize each other, although in different ways. Frustrated by his stagnant married life, Mr. Kapasi begins fantasizing about Mrs. Das. On the other hand, Mrs. Das sees him as a fatherly figure and expects him to help her get through or solve the marital problems she is facing.

Characters of Interpreter of Maladies:

Mr. Kapasi is a tour guide who also works for a doctor, translating the symptoms of Gujurati patients. Mr. Kapasi dreamed of being an interpreter for diplomats, but he settled for a mundane career after an unhappy marriage and the death of a son.  He lost his ability to communicate in some of the languages he learned as a younger man, leaving him with only English, which he fears he does not speak as well as his children. Mrs. Das and her family accompany tour guide Mr. Kapasi to the Sun Temple of Konark. She has fallen out of love with her husband and does not express affection toward her three children. On a whim, she admits to Mr. Kapasi that she had an extra-marital affair and her husband is not the father of her second son. Mr. Das and his wife are Americans of Indian descent, removed somewhat from the land of their ancestors. He is content with his life and children, blind to the unhappiness of his wife. He has been irresponsible towards his wife’s emotional needs and that led her to fall for an extra-marital affair, the guilt of which encumbers her. Ronny, Bobby, and Tina are the three kids of Mr. and Mrs. Das. All three kids suffer from the negligence of their parents. However, Mrs. Das clearly favors Bobby, her second son, a product of her extra-marital affair. Tina, the eldest daughter strains for the attention of her mother.

Summary of Interpreter of Maladies:

The story begins as, Mr. Kapasi escorts Mr. and Mrs. Das and their three children, a young Indian American family from New Jersey on a sightseeing holiday in India, to the Sun Temple at Konarak. The car halts at a tea shop as Tina, the youngest child of Das's family wants to go to the washroom. Mr. and Mrs. Das argue about who should take their daughter, Tina, to the bathroom.  Mr. and Mrs. Das are reluctant to accompany their daughter, subtly alluding to their selfishness and negligence. Mr. Kapasi observes them carefully. Mr. and Mrs Das are a young couple, perhaps not yet 30, but they have two boys – Ronny and Bobby – in addition to Tina. Mr. Kapasi is struck by how American they are despite their Indian heritage. Finally, Mrs. Das takes Tina to the bathroom but isn’t happy about it. Mr. Kapasi notices that Mrs. Das doesn’t bother to hold her daughter’s hand as if she is a negligent mother.

Mr. Kapasi is 46 and has silver hair and an unlined brow. He wears suits tailored to sitting long hours in a hot car. He is an observant, somewhat jaded, tour guide, native to India. He's been there, done that—but usually with white American tourists, not this family of Indians who appear and act American. Ronny, who looks just like his father, inspects a goat near the tea stall where the travelers have stopped. Mr. Das tells Bobby to make sure his brother doesn’t do anything stupid, but Bobby is too engrossed in a picture of the elephant god taped to Mr. Kapasi’s glovebox to be bothered. None of the boys pay attention to what their father says. Mr. Kapasi says that the goat is harmless and asks Mr. Das about him and his family. Mr. Das proudly says that he and Mina (Mrs. Das), both were born in America, not India, and that their parents moved back to India after retiring. The Das family visits them every couple of years. Mr. Das is a science teacher at a middle school in New Jersey while Mrs. Das is a housewife. When Tina returns alone, Mr. Das asks where Mina is? Mr. Kapasi observes that Mr. Das referred to his wife by her first name to his daughter, which is not common in India. Mr. Kapasi notices Mrs. Das buying a pack of puffed rice from a street vendor. As she returns, the tea shop owner serenades her with a Hindi love song which she ignores as she doesn’t understand Hindi. Mr. Kapasi notices her plump figure under her shirt featuring a large strawberry on her chest, revealing clothes, and stylish hair. She wears her sunglasses even when there's no sun. She's way into self-grooming, dressing to the nines, manicures, while it appears that her kids are kind of an afterthought to her. She slouches in the back seat and begins eating her puffed rice without offering to share it with anyone, and the group commences their journey to the Sun Temple. Mr. Kapasi notices the ways the children misbehave and the parents are impolite or uncaring with each other. Mrs. Das complains about the heat and chides her husband for hiring a car that is not air-conditioned just to save a little money. Mr. Das tells her it’s not hot. The boys see some monkeys, and despite their relative ubiquity in the area, Mr. Das instructs Mr. Kapasi to stop so they can take a photo. 

Mr. Kapasi tells about his other job as an interpreter in a doctor’s office which attracts Mrs. Das’s attention. Mrs. Das remarks that his job is romantic and asks him to tell her about some of his patients. She asks him to describe typical situations he encounters at the office, and Mr. Kapasi obliges by telling of a patient who had come in with a pain in his throat. Mrs. Das compliments him and suggests that his job is no less than the doctor’s job. However, Mr. Kapasi views his job as a failure. At one time, he had been a scholar of many languages, and now he remains fluent only in English. He took the interpreting job as a way to pay the medical bills when his eldest son contracted typhoid and died at age seven. He kept the job because the pay was better than his previous teaching job, but it reminded his wife of their son’s death. Mr. Kapasi’s marriage was arranged by his parents, and he and his wife have nothing in common. Mrs. Das offers Mr. Kapasi a piece of gum. Their eyes meet in the rear-view mirror.

Mr. Kapasi, seduced by Mrs. Das’s description of his job as “romantic,” begins fantasizing about Mrs. Das.

After some time, they stop for lunch. Mrs. Das insists on him sitting with her and he obliges. The children leave to look at the monkeys perched in the trees. Mrs. Das asks Mr. Das to take pictures of her with Mr. Kapasi. Mr. Das tells her to lean a bit closer to Mrs. Das which she does. Mr. Kapasi is excited by the closeness to Mrs. Das, noting her appealing scent. He worries that she can smell the perspiration on his skin. Mrs. Das gets Mr. Kapasi’s address so that she can send him a copy of the picture, and Mr. Kapasi begins to daydream about how they will have a great correspondence that will, in a way, finally fulfill his dreams of being a diplomat between countries. He imagines the witty things he will write to her and how she will reveal the unhappiness of her marriage.

They arrive at the sun temple. Mr. Kapasi explains the history of the temple while Mr. Das continues to read his book about India. The temple is a pyramid-like structure carved in the shape of a chariot sitting within a dry river. The wheels are 9 feet high and represent life. Friezes of men and women in erotic poses appear along with symbols of daily life like trading and hunting. Mrs. Das praises the site, to Mr. Kapasi’s delight. He explains the three statues of Surya, the sun god, representing dawn, afternoon, and sunset, and says that he hopes Mrs. Das understands beauty and power. He asks when she will return to America, and he calculates the time it will take for her first letter to arrive. Mrs. Das grows very friendly to him. He is excited because she is the first person to take an interest in his work. He wishes to spend more time with her and thus, he suggests a detour to monastic dwellings. He fantasizes about taking Mrs. Das’s hand while her husband is occupied with his camera.

Mrs. Das stays in the car because her legs are tired. The children are delighted by the monkeys that line the path. Bobby picks up a stick and plays with one of the more aggressive monkeys. Mr. Kapasi compliments the boy and Mrs. Das reveals that Mr. Das is not the boy’s father. He gets his bravery from another man. She confesses to him that her younger son, Bobby, is the product of an affair she had eight years ago. Mrs. Das has kept this a secret for 8 years– Bobby’s age.  She tells him how she and Mr. Das had been together since they were young; how they married in college; how she didn't have any friends other than Raj (Mr. Das's first name); how lonely she became; how Raj seemed unaffected by all of this and even invited his Punjabi friend to stay over at their house. The Punjabi made advances towards Mrs. Das and she did not resist. The man is now married and the couples trade photos at Christmas time. Mr. Kapasi can't help wondering aloud why Mrs. Das is telling him all of this, at which point Mrs. Das gets a little snippy with him and tells him to stop calling her Mrs. Das since she's only 28 and he probably has kids her age.

Her remark somewhat offends Mr. Kapasi who was romanticizing about her. Mrs. Das tells Mr. Kapasi that she confided in him because of his job as an interpreter, insisting that his talents caused her to open up, which may unburden her. Mr. Kapasi doesn't get it because, after all, as he points out, they don't have a language barrier. But Mrs. Das seems to think that Mr. Kapasi has special powers of some type that can heal her "terrible" pain and her urge to throw everything in her life away. But the truth of a woman not yet thirty who is in love with neither her husband nor children simply depresses Mr. Kapasi. He thinks that her problems really are nothing in comparison to the patients who come to see the doctor at the office. Patients, who can't physically function because they're truly ill. Mr. Kapasi asks her: "Is it really pain you feel, Mrs. Das, or is it guilt?"

Insulted, she gets out of the car, spilling her snack of puffed rice on a trail behind her. The monkeys gather for the treat, unbeknownst to Mrs. Das. When she joins the family, she realizes that Bobby is missing. He is surrounded by aggressive monkeys. Mrs. Das calls Mr. Kapasi to rescue Bobby. He shoos away the monkeys and delivers Bobby safely back to his parents. Mrs. Das grabs stuff out of her bag to tend to him, suggesting she still cares for Bobby, her son from her affair. The slip of paper on which Mr. Kapasi wrote his address flies out of Mrs. Das's bag while she's rummaging through it. No one notices except Mr. Kapasi, who knows that this is how he'll remember the Das family.

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!

The New Criticism Explained | Pros and Cons, Proponents of New Criticism and their Works

 The New Criticism Explained | Pros and Cons, Proponents of New Criticism and their Works

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. New Criticism is a method of literary analysis that focuses on the text itself, advocating for "close reading" to derive meaning without considering external influences. The theory of New Criticism emerged as a significant literary movement in the early to mid-20th century, particularly in the United States. The method of new criticism primarily follows a formalist approach to literary analysis, emphasizing the importance of the text itself, rather than external factors such as the author's biography, historical context, or reader's interpretation.

Rather than worrying about the author of a book and his reputation, historical background, and own reaction to the book, one should focus on the text of the book and analyze or interpret it objectively, without any biases, predetermined notions, or a sense of awe towards the author.

Difference between the Old Criticism and the New Criticism

Generally, when we analyze and critically appreciate a content, let’s say a particular poem by John Donne, we begin with examining John Donne as a person, his spiritual views and leanings about Christianity, Protestantism, and Catholicism, general historical views of that age, the Elizabethan age of England and how that affected the works of John Donne, his religious sonnets. We will discuss John Donne’s personal life, how he fell in love and married a girl so young to him, and how his love life influenced his love poems. Only after that, we will discuss the actual text of the content. This is the Old Way of Criticism, or the Traditional Criticism which suggests that content, an article, a poem, or an essay can be understood and analyzed in its entirety, we need to evaluate an author's biography, culture, and background. In 1929, this Traditional method of literary criticism was challenged by the proponents of the New Criticism. Many writers and literary critics in the United States and England supported the idea of New Criticism. They suggested that it is futile to look at the author’s background or historical perspective. Rather, they claimed that such observations create a bias and predetermined notion about the content (John Donne’s poem in this case), which reduces the worth of the content in itself. Thus, they said that the content must be analyzed as a particular free text without any prior knowledge about it which may create a bias or hindrance to studying it objectively. Thus, a New Critic while examining The Flea by John Donne may stress more on how the use of metaphor in the poem shows what the poem is about, rather than the biography of John Donne.

Let’s take another example of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare to be analyzed using the theory of New Criticism. A New Critic might notice that Juliet's lines are longer than Romeo's, which could indicate that the play emphasizes Juliet and her thoughts. The play's theme of individual versus society is explored through Juliet's desire to be with Romeo, despite their families' feud.

New Criticism stresses close reading, which involves a detailed and careful analysis of the text. Critics focus on the language, structure, imagery, and other literary devices within the work to uncover its meaning. The main idea of New Criticism is that a literary work has intrinsic value and meaning that can be understood through its own elements. This perspective insists that the text should be treated as a self-contained entity. The formalist approach of New Criticism emphasizes the structure and literary devices of the content rather than the historical background or the individual perspective of the author.

Proponents of New Criticism:

Proponents of the New Criticism movement often claimed that T. S. Eliot was one of their founding fathers, and his work influenced the New Critical canon. However, T. S. Eliot himself rejected this claim and denied adhering to any school of criticism. He rather called New Criticism the "lemon-squeezer school of criticism". Along with T. S. Eliot, the New Critics took inspiration from the essays and works of Mathew Arnold, an English poet, and a cultural, and literary critic. In 1853, Mathew Arnold published "Preface to the Poems" Arnold emphasized the importance of subject in poetry, on "clearness of arrangement, rigor of development, simplicity of style." He supported objectivity in literary criticism and suggested that the text should be objective and it should not be influenced by the subjective or personal views of the writer.

The term New Criticism was first used by J. E Spingarn, or Joel Elias Spingarn, a professor of comparative literature at Columbia University. He gained prominence as a literary critic, theorist, and comparative with the success of his works 'A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance' (1899), and ‘Critical Essays of the Seventeenth-Century’ (1905). In 1910, he gave a lecture titled ‘The New Criticism: A Lecture Delivered at Columbia University’ in which he argued against the constraints of such traditional categories as genre, theme, and historical setting in favor of viewing each work of art afresh and on its own terms (autotelic).

Some of the influential proponents of New Criticism include I. A Richards, John Crowe Ransom, Cleanth Brooks, Robert Penn Warren, W. K. Wilmsatt, Monroe Beardsley, and William Empson.

These literary critics and academics were influenced by critical essays of T. S. Eliot, such as "Tradition and the Individual Talent" and "Hamlet and His Problems", in which Eliot developed his notions of the "theory of impersonality" and "objective correlative" respectively. Eliot's evaluative judgments, such as his condemnation of Milton and Dryden, his liking for the metaphysical poets, and his insistence that poetry must be impersonal, greatly influenced the formation of the New Critical ideas. In 1929, I. A, Richards was working as an instructor of English Literature at Cambridge University when he gave an assignment of critically examining a few poems to his students without offering any information about the authors of those poems or when they were written. When the students submitted their work, I. A. Richards noticed that the same poems were analyzed and examined by different students in very different manners and each study offered a unique and impressive perspective. He published a detailed analysis of his experiment in his book ‘Principles of Literary Criticism and Practical Criticism’ published in 1929. The book didn’t offer any new theory of literary criticism, rather it questioned the established process of Traditional Criticism. I. A. Richards suggested that since students did not have any information about the author of the poems or other historical context related to the poems, they were able to concentrate more on the text of the poem to observe and analyze the literary elements, figures, and structure of the poem without any preconceived notion of what the poem may suggest. He suggested that effective critical work requires a closer aesthetic interpretation of the literary text as an object.

In 1930, Richards’s student William Epsom published his book Seven Types of Ambiguity in which he supported I. A. Richards’ idea of interpretive or practical criticism.

During the same time, some history schools in the United States were stressing the importance of the history and meaning of individual words and their relation to foreign and ancient languages, comparative sources, and the biographical circumstances of the authors while critically assessing a literary work. Proponents of the New Criticism opposed this idea of Formalism and suggested the development of a newer, systematic, and objective method of literary criticism. It is known as the New Criticism. John Crow Ransom of Kenyon College, America became the voice of New Criticism. In 1941, he published his book The New Criticism which became the milestone of the New Criticism Movement. His students included Allen Tate, Cleanth Brooks, and Robert Penn Warren who strongly supported the ideas and theories of the New Criticism, and thus, John Crow Ransom is known as the founding father of the New Criticism school of literary theory.

Intentional Fallacy

William K Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic New Critical essay titled The Intentional Fallacy in 1946 in which they argued against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. Suppose you are reading a novel by Charles Dickens. If you know that the novel is by Charles Dickens and you have a biographical idea of him and the historical context of his writing, then you will have a prior-deterministic idea that the novel is about sociological work highlighting class discrimination and the ill effects of industrialization on the poor section of society. However, if you are not aware of the author of the same novel and have no idea of the historical context, then you will read the novel as an empty slate and will grasp it with a free-thinking. You may analyze the same novel influenced by spirituality. Wimsatt and Beardsley suggested that as a reader and a critic, it is better to ignore the ‘intended meaning’ of the author and to read the text and analyze it in an unbiased and independent manner.

Affective Fallacy:

In 1949, Wimsatt and Beardsley continued their ideas and published a new essay titled The Affective Fallacy in which they suggested that even the reader’s personal, emotional reaction to the text must not be considered a valid point to analyze the text. This idea was vehemently opposed by the proponents of the Reader-Response school of literary theory who stress more on the reader and their experience of a literary work. Anyhow, the New Criticism school of literary theory continued to gain prominence in the United States during the Cold War from the 1950s to 1970. Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren published their book Understanding Poetry in 1976 was highly appreciated and continued to influence the new readers and scholars of English literature alike. In the book, the authors stressed the ‘close reading’ of the text, to observe, understand, and analyze the rhythm, meter, tone, literary figures, imagery, metaphor, symbolism, and other entities of the text itself while ignoring the historical context and the intention of the author.

Terminology of the New Criticism:

Autotelic Text: Autotelic text is a work of literature or art that is considered to be an end in itself, and is not intended to serve a moral or didactic purpose.

The term comes from the Greek word autotelḗs, which means "complete in itself". T.S. Eliot used the term in 1923, and it was later adopted by New Criticism to distinguish literary art from other types of works. New Criticism used the term to differentiate literary art from works that are critical, biographical, philosophical, or didactic, which often refer to things outside themselves. The idea of the autotelic text is similar to the "art for art's sake" doctrine of the Aestheticism movement in the late 19th century. The New Critics suggested that every text is self-contained and independent of the author, genre, or historical context.

Close Reading: Close reading is a deep analysis of how a literary text works. It is a method of reading a text carefully and with the purpose of understanding its deeper meaning. It involves paying close attention to the text's words, structure, ideas, flow, and purpose. The reader then compares what the author said to what they already know, believe, or think. 

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss Literary Theory and Literary Criticism. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine by Jhumpa Lahiri | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. ‘When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine’ is the second short story from Jhumpa Lahiri’s collection Interpreter of Maladies for which she won the Pulitzer Prize in 2000. The story is narrated from the perspective of a 10-year-old Indian-American girl in 1971, during the period of the Bangladesh Liberation Movement. The narrator is now a grown-up girl who remembers Mr. Pirzada and what happened in the autumn of 1971 when she was 10. At that time, she failed to understand the seriousness of the situation but now as an adult, she understands all that. The story is based on the themes of diaspora, alienation, and loss of cultural roots while highlighting the effects of revolution and violence on individuals. The story also depicts the assimilation and struggles of Indian immigrants in American society.

Characters of When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine:

Mr. Pirzada is from Dacca (Dhaka), a city in East Pakistan in 1971. Dhaka became the capital city of Bangladesh, a new country after the Bangladesh liberation movement in 1972. Mr. Pirzada is a botanist whom the Pakistani government sent to America to study New England's fall leaves during such a tumultuous period in the Indian subcontinent. His wife and seven daughters live in Dacca (Dhaka) where he owns a 3 storey house. When he hears the news of civil unrest in Pakistan, he becomes disturbed and worried about his wife and seven daughters who appear so similar that he can't tell apart. In America, he develops friendships with an Indian family (probably Hindu-secular) and visits them every evening. Lilia is the narrator of the story. She is a first-generation American of Indian descent. She is the only daughter of her parents. At the time of the story, she is 10 years old. Through the visits of Mr. Pirzada, she learns about the plight of Pakistan, the history of India’s violent independence experienced by her parents, and the war between the formerly united countries. From the safety of her home, she worries about Mr. Pirzada’s daughters. When he returns back to Dacca, she learns what it is to miss someone who lives across the world. Lilia’s father is a successful Indian immigrant and a University lecturer in America. He encourages his daughter to learn about India, as it appears she is only taught American history in school. He wants his daughter to know about the world of her parents' upbringing. Lilia’s mother is proud that her daughter was born and will be raised in America. She encourages American traditions while maintaining the traditions of her own upbringing in Calcutta. Though Liliac’s family stresses cultural roots, they appear secular as they never mention religion and are comfortable with Mr. Pirzada who is a Muslim. Dora is Lilia’s American friend, her classmate. They trick-or-treat together in 1971. When they visit their neighbors on Halloween Eve, the American neighbors point out that they never saw an Indian witch, suggesting a sense of discrimination. Mrs. Kenyon is Lilia’s school teacher who chastises her for reading a book about Pakistan.

Summary of When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine:

Lilia remembers a time when she was 10 years old. Her parents were Indian immigrants. They miss their homeland and try to make contact with other Indians in America. They often seek out other Indian emigrant compatriots from the university where her father works. This is how they found Mr. Pirzada from Dacca, then a part of Pakistan. He left behind his wife and seven daughters for a fellowship to study the foliage of New England. Since his fellowship provided only a meager dorm room, he used to visit Lilia’s home to eat with her parents and watch the news of the outbreak of civil conflict between East and West Pakistan. Dacca had been invaded by the Pakistani army and torched and shelled. Thousands of people were tortured or killed. Although Mr. Pirzada writes a letter to his family each week, he has not heard from them in six months. Lilia notices that he syncs his watch to Dacca time just before the broadcast begins. This gives her a feeling as if they are living in the past, trying to learn the future, that has already happened somewhere else in the world. Mr. Pirzada is generous with Lilia, doting on her because he is unable to speak to his own daughters. He is curious about American customs and Lilia tries to teach him about her culture. Lilia calls him “the Indian man,” but her father explains that he is no longer Indian; though he is Bengali, he is also a Muslim. Lilia tries to understand the difference but fails to notice any as she thinks Mr. Pirzada and her father appear almost similar. Also, her parents do not stress much on religion so, she fails to understand the difference between Hindu and Muslim. Lilia’s father tells her about Indian independence and how his native land was divided into India and Pakistan in 1947 which resulted in huge mass murders and riots between Hindus and Pakistan. Lilia fails to understand this because, at school, she is being taught about the American Revolution as a bloodless purely victorious historical incident, hiding out the violence of that period. She learns a simplified, cheerful version of the American battle for independence at her school, glossing over the true costs of revolution.

Lilia’s father is disturbed by the fact that Lilia is unaware of what is happening in the Indian sub-continent, their own country. Lilia’s mother is happy though and feels that they have assured a safe life, access to education, and endless opportunities for Lilia.

One day, her father invites Lilia to watch the news with them so that she may learn a bit about India and Pakistan.  She comes to know about the conflict between East and West Pakistan and sees the thousands of refugees seeking safety. That night, Lilia is sick with worrying that Mr. Pirzada’s family is either in the crowds of wandering refugees, or worse, dead. To distract herself, she eats a piece of candy from her box, but this time, she says a prayer while it slowly melts on her tongue. Lilia has never prayed for anything before and decides not to brush her teeth, fearing it will wash away the power of the prayer.

The next day, she remains disturbed at school. Mrs. Kenyon, her teacher asks her to read about the American Revolution, she instead looks for information about Pakistan and finds a book called Pakistan: A Land and Its People. She feverishly begins to read the book but is soon discovered by her teacher. She is lightly scolded and told there’s no reason to consult the book. In October, Mr. Pirzada asks about the pumpkins he sees on the doorsteps of Lilia’s neighbors. She tells him that it is used to scare people. He helps her carve a jack-o’-lantern while a TV reporter mentions Dacca. It appears as if India will go to war with Pakistan. Mr. Pirzada’s knife slips, leaving a deep gash in the pumpkin. Lilia’s father mends the pumpkin by turning the mouth into a large “O” shape.

Lilia’s friend visits and asks her to go trick-and-treat the neighbors. Lilia dresses as a witch for Halloween with her friend Dora. It is the first year she is allowed to trick-or-treat unattended. Mr. Pirzada worries, asking her parents if there is any danger. Lilia’s mother assures him that it is only an American custom. Lilia tells him not to worry. Outside, Dora asks Lilia why Mr. Pirzada wants to come with them. She says his daughters are missing, but immediately regrets it, as if saying it will make it true. Lilia corrects herself and explains that the girls are in another country and Mr. Pirzada misses them. While they visit door to door for candy, several people comment that they have never seen an Indian witch before. Lilia fails to understand why she has been pointed out though she is wearing exactly the same dress as that of Dora. Lilia and Dora end their night at Dora’s house, where Lilia notes with some surprise that the news is not playing in the background. When Lilia arrives home later, she finds their jack-o’-lantern has been smashed. She notices that the TV is off and Mr. Pirzada has his head in his hands. Lilia learns that the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 is imminent. For the next month or so their house is devoid of joy. Lilia is no longer allowed to watch the news with the adults, Mr. Pirzada stops bringing her candy, and the house is often silent. The break of this ritual creates a distance between Lilia and Mr. Pirzada. The situation worsens. The U.S.A. sides with West Pakistan, the Soviet Union with India, and what will become Bangladesh. During the twelve days of the war, Lilia’s mother only cooks boiled eggs and rice. They lay out a blanket for Mr. Pirzada to sleep on the couch. Lilia’s parents call their relatives in Calcutta for updates. Lilia senses gloom and fear in her house.

Mr. Pirzada stops talking to her much and there are no more new candies for her. In January, Mr. Pirzada goes back to his home in Dhaka. For many months, Lilia’s family does not get any information about Mr. Pirzada or what happened to his family and daughters. Lilia continues to eat a piece of candy in prayer for his daughters. One day, her father receives a letter from Mr. Pirzada along with a greeting card for the celebration of the Muslim New Year. Lilia learns that Mr. Pirzada and his family are safe in Dacca. She feels relieved as her prayers proved to be fruitful. Now when she no longer needs to eat candy and pray, she throws the remaining candy away.

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!

The Tables Turned by William Wordsworth | Characters, Summary, Analysis

 

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. ‘The Tables Turned’ is a poem by William Wordsworth written in 1798 and published in the first edition of Lyrical Ballads in the same year. In the poem, the speaker critiques the reliance on academic learning and books, advocating for nature as a superior teacher. The speaker urges his friend to abandon the "dull and endless strife" of books in favor of the wisdom and beauty found in the natural world. The speaker says that books are just barren leaves that provide empty knowledge and that nature is the best teacher which can teach more about humans, evil, and good.

The poem thus, appears to juxtapose to its own as the reader is reading the poem in a book while the poem suggests he should leave the book. The title of the poem clarifies that contrast. The poet counters the argument that books are the best way to learn and to do so, he goes to the opposite extreme (The Tables Turned), suggesting that books are not as worthy and the true teacher is nature. However, his true feelings probably lie somewhere in the middle, which is evident from the fact that he is writing the poem for a book to be published in 1798. The speaker isn't saying books themselves are bad or not worth reading. Instead, the speaker believes that everyone should experience the pleasure of learning from the natural world. He counters the excessive stress on academic reading and says that excessive reading can be harmful. one who is erudite but has no experience of practical life is as good as an imbecile.

Structure of The Tables Turned:

The poem consists of 32 lines set in eight quatrains following ballad meter or common meter. The first and third lines of each stanza use iambic tetrameter while the second and fourth lines are written in iambic trimeter. However, there are some variations where the poet used spondee instead of iambs. The poem follows the regular ballad rhyming scheme of ABAB. The poem is written in a conversational tone, the speaker urges his friend to give up the world of books for a while and have some niceties of real nature.

The poet used consonance, alliteration, imagery, metaphor, symbolism, personification, parallelism, juxtaposition, and enjambment in the poem.

Summary of The Tables Turned:

Stanza 1 Lines 1-4

“Up! up! my Friend, and quit your books;

Or surely you'll grow double:

Up! up! my Friend, and clear your looks;

Why all this toil and trouble?”

The poet begins the poem with a stressed beat a foot with two stresses in a row (Spondee) (Up! Up!) offering a sense of urgency. The speaker tells his friend (the reader) to give up the book in which he is reading the poem itself. The speaker says that if the reader keeps sitting and reading like always, their weight will double down on them. He exhorts his friend to get up and clear their face and asks why they choose to be so serious while outside there is a beautiful evening scene. (the repeating sound of ‘l’ in lines 2, 3, and 4 offers a nice example of consonance.)

Stanza 2 Lines 5-8

“The sun above the mountain's head,

A freshening lustre mellow

Through all the long green fields has spread,

His first sweet evening yellow.”

In this stanza, the poet expresses the beauty of nature outside while juxtaposing the beautiful sunset against the dull and anxious world of the books. It is an example of parallelism. The speaker says that while the reader, his friend is troubled by his heavy books, he is missing the beautiful sun setting over the mountain, which in turn lights up the green fields below it with stunning fading sunlight. The stanza prompts the reader to ponder upon why he should be troubled at all when he is surrounded by such natural beauty and serenity.

Stanza 3 Lines 9-12

“Books! 'tis a dull and endless strife:

Come, hear the woodland linnet,

How sweet his music! on my life,

There's more of wisdom in it.”

The poet again changes the feet in the first line of this stanza (trochee replacing iamb) to offer stress. The speaker begins this stanza with an exclamation Book! He calls books dull along with endless strife. To him, reading books is like a long conflict against an enemy that never ends and is useless. Wordsworth invited his friend to come and listen to the woodland linnet (birds). He swears that there is more wisdom in the song of a bird than in books. The poet claims that books make us dull as we struggle with the difference between the bookish world and the real world, while on the other hand birds, nature’s creatures, are free from this duality. He says that there is distortion in humans due to bookish knowledge. Based on knowledge, humans have divided themselves.

Stanza 4 Lines 13-16

“And hark! how blithe the throstle sings!

He, too, is no mean preacher:

Come forth into the light of things,

Let Nature be your teacher.”

In this stanza, the speaker further solidifies his argument by offering the example of another bird, a hark. He says that both birds, linnet and hark, are excellent preachers of their words. The speaker then asks the reader, his friend, to come out into the light, meaning the sun instead of a lamp or flame, and claim nature as your teacher instead of books.

Stanza 5 Lines 17-20

“She has a world of ready wealth,

Our minds and hearts to bless—

Spontaneous wisdom breathed by health,

Truth breathed by cheerfulness.”

The speaker tells his friend that Mother Nature is full of wealth and that she is ready to bestow her fruits on our minds and hearts. He also says that in nature wisdom comes from being happy and healthy. The speaker establishes nature is superior because it can teach us wisdom through moments of spontaneity that can only come from engaging with the outside world, as books will never provide such activities. The speaker also mentions that truth in nature is infused with happiness, as it is part of nature’s very breath.

Stanza 6 Lines 21-24

“One impulse from a vernal wood

May teach you more of man,

Of moral evil and of good,

Than all the sages can.”

The speaker argues that one component of nature can offer more than any book, written by man, on the earth. a forest around springtime will teach you more about humanity and society, as well as morals of evil and good than any other instructor could. According to the poet, spending time in nature will not provide you only with mental peace and health but also teach you more about humanity, goodness, and evil as well. On the other hand, books are supposed to be written by wise men, however, these can’t teach you what nature can do. The poet keeps on offering parallelism in each stanza.

Stanza 7 Lines 25-28

“Sweet is the lore which Nature brings;

Our meddling intellect

Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:—

We murder to dissect.”

The speaker tries to bring the reader back to his primary argument in the penultimate stanza and suggests that even though nature brings humanity sweet traditions of intelligence, we tend to ruin that knowledge by dissecting it. Every knowledge and wisdom that nature brings is full of sweet feelings and expressions that bring peace to the human mind and soul. But humans, with their intellect and knowledge, miss-shape the attractive things. When they try to understand the meanings of natural beauty, they murder things as “we murder to dissect”. Humans tend to search objective/purpose of each and everything around and this takes the beauty of things away.

Stanza 8 Lines 29-32

“Enough of Science and of Art;

Close up those barren leaves;

Come forth, and bring with you a heart

That watches and receives.”
The speaker ends the poem by suggesting that it is enough of science and arts for now. He asks the reader, his friend, to close the barren leaves, the book pages that were probably made by the trees cut down by humans to produce paper. He says that those pages have no actual knowledge of those trees anymore. He then simply invites the reader to come into nature ready to learn with "a heart / That watches and receives".

The idea is that the nature will offer true knowledge of things that will enlighten the bookish knowledge that reader attains and will empower the reader more.

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!

A Temporary Matter by Jhumpa Lahiri | Characters, Summary, Analysis

 

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. ‘A Temporary Matter’ is a short story by Jhumpa Lahiri published in her collection Interpreter of Maladies in 1999. In 2000, she won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction for Interpreter of Maladies. The book contains nine short stories and ‘A Temporary Matter’ is the first. The story is about a couple whose marriage is being destroyed by the grief they incur after the recent loss of their child. The grief and guilt push them to stop conversation which leads to alienation. The importance of communication within a marriage is a prevalent theme in Interpreter of Maladies. The story explores the effect of keeping secrets from a loved one. Another important theme is the limitations of planning. The story suggests the unpredictability of life. Shoba, the wife relies heavily on her ability to plan for the future, she finds herself unable to adapt to life after the unexpected death of their baby. 

Characters of A Temporary Matter:

Shukumar is the protagonist of the novel. He is a 35-year-old married graduate student working on his doctoral dissertation in Boston, Massachusetts. He has been avoiding both his dissertation and his wife since the loss of their child. He and Shoba share secrets in the dark during what will become the last week of their marriage. The memory of holding his stillborn son is the final confession. He is deeply guilt-stricken. He was away at an academic conference, and Shoba went into early labor and suffered a stillbirth. His guilt of not being present for the birth renders him unable to grieve and ultimately costs him his marriage. After the baby’s death, Shukumar’s guilt causes him to retreat inward. When he tries to express his grief, his mother-in-law points out that he was absent when he was needed the most. His wife’s mother remarks that Shukumar wasn’t there and that his grief is shameful further burdens him and he becomes disillusioned and stagnant. Shoba, Shukumar's wife, is 33 years old and works as a proofreader while Shukumar is still studying. Shoba encouraged Shukumar to go to an academic conference in Baltimore even though the baby was due in three weeks. She believed it would help Shukumar make contacts for his job search. Shoba relies so heavily on her ability to plan for the future that she finds it difficult to adapt to the unexpected death of their baby. After her accident, she is forced to reckon with the fact that not all of life can be planned for and predicted. The stillbirth complicates Shoba’s ability to plan, and she struggles to recover in the aftermath. Her inability to face the unpredictability of life forces her to stop communicating and expressing herself to her husband which further pushes them away. Other characters mentioned during the talks of Shobha and Shukumar are Shobha’s mother who visited them after the delivery of the stillborn child, and Shukumar’s mother.

Summary of A Temporary Matter:

"A Temporary Matter" by Jhumpa Lahiri is about the unpredictability of life. It tells the story of Shobha and Shukumar, who were once in love but are now estranged. The story begins as Shobha returns home from the gym and receives a notification that their electricity will be turned off for five evenings in a row to fix a power line. This news exasperates Shukumar, who has been working on his dissertation at home for the past month. He observes that Shobha's makeup has run from her workout, which reminds him of earlier days when she took great care with her appearance.

Shukumar remembers a time six months ago when Shoba was pregnant. He didn’t want to go and leave Shobha alone but the baby’s due date was still three weeks away, Shoba encouraged him to attend. She said that he would be in the job market the following year so it would be good for him to make contacts. Shobha suffered a premature delivery and was forced to undergo an emergency C-section while Shukumar was away. Shukumar was alerted of the labor complications, but by the time he arrived at the Boston hospital, their child had died. Shukumar's guilt over the baby's death causes him to withdraw from life. He loses interest in everything and stagnates, unable to move forward. He avoids Shobha and her presence makes him uncomfortable.  He turns the nursery into his office, and Shobha doesn't dare enter it. She planned to keep the room as the nursery for their child. Shobha also maintains her distance from Shukumar, spending more time at work and avoiding him at home.

Shobha reminds him about his upcoming dentist appointment, and Shukumar realizes he did not brush his teeth that morning.  He brushes his teeth with a toothbrush purchased long ago in case of overnight guests. Shoba was always prepared for what might happen. Groceries were purchased in bulk, Indian chutneys and marinades were prepared on the weekend, and dishes were frozen for future use. A lavish feast could be whipped up on a moment’s notice. Now, Shukumar was working his way through their provisions, cooking dinner each evening just for the two of them to eat separately. They don’t even eat together. However, the electricity blackout forced them to have dinner together in the dark.

Shukumar finds a half-empty box of birthday candles leftover from a surprise party Shoba had thrown for her husband last spring. At the party, she held his hand all night as they chatted easily with friends they now avoid. The only visitor they’d had since their baby died was Shoba’s mother, who somewhat blames Shukumar for his child’s death. Shoba’s mother was devout and set up a cultural shrine for the baby lost. She regularly prayed for the good health of her future grandchildren. Shukumar remembers that when he tried to talk about the baby, Shoba’s mother icily remarked, “But you weren’t even there.”

Shukumar sets the table with a potted ivy to hold the candles and glasses of wine. Just as the meat is ready, the house goes dark. Shobha mentions that Shukumar has prepared rogan-gosh for the dinner. To lighten the mood, Shoba suggests a game she used to play as a child when the power would go out in Calcutta. In the dark, both Shoba and Shukumar must reveal something they have never told each other. Shukumar fails to understand the point of the game, as he feels they already know everything about each other. Shoba begins by saying she checked his address book the first time she was alone in his apartment to see if he had added her to it. He had not. Shukumar responds by saying that he forgot to tip the waiter on their first date. He was distracted by the thought of marrying Shoba, so he took a cab the next day to leave the tip.

The next night, Shoba comes home earlier so they can eat together before the lights go out. When they lose power, they decide to sit outside on the unseasonably warm winter night. Shukumar wonders what Shoba will tell him since he feels they know everything about each other. Shoba shares first. When Shukumar’s mother came for a visit, she lied about working late and went out for a martini with her friend “Gillian” instead. Shukumar remembers the visit, his mother still in mourning for her husband twelve years after his death. Without Shoba there to say the right things, Shukumar felt awkward with his grief-stricken mother. At the time, Shoba claimed that his mother’s despair was “touching,” yet Shukumar now considers she felt otherwise. Shukumar then confesses that he cheated on his “Oriental” Civilization exam in college. The question was about a ghazal or an Indian love poem. Unlike Shoba, Shukumar rarely spent any time in his home country. He only became interested in his Indian roots after his father’s death. Although his exam transgression occurred 15 years prior, Shukumar feels relief in telling Shoba. On the third night, Shukumar reveals that he returned the sweater vest Shoba had given him as a third wedding anniversary gift. He used the money to get drunk, alone at a bar during the day. Shoba counters that at a lecture they attended, she knowingly allowed Shukumar to speak with his department chair while he had food on his chin. Shukumar was attempting to secure his fellowship, but Shoba let a petty annoyance supersede Shukumar’s important impression. These confessions begin to express that the seemingly loving marriage had its twists since the start. On the fourth night, he admits he kept a picture of a woman torn out of a magazine in his wallet while Shoba was pregnant. The desire for the unknown woman was the closest he ever came to infidelity. Shoba tells him she never liked the only poem he had ever published.

The next day, they receive a notice that the power line has been repaired ahead of schedule. It is the end of their game. Shoba suggests they still light candles and eat by their glow. After dinner, Shoba turns the lights on because she has a big secret to tell Shukumar that she wishes to say in the light. She has been looking at apartments and she found one she likes. She tells him she is moving out. Shukumar is stunned. He can’t think of what to say. He feels relieved because he too is burdened by her presence. But the idea that Shobha’s game was just to let her prepare to break the news of their separation sickens him. He decides to spill out his own biggest secret and confess something he swore he’d never tell. When she was pregnant, Shoba wanted the gender of their child to remain a surprise until birth. When the child died, she did not know if they had lost a son or daughter. Shoba took refuge in that mystery, spared of that knowledge. Shoba intentionally asked to never learn the sex of the baby as a way of avoiding some of the pain of the loss, and Shukumar promised to never reveal this information “because he still loved her then.” But now he feels there is no love. When Shukumar arrived at the hospital, Shoba was asleep. The doctor suggested he hold the child before it was cremated to begin the grieving process. He tells Shoba that he held their son. He describes what the child looked like, how his fingers were curled just as her fingers curled in the night.

After revealing his biggest secret, Shukumar takes their plates to the sink, leaving Shoba alone in the living room. He watches their neighbors walk arm in arm and the lights suddenly go out. He turns to find Shoba at the light switch. They sit together and weep together.

The story ends without revealing whether the couple was able to mend their relationship or chose to separate. However, the ending suggests that both of them have come to terms with their vulnerabilities and can now move past their grief. This could allow them to repair their relationship, should they choose to do so.

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!