Mirror by Sylvia Plath | Structure, Summary, Analysis

 

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. “Mirror” is a poem by Sylvia Plath that she wrote in 1961 after giving birth to her first child. The poem was published in The New Yorker in 1963 and later on, it was published in her posthumous poetry collection ‘Crossing the Water.’ The theme of the poem is ‘time and appearance.’ The speaker is a mirror who observes an aging woman through its silver and piercing eyes. The woman is troubled by the changes in her physical appearance as she sees aging and decadence. The mirror reminds her of mortality which she fears. The poem also accuses the rigid standards of beauty and youth to which women are often expected to conform. The poem offers an idea of what is important to the female character from the point of view of a mirror, an unbiased speaker. The mirror observes that the very parts of the woman’s body that patriarchal society deems most valuable are also the parts of her that are fading away their glory and attraction. The woman is preoccupied by her reflection reminding the Greek myth of Narcissus, in which a young man grows so transfixed with his own reflection that he dies. It should be noted that Sylvia Plath committed suicide in 1963. The poem also alludes to the fairytale Sleeping Beauty, where the vain, Wicked Queen looks into her mirror to ask, "Mirror, Mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?"

Structure of ‘Mirror’: The poem is written in free verse, which means that it has no set pattern of rhythm or rhyme, not even end rhymes. However, there are internal slant rhymes. The poem has two stanzas of nine lines each. In the first stanza, the mirror introduces itself as the speaker, offering the qualities of a mirror and its unbiased, truthful nature. The second stanza offers an unbiased image of the woman that the mirror sees. The poet has used personification (Mirror is the speaker), symbolism, imagery, metaphor, simile, allusion, enjambment, consonance, and assonance in the poem.

Summary of Mirror:

Stanza 1 Lines 1-4

“I am silver and exact. I have no preconceptions.
Whatever I see I swallow immediately
Just as it is, unmisted by love or dislike.
I am not cruel, only truthful‚”

The speaker is the mirror, which describes itself as an unbiased, passive rectangle of silver, glass, and a shiny surface that only tells the truth and has no other purpose. Mirrors have no prior knowledge of anything; they simply are. The mirror uses first person narrative (I) suggesting a direct and straightforward voice. The mirror says it ‘swallows immediately’ whatever it sees, ‘just as it is,’ without embellishment or deception. In the next line, the mirror says that it is not savage, or cruel, it just remains unbiased, and truthful. The mirror neither loves nor hates whatever he sees, he remains free of any preconceived notion, suggesting the non-discriminatory nature of the mirror.

Stanza 1 Lines 5-9

“The eye of a little god, four-cornered.
Most of the time I meditate on the opposite wall.
It is pink, with speckles. I have looked at it so long
I think it is part of my heart. But it flickers.
Faces and darkness separate us over and over.”

The mirror expresses itself as the eye of god that sees everything that comes into its view. Like an omniscient god, the mirror gets a multi-dimensional view, nothing can deceive the mirror, it sees things as they are. “four cornered’ is a metaphor suggesting that the mirror is aware of all the four dimensions. It also suggests the rectangular shape of the mirror. Most of the time, the mirror "meditates on the opposite wall," as an open-eyed, staring sage, the mirror sits contemplatively. In the next line, the mirror suggests its feminine nature. The mirror says that it has observed the pink wall for so long as if it is a part of its heart. The mirror gives the idea that the person using that mirror is probably a woman. Pink is associated with feminine things, but the connection isn't that clear. In line 8, ‘it’ is the pink wall, and in line 9, ‘us’ refers to the image of the wall, which is the amalgamation of the wall and the mirror. The mirror states that his sage-like steady view is often interrupted by darkness and individuals standing between it and the wall.

Stanza 2 Lines 10-13

“Now I am a lake. A woman bends over me,
Searching my reaches for what she really is.
Then she turns to those liars, the candles or the moon.
I see her back, and reflect it faithfully.”

In the second stanza, the mirror expresses itself as a still, freshwater lake. It is a metaphor, the mirror becomes deep, reflective water. Like a mirror, the steady surface of a clean lake offers an exact image or reflection. However, the lake is liquid, and so are the tears. The mirror introduces a woman who often sees into the mirror, trying to ascertain herself. Because she's looking at a lake and not a mirror, the woman must bend over to see the reflection of her face.

She looks at the mirror very closely, delving deep into it, trying to search for the beauty and youth that time has robbed her of. The mirror, the lake, is honest and truthful but the woman isn’t satisfied by the truth or she is afraid of it. The mirror mentions more inanimate objects like ‘candles’ and ‘moon’ and calls them ‘liars’ (personification), because their light can warp sight, often hiding people's blemishes and making them appear more beautiful. Unlike the candle or the moon, who deceive, the mirror or the lake, is honest and shows how the woman is. However, the woman prefers light, or the deceivers hiding her aging beauty and blemishes. When the woman is turned away, to look at the lying moon and candles, the mirror is still there, reflecting her back, faithfully showing the truth.

Stanza 2 Lines 14-18

“She rewards me with tears and an agitation of hands.
I am important to her. She comes and goes.
Each morning it is her face that replaces the darkness.
In me she has drowned a young girl, and in me an old woman
Rises toward her day after day, like a terrible fish.”

Though the woman prefers the deception or wants them, she realizes the truthfulness of the mirror, and that brings tears to her. But those tears are a reward for the mirror, for expressing the truth, the mirror is unbiased. To ascertain herself, the woman rubs the mirror, to get a clearer, better reflection, but the mirror is truthful. Her agitation, her tears, and her wavering hands may disturb the lake for a while, creating ripples, but soon it settles and the mirror offers the truthful image again. The mirror, and thus, the reflection of the woman, or her appearance is important to her, and as it changes, it brings melancholy, depression, and tears to her. The mirror observes how the glow of the woman is turning into darkness. In the mirror (or lake), the woman has drowned a young girl, herself, she has lost her youth. Every day, she observes the mirror and sees an old woman rising from the lake. The woman's reflection is changing and aging. She sees herself growing into an old woman. Drowning and rising in the lake metaphorically describe aging. Replacing the young girl daily is the face of an old woman, surfacing "like a terrible fish." It is a simile. In her own reflection in this lake, beautiful youth is sinking, and terrible old age is rising.

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 Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri | Characters, Summary, Analysis

 

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. The Namesake is the title of the first novel by Jhumpa Lahiri published in 2003. Like her short stories in The Interpreter of Maladies, the central idea of "The Namesake" revolves around identity, belonging, and the immigrant experience or foreignness. The novel intricately explores the life of Gogol Ganguli, the son of Bengali immigrants, as he navigates the complexities of growing up in America while grappling with his cultural heritage. Gogol's name, which connects him to his family's heritage, becomes a source of confusion and conflict as he navigates the complexities of growing up in America while grappling with his cultural heritage. The dynamics within the Ganguli family illustrate the challenges of maintaining cultural ties while adapting to a new environment. As the title suggests, names are significant symbols throughout the novel, representing personal and cultural identity. To grapple with his inner conflicts, Gogol changes his name. This name change reflects his desire to distance himself from his past, leading to deeper questions about self-acceptance. The novel poignantly captures the complexities of navigating multiple identities and the impact of cultural heritage on personal growth. Lahiri's exploration of these themes provides a rich narrative that resonates with anyone who has experienced the challenges of balancing diverse cultural influences.

Characters of The Namesake:

Gogol Ganguli is the protagonist of the novel. He is the son of Ashoke and Ashima Ganguli. Growing up in a suburban town in Massachusetts, with intermittent, long trips to Calcutta, Gogol quickly becomes conscious of the difference between his parents’ culture and the world in which he lives. He comes to hate the name Gogol, embarrassed by its unique oddity. When he turns eighteen, before leaving for Yale, he legally changes his name to Nikhil. Ashoke Ganguli is originally from Kolkatta. As a young man, he faced a train crash in India. He survived because he was reading a short story by Nikolai Gogol when the crash occurred, and rescuers saw him move the book in the wreckage. Ashoke moves to America to study fiber optics. He earned his doctorate from MIT and works as a professor in the Boston area. His pet name, by which he is known at home in India, is Mithu. His family arranges his marriage to Ashima. Ashima was raised in Calcutta and married Ashoke having only met him briefly. She moves with him to Cambridge, Massachusetts, and stays in a suburb of Boston to raise her family. She faces difficulties in settling in America because of cultural differences. She tries to maintain her cultural roots by organizing social gatherings of the Indian community in Boston. In India, she is called Monu by her family members. Sonia Ganguli is the younger sister of Gogol and the daughter of Ashima and Ashoke. As a teenager, she struggles with the divide between her American friends and her Indian background and moves to California for college. After her father’s death, she comes back to Ashima to take care of her. She gets romantically involved with Ben, a Jewish-Chinese journalist in Boston. Ruth is an English major at Yale who becomes Gogol’s first girlfriend. She decides to study abroad for a semester at Oxford, and then extends her stay over the summer. After her return, they find that they are not as close as they were before and they break up. Gogol’s second serious girlfriend is Maxine Ratliff, a History graduate from Barnard. She belongs to a rich family. Gogol falls in love with her effortless beauty and elegant, rich lifestyle and moves to live with her at her home. However, he begins feeling for his family after the death of his father and feels that Maxine is an outsider and soon they break up. Maushumi Mazoomdar is a young Indian American girl who grew up in London. She is a PhD student at NYU. While her family wishes her to marry someone of Indian background she romanticizes marrying someone from other cultures. Her parents arrange her marriage with Gogol after Moushumi breaks off an engagement to Graham just before their wedding. Like Gogol, she too struggles with her identity, family background, and surroundings. Because of their similar experiences, they come close. They decide to move to Paris where Maushumi begins an extramarital affair with Dimitri Desjardins, an old crush of Moushumi who works as an adjunct professor of German literature. She divorces Gogol when he comes to know about the affair.

Summary of ‘The Namesake’:

The novel begins in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1968.  Ashoke Ganguly moved to Boston and began graduate school after barely surviving a catastrophic train accident in India. He barely survived the train accident. He was discovered by the rescue party because of the blowing pages of the book he had been reading when the train derailed—a copy of The Collected Stories of Nikolai Gogol. He believes Gogol saved his life in the train accident. 

A few years later, his parents and Ashima’s parents arranged their marriage, and Ashima left Calcutta to join Ashoke in Boston. As the novel begins, Ashima is pregnant. She makes a snack for herself as she contemplates her recent life. Ashima was apprehensive of leaving India to settle in the US but after her marriage, she dutifully did so to accompany her husband. However, her life is not easy. She feels lonely and homesick in America, clinging to letters from her family and devising makeshift Indian recipes with the ingredients she can scrounge together. As Ashima feels labor pains, Ashoke takes her to the hospital where she gives birth to their first child. Ashoke and Ashima want to wait for his grandmother’s letter to suggest a name for their son. However, the doctor suggests that they should choose a nickname for the birth certificate of their son. Ashoke decides to name him “Gogol,” the writer whose book saved Ashoke’s life.

The family settles into life in Cambridge, with Ashima learning to take Gogol around on her errands. As the family prepares for its first trip back to Calcutta, Ashoke and Ashima learn that Ashima’s father has died suddenly. Their trip is shrouded in mourning. Ashima, especially, misses her parents and her home in Calcutta, despite the family’s growing network of Bengali friends in the Boston area.

By 1971, the Gangulis have moved from Harvard Square to a university town outside Boston. After two years in university-subsidized housing, Ashima and Ashoke decide to buy a home. The new house is on Pemberton Road, and there are no Bengali neighbors. On the first day of Gogol's kindergarten, his parents tell the principal, Mrs. Lapidus, that she should call Gogol by his formal name, "Nikhil." But she overhears them referring to him as "Gogol" and asks him what he would like to be called. When he answers "Gogol," it sticks. Ashima gives birth to Gogol's little sister, Sonia, in May. In the next years, Ashoke finds out about the deaths of both his parents and Ashima finds out about the death of her mother. They learn about these deaths by phone call.

Growing up, Gogol gradually realizes that his name is quite unusual, and he really doesn't like that. He doesn't like that at all. Annoyed by the Bengali customs of his parents, Gogol totally embraces American popular culture. On Gogol's fourteenth birthday, his father comes into his room and gives him his birthday present: The Short Stories of Nikolai Gogol. Gogol is more interested in listening to the Beatles than looking at the book, and he is unable to appreciate it. Ashoke tries to tell him about the train accident but stops because he realizes Gogol cannot yet understand. Gogol begins his junior year of high school in the fall. His English teacher Mr. Lawson knows about the Russian author Gogol and assigns the class to read one of his short stories, "The Overcoat."

The summer before he leaves to attend college at Yale, Gogol officially changes his name to Nikhil,  but the name Gogol stays forever with him. He meets Ruth, an English major, and they date for a while, although he never introduces her to his parents. The next year, they break up. Gogol takes regular trips home to visit his family in Boston, and on one of these trips, Ashoke tells Gogol the story of the train crash that influenced his choice of Gogol’s name. Gogol asks him if he reminds him of that night that he almost died, and his father says no; he reminds him of "everything that followed."

In 1994, Gogol began working as an architect in New York City. He meets Maxine, whose carefree, intellectual parents represent everything his parents are not. He falls in love with the girl and her family. Her parents, Lydia and Gerald, are incredibly wealthy, and they interact in a casual but intelligent way that is totally opposite the behavior of Gogol's own parents. He begins spending most of his time at their home rather than at his own apartment, and he feels effortlessly incorporated into their lives. Meanwhile, Ashoke is scheduled to go to Ohio to teach at a University for nine months. Ashima calls Gogol to meet them before they leave but Gogol neglects. He visits them for a few minutes while going for lunch with Maxine.

One day, while Ashima was waiting for Ashoke to return home, he called her to inform her that he was facing stomach problems so he went to the hospital. After a few hours, she calls back and comes to know that Ashoke suffered a massive heart attack and died. Gogol travels to Ohio to collect his father’s remains and empty his apartment, then he returns to Boston to grieve with his mother and Sonia. He feels that his father died because of his neglect and is wracked with guilt. Maxine is sympathetic to Ashoke’s death, but she doesn’t understand why Gogol grieves with his family for so long. She tries to approach him but Gogol feels that despite all her goodness, she is an outsider to his family. They break up.

Ashima encourages him to call Moushumi Mazoomdar, the daughter of family friends whom Gogol has grown up around at family parties. She tells him that she moved to Paris to study French literature, and then moved to New York to follow her ex-fiancé, an American named Graham. After the fight that ended their engagement, Moushumi had taken the rest of the semester off from NYU and mourned, finally returning to school in the fall. It was then that she had met Gogol. Gogol and she begin to date seriously. They marry within a year, soon after Gogol’s 30th birthday, in a traditional Bengali ceremony organized by their families. Soon, however, Gogol realizes that he dislikes Moushumi’s friends and her desire to be someone different. Moushumi decides to attend a conference in Paris where she is invited to present a paper on her thesis. Gogol accompanies her on a vacation. Moushumi expresses her longing to live in Paris, but Gogol feels out of place the entire time. Two days after their first wedding anniversary, Moushumi comes across a resume at the university from a man named Dimitri Desjardins whom she had fallen in love with in high school. She meets him and soon develops an extramarital affair. However, she tries to hide it from Gogol. Somehow Gogol comes to know about her extramarital affair and they get divorced.

Ashima is living with Sonia who is having an affair with Ben, a Chinese Jewish journalist. Sonia and Ben have planned to go to Kolkatta to get married in the traditional Indian way. Ashima decides to sell the house and spend six months of each year living in Calcutta, and the other six months living in America with her children, Sonia and Gogol. She arranges for one last Christmas party at the Ganguli house on Pemberton Road. Gogol visits there to help his mother pack up the family home and prepare for her last Christmas Eve party. While packing, Gogol comes across the book of Nikolai Gogol's short stories that his father gave him for his fourteenth birthday. He sees the inscription his father has written inside: "The man who gave you his name, from the man who gave you your name." He takes his time while remembering his father and then begins to read “The Overcoat.”
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!

Bowdlerize | Literary Terms and Devices

 

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Bowdlerize is a literary term that refers to the practice of removing or altering content considered inappropriate or offensive from a text. This term originates from the name of Thomas Bowdler, who published a censored version of Shakespeare's works in the early 19th century, aiming to make them more acceptable for family reading. Thomas Bowdler was an English physician known for publishing The Family Shakespeare, an expurgated edition of William Shakespeare's plays edited by his sister Henrietta Maria Bowdler. The purpose of this edited version was to make Shakespeare’s plays more appropriate than the original for 19th-century women and children. Mrs. Harriet Bowdler was an English religious author. She removed anything that seemed irreverent or immoral, deleting about 10% of the original works. The resulting edition was published under the name of her brother, Thomas Bowdler, after whom this type of treatment came to be known as Bowdlerization.

Another term for Bowdlerization is Expurgation or censorship by political correctness. It is a form of censorship that involves purging anything deemed noxious or offensive from an artistic work or other type of writing or media.

The term bowdlerization is often used in the context of the expurgation of lewd material from books. The main purpose of Bowdlerization is to make literature more suitable for certain audiences, especially children or those who might be offended by explicit content. The content to be altered or expurgated may include, sexual content, profanity, violence, and racial or cultural references.

Some editions of Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (by NewSouth Books) have altered or removed racial slurs to make the text more palatable.

Agatha Christie’s novel ‘And Then There Were None’ was originally published under the title ‘Ten Little Niggers’ in 1939 and it included a poem by the same title which serves as a major plot element. The title was changed before its publication in America in 1940 to ‘And Then There Were None’ and the poem too was altered as ‘Ten Little Indians.’

Bowdlerization has been heavily criticized again and again. Critics argue that bowdlerization can distort the original meaning and artistic integrity of the work. It raises questions about censorship and the balance between protecting audiences and preserving creative expression. Altering texts can compromise the author's original intent and artistic expression. Original texts, even with challenging content, provide valuable insights into historical contexts, social issues, and human experiences. Some believe that confronting uncomfortable themes is essential for understanding and addressing societal issues. Bowdlerization can lead to a sanitized view of history and culture, potentially perpetuating ignorance. Once the practice of bowdlerization begins, it can lead to increasingly arbitrary or excessive alterations, diminishing the richness of literature.

It should be noted that a student edition of the novel Fahrenheit 451 was expurgated or bowdlerized to remove a variety of content. This was ironic given the subject matter of the novel involves burning books. Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury has been censored in multiple ways, including removing words, changing passages, and blacking out words. The novel has also been banned for its depictions of drugs, religious beliefs, and vulgarity. 

So this is it. We will continue to discuss literary terms and devices. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

Byronic Hero | Literary Terms and Devices

 

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. The Byronic hero is a fascinating literary archetype named after the English poet Lord Byron. This character type is often marked by a blend of traits that challenge traditional heroism. A Byronic Hero is a variant of a Romantic hero. British poet, critic, and historian Lord Macaulay described a Byronic hero as "a man proud, moody, cynical, with defiance on his brow, and misery in his heart, a scorner of his kind, implacable in revenge, yet capable of deep and strong affection". The term is named after Lord Byron, a prominent figure in the Romantic literary movement, known for his poetry and flamboyant lifestyle. His works often featured protagonists who embodied traits that would become synonymous with the Byronic hero. Byron introduced this archetype in several of his own works. In his semi-autobiographical narrative poem Child Harold’s Pilgrimage, the protagonist, Childe Harold, is a disillusioned wanderer who embodies the traits of the Byronic hero. Similarly, the central character of his dramatic poem Manfred is deeply introspective, grappling with guilt and existential despair, and thus, a Byronic hero.

Characteristics of a Byronic Hero:

The Byronic hero reflects the Romantic ideal of the individual as a powerful figure, often at odds with society, representing a departure from traditional heroic figures. A Byronic Hero typically showcases a Rebellious Nature. They often defy societal norms and conventions, displaying a strong sense of independence. The Byronic Hero often suggests a Complex Morality. They possess a troubled past and are often haunted by guilt or a sense of loss, making their moral compass ambiguous. They understand their complexities and they tend to be deeply Introspective, struggling with their inner demons and existential questions. Though morally ambiguous, a Byronic Hero is Charismatic, typically charming and magnetic, drawing others to them despite their flaws. Yet, they remain introverted and Isolated. Byronic heroes often feel alienated from society and struggle with feelings of loneliness and despair. Byronic Heroes are Passionate, and driven by intense emotions, whether it be love, anger, or revenge.

Explanation of a Byronic Hero:

Let us take an example from Bollywood. Vijay Verma, Amitabh Bachchan's character in the movie Deewar is a typical Byronic Hero. He defies societal norms and expectations. He rises from humble beginnings to become a powerful figure in the underworld, showcasing his rebellious spirit against a corrupt system. His character is marked by moral ambiguity. While he engages in criminal activities, his motivations stem from a desire to protect his family, take revenge, and rise above poverty, making him a sympathetic figure. Vijay grapples with his choices, often reflecting on his life and the consequences of his actions. His internal struggles are a hallmark of the Byronic hero. Despite his success, he suffers isolation, alienation, and being left out. Vijay's ambition and desire for revenge ultimately lead to tragic outcomes, reflecting the classic traits of a Byronic hero who is often doomed by his own flaws.

Lord Byron as a Byronic Hero:

Lord Byron was known for his defiance against societal norms. He lived a lifestyle that challenged the conventions of his time, including his numerous love affairs and his criticism of social and political issues. His poetry often reflects inner conflict and moral ambiguity. Byron’s characters grapple with their own flaws and societal expectations, mirroring his own struggles with morality. Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage is considered semi-autobiographical. He was deeply introspective, often reflecting on his emotions, desires, and regrets in his work. His poetry reveals a profound awareness of his own psychological turmoil. He was known for his charm and magnetism and despite his fame, Byron often felt alienated and misunderstood. His travels and exile from England reflect his struggle with belonging and acceptance. His passionate pursuits, whether in love or politics suggest his traits as a Byronic Hero.

Examples of Byronic Heroes from Literature:

Some of the famous Byronic Heroes from literature include Emily Bronte’s Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. He is a brooding, vengeful, and deeply passionate character.

Charlotte Bronte’s Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre again is a Byronic Hero with a mysterious, flawed, and emotionally complex persona. Lord Byron himself exemplified a Byronic Hero as Don Juan in his satirical epic poem Don Juan. He is charismatic, morally ambiguous, and a lover of adventure.

Mary Shelly's 'monster' in Frankenstein is a Byronic Hero expressing alienation, seeking acceptance, and grappling with identity. Oscar Wilde’s Dorian Gray in The Picture of Dorian Gray is a fine example of a Byronic Hero who is aesthetic-driven, morally corrupt, and obsessed with youth.

Charles Dickens’ Rigaud in Little Dorrit is manipulative, darkly charismatic, and morally ambiguous. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby is an Anti-hero, but he can be suggested as a Byronic Hero too as he is a dreamer, self-made, and trapped by his own desires. Captain Nemo in Jules Verne’s ‘Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea’ is a typical example of a Byronic Hero. He is mysterious, reclusive, and driven by personal vendettas. Edgar Allan Poe’s Roderick Usher in The Fall of the House of Usher can be described as a Byronic Hero who is sensitive, melancholic, and haunted by family legacy. Doctor Faustus from Christopher Marlowe’s play Doctor Faustus is often considered a Byronic Hero due to his characteristics like extreme ambition, intellectual arrogance, a rebellious spirit against societal norms, and a tragic downfall stemming from his own choices, mirroring the typical Byronic hero archetype. Hamlet and Macbeth are two characters from Shakespeare's plays that are sometimes considered Byronic heroes. 

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss literary terms and devices. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.

William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley | Intentional Fallacy, Affective Fallacy | The Verbal Icon

 

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley are influential figures in the field of literary criticism, particularly known for their contributions to New Criticism. Wimsatt was an American professor of English, literary theorist, and critic associated with the movement of New Criticism while Beardsley was an American philosopher of arts. Wimsatt and Beardsley significantly influenced literary criticism by advocating for an approach that prioritizes the text (Close Reading). Their work has been foundational in developing New Criticism, impacting how literature is studied and analyzed in academic settings. Their theories continue to spark discussions about the role of the author, reader, and text in literary interpretation.

The Intentional Fallacy:

The Intentional Fallacy is a significant idea introduced by William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley in their influential essay "The Intentional Fallacy," published in 1946. The essay was reproduced in their book The Verbal Icon in 1954. The intentional fallacy refers to the error of attributing a work's meaning to the intent of the author. Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that interpreting a text based on what the author intended to convey leads to a misunderstanding of the work itself. Seeking to uncover an author's intentions can limit the appreciation of a text and distract from its intrinsic qualities. Wimsatt and Monroe argue that "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art". They say that the author cannot be reconstructed from a writing — the text is the primary source of meaning, and any details of the author's desires or life are secondary. Intentional Fallacy occurs when a critic puts too much emphasis on personal, biographical, or what he calls “external” information when analyzing a work. When a critic emphasizes too much on intentional criticism, it becomes subjective criticism, and so ceases to be criticism at all. Proper criticism must be evidence-based and objective. Critical inquiries are resolved through evidence in and of the text — not “by consulting the oracle” or the author who most probably cannot assert that the ‘intentions’ guessed’ by the critic were his or not.  

Consider Robert Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken." A critic argues that the poem's meaning hinges on Frost's personal struggle with choices in his life, citing his biography as the basis for interpretation. Wimsatt and Monroe suggest that one should analyze the imagery of the roads, the metaphor of choice, and the poem’s structure to derive meaning without relying on Frost's intentions, his biography, or the period when he wrote the poem.

Similarly, In "Hamlet," Hamlet's delay in avenging his father's murder. A critic claims that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet's indecision because he was grappling with his own fears about action and morality. However, the correct approach would be to analyze Hamlet’s soliloquies, themes of existentialism, and the play's philosophical questions which will provide a richer understanding of the character's motivations independent of Shakespeare's personal life.

While analyzing F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby," a reader asserts that Gatsby's tragic end reflects Fitzgerald's own disillusionment with the American Dream, interpreting the novel solely through Fitzgerald's biography. However, one should examine the symbolism of the green light, the role of wealth, and the social critiques within the text to understand its themes.

These examples illustrate how Intentional Fallacy can lead to flawed readings of literature by overly emphasizing the author's intent rather than engaging with the text itself. By concentrating on the text's language, structure, and themes, readers can uncover richer meanings and interpretations.

The Affective Fallacy:

The Affective Fallacy is another important concept introduced by William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley in their essay "The Affective Fallacy," published in 1949. This idea complements their earlier discussion of the Intentional Fallacy and plays a significant role in the field of New Criticism. The affective fallacy refers to the error of evaluating a literary work based on the emotional responses it elicits in readers. Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that such responses can lead to subjective interpretations that may not accurately reflect the text's meaning or value. They suggest that literary works are autotelic and that literary criticism should analyze the text itself—its form, structure, and language—rather than rely on the feelings it provokes in its audience. The essay is often considered a critique of ‘Reader-Response’ as Wilmsatt and Monroe contend that relying on emotional responses can lead to inconsistencies and subjective interpretations, as different readers may have vastly different reactions to the same text. They caution against allowing personal feelings to overshadow the text's inherent qualities. If a reader claims that a poem is "good" simply because it made them feel nostalgic, they are committing the affective fallacy. A more robust analysis would involve looking at the poem's language, form, and how those elements contribute to the overall meaning. In reading "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen, a critic who focuses solely on how the novel's romantic elements make them feel happy or sad is overlooking the social critiques and character development present in the text. A reader claims that Keats's poem "Ode to a Nightingale" is profound simply because it evokes feelings of melancholy and nostalgia for lost youth. The reader's interpretation is based solely on personal emotional response rather than analyzing the poem’s rich imagery, themes of mortality, and the contrast between the ideal and the real. This causes an error in judgment or critique of the poem. While reading "Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens, a reader expresses that they love the novel because it makes them feel hopeful about life and personal transformation. While emotional engagement is valid, this analysis neglects the novel’s social commentary on class, crime, and rehabilitation, which are critical to understanding its themes.

The Verbal Icon:

The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry is a significant work authored by William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley that was published in 1954. This collection of essays focuses on the nature of poetry and the principles of literary criticism, particularly from the perspective of New Criticism. The book reintroduced two important essays "The Intentional Fallacy" and "The Affective Fallacy," both key texts of New Criticism. The book aims to analyze how meaning is constructed in poetry and to explore the relationship between language and artistic expression. It consists of several essays that discuss various aspects of poetry, including imagery, metaphor, and the role of the reader. The authors argue that poetry conveys meaning through language itself rather than through external references or authorial intention. They emphasize the importance of close reading to uncover the layers of meaning within a poem. In this book, Wimsatt and Beardsley theorize their concept of the intentional fallacy, asserting that a poem should be analyzed without considering the intentions of the poet. They encourage critics to focus on the text as an independent entity. They also discuss the affective fallacy, which suggests that the emotional responses of readers should not determine a poem's value or meaning, reinforcing the idea that meaning resides in the structure and language of the poem itself. The book explores how imagery and symbolism function in poetry, asserting that they are crucial for conveying complex meanings. The authors analyze how poetic devices contribute to the overall aesthetic experience of a poem. The book emphasizes the concept of Autotelic Text which refers to a work of art or literature that is self-contained and self-referential, meaning that its value and meaning are derived entirely from the text itself, rather than from external contexts such as the author's intentions or the audience's reactions. Autotelic texts encourage readers to appreciate the aesthetic qualities of literature, focusing on how language and structure create meaning and evoke emotions.

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!

Plato as a Literary Critic | Important Works and Concepts

 

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Plato is considered one of the most influential thinkers and philosophers of the Ancient world. His ideas continue to have a profound influence on modern thought, particularly politics, education, and philosophy. Plato's ideas have influenced modern literature in many ways, including his views on poetry, rhetoric, and the role of art in society.

Plato was born around 428 B.C., during the declining years of the Golden Age of Pericles’ Athens. He witnessed the defeat of Athens by Sparta and the political chaos that followed. He was highly influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Homer, and Parmenides. His teachers included Cratylus and Socrates. As a youth, Plato observed the political change of the Oligarchic governmental setup of Athens shifting towards Direct Democracy. Socrates was condemned for corrupting the minds of the Athenian youth and Plato was one of his ardent students. Plato was disillusioned by the political turmoil and the consequences of democratic governance, particularly after the execution of his mentor, Socrates, which he attributed to the flaws of the democratic system. It was the end of the Golden Age and the wonderful flowering time of Greek art and literature was over. It was a period when philosophers and thinkers were criticizing dramas and poetry including that of Homer. Literature was considered immoral, corrupt, and degenerate and often faced hostile criticism. At the age of 40, Plato founded his Academy, the philosophical school in which he delivered lectures to students gathered from throughout the Greek world. Plato went against his own mentor Socrates's idea who questioned the very idea of a teacher’s ability to impart knowledge. Plato believed that the system of the Academy was going to lead to social progress. One of the students from northern Greece who joined the Academy was Aristotle. The Academy included an array of instructors teaching Geometry, History, Mathematics, Astronomy, and other subjects.

Important works of Plato:

His most important works include The Republic, Apology, Ion, Gorgias, Symposium, and Phaedrus. Plato wrote most of his works in the form of Dialogues, following the idea of the Socratic method. Scholars often group the works of Plato into three categories namely, Early, Middle, and Late. His works Apology, Georgia, and Ion are considered Early works while Republic, Phaedrus, and Symposium are considered Middle works.

Apology:

"Apology" is one of the dialogues written by Plato, which recounts the trial of Socrates in 399 BCE. Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth of Athens and impiety (not believing in the gods of the state). The "Apology" is divided into three main parts:

1) The Defense: Socrates addresses the charges against him.

2) The Verdict: The jury's decision on his guilt.

3) The Sentencing: Socrates proposes his own punishment and reflects on his fate.

Socrates argues that he is a seeker of truth and wisdom, not a corrupter. He believes that questioning and dialogue serve to enhance understanding and virtue. One of the most famous quotes from Socrates is: "The unexamined life is not worth living." He emphasizes the importance of self-reflection and philosophical inquiry. Socrates maintains his commitment to his principles, even in the face of death. He prioritizes his moral integrity over conformity to societal expectations. He cross-examines his accusers, questioning their knowledge and motives. He argues that he is being persecuted for his philosophical inquiries rather than any wrongdoing. Socrates claims that he is fulfilling a divine mission by encouraging others to seek wisdom and virtue.

After his defense, the jury finds Socrates guilty. In a dramatic turn, he suggests that he should be rewarded for his service to the city rather than punished, showing his unwavering commitment to his beliefs. Ultimately, he is sentenced to death by drinking hemlock.

Plato's "Apology" not only serves as a record of Socrates' trial but also presents profound philosophical reflections on ethics, knowledge, and the role of the philosopher in society. It highlights the tensions between individual conscience and societal norms, a theme that remains relevant today.

The Republic: The Republic is one of the most important works of Plato which is divided into ten sections or books. It is often placed in the middle period of Plato’s dialogues. In this work, Plato offers his arguments against Direct Democracy. He says that citizens often lack the necessary knowledge and expertise to make informed decisions on complex political issues. In a direct democracy, decisions are made by majority rule, which can lead to irrational choices. He also warns that charismatic leaders could manipulate public opinion and sway the masses, leading to decisions based not on reason but on emotional appeal. This can result in demagoguery, where leaders prioritize personal gain over the common good. Direct democracy can create instability as various factions vie for power and influence. Plato argued that this could lead to chaos and conflict, undermining the social order. In contrast to direct democracy, Plato proposed the idea of the philosopher-king in his work The Republic. He believed that the most qualified rulers should be wise philosophers who possess knowledge of the Forms, particularly the Form of the Good. Plato clearly supported Meritocracy over Popularity.

Allegory of the Ship:

In Books V-VI, Plato uses the Allegory of the Ship to illustrate his critique of democracy. He likens the state to a ship and the sailors to the citizens. Just as an untrained crew cannot successfully navigate a ship, an uneducated populace cannot effectively govern a state. Only those with navigational skills—knowledge of justice and governance—should steer the ship (the state).

Theory of Forms :

Plato’s ‘Theory of Forms’ is a framework for understanding reality, knowledge, and existence. He says that Forms are abstract, perfect, unchangeable concepts or ideals that transcend the physical world. The physical objects we encounter in everyday life are merely imperfect representations or copies of these ideal Forms. Forms represent the highest standard of quality. For example, the Form of Beauty itself is perfect, while beautiful objects in the physical world are only imperfect reflections of this Form. A beautiful object, say a rose, may appear beautiful to some people but some others may not find it beautiful, thus it is imperfect. However, beauty, an abstract idea, is perfect. Let’s take another example of Squares. If a group of students are asked to draw a square, each of the students will probably draw a different square. Some may draw a square with a side of 2 cm, and some may draw a square with a side of 10 cm. Some may not be so precise while drawing the angles to 90 degrees. Since each imitation of a square is different and depends on the individual drawing it, it is imperfect. The form, the abstract idea of square is perfect as it is the same and unchangeable for everyone. Unlike material objects, which are subject to change and decay, Forms are eternal and immutable. Forms are the essence of various properties, but they are separate from their physical manifestations. For instance, all circular objects share the Form of Circularity, which defines what it means to be a circle. The Form of Goodness, often regarded as the highest Form, represents the ultimate principle of goodness and the source of all other Forms. The Form of Beauty represents the essence of beauty, which all beautiful things attempt to emulate. Mathematical Forms are concepts such as numbers and geometrical shapes that exist as perfect Forms, separate from their physical manifestations. All tangible objects are imperfect copies of their respective Forms. For instance, a beautiful painting reflects the Form of Beauty but is not the Form itself. True knowledge, according to Plato, involves understanding the Forms rather than merely grasping the physical instances. This aligns with his belief that philosophers, who seek to understand the Forms, possess true knowledge. Plato suggested that the Forms represent the spiritual realm while the imitations or physical, tangible objects represent the Physical realm or the world of appearances based on those forms. Knowledge derived from the physical realm is considered inferior because it is based on perception and opinion rather than true understanding.

Allegory of the Cave:

The Allegory of the Cave is one of the most famous passages in Plato's work, The Republic. It serves as a powerful metaphor for his Theory of Forms.

Imagine prisoners who have been chained inside a dark cave since birth. They face a blank wall and cannot see the outside world. The only light comes from a fire behind them, which casts shadows on the wall they are watching. The prisoners perceive these shadows as reality since they have never seen anything else. They hear echoes from the outside world but cannot see the actual objects or people that produce these sounds. One prisoner manages to break free from their chains and escapes the cave. Initially, he is blinded by the sunlight outside and struggles to adjust to this new reality. As the escaped prisoner’s eyes adjust, he sees the real objects, the vibrant colors of nature, and eventually the sun, which represents the ultimate source of truth and knowledge.

The enlightened prisoner returns to the cave to free the others. However, he is met with resistance and disbelief. The remaining prisoners are comfortable in their ignorance and are hostile to the idea of leaving the cave. The allegory illustrates how difficult it can be to accept new ideas and truths that challenge established beliefs. The prisoners prefer the familiar shadows to the unknown reality outside. The Allegory of the Cave reflects Plato’s Theory of Forms, where the shadows represent the imperfect physical world, while the objects outside the cave symbolize the perfect Forms or Ideas that represent true reality. The journey from the cave to the outside world symbolizes the philosopher's path from ignorance to knowledge. It emphasizes the importance of education and the philosopher's role in society. Plato suggests that philosophers, having seen the truth, must return to the cave (society) and help others achieve enlightenment, even if they face resistance or hostility.

Criticism of Poetry:

The Republic reveals Plato’s complex views on art, representation, and the nature of knowledge. Plato argues that art or poetry is a form of imitation or mimesis and therefore it is deceptive, it distorts reality. He believes that poets create representations of reality rather than reality itself. Since poets imitate the world of appearances, they are two steps removed from the truth (the Forms). To explain his mimetic criticism of art, he used the example of a chair. Let us say a painter draws a picture of a chair. Now the physical real chair itself is imperfect and different from the real Form of the chair and the picture of a chair is a further imitation of that imperfect thing and hence it is much more imperfect and impure. The same is the case with poetry. Let us say a good deed is done by a person. Now this good deed is imperfect and an imitation of the Form of Goodness. If a poet decides to describe this good deed that actually happened, the words will further imitate what did happen and will further push it away from the Form of Goodness. Mimetic criticism views literary works as Imitation. According to Plato, because poetry imitates the material world, it ultimately misleads people about the nature of reality. He emphasizes that the physical world is just a shadow of the true world of Forms, making poetry a mere shadow of a shadow. Art or poetry is not good. It is thrice removed from reality because it is a copy of a copy of Form. Plato criticizes poetry for appealing primarily to emotions rather than reason. He argues that poetry can provoke strong emotional responses, leading individuals to act irrationally or unethically. Poetry, in Plato's view, can undermine rational thought and self-control. He worries that exposure to emotional content can lead people away from virtuous behavior, as they may become consumed by their passions rather than guided by reason. Plato believes that poetry can shape a person's character negatively. He argues that if individuals are exposed to negative portrayals of gods and heroes—such as immoral behavior—this can influence their own actions and attitudes. Let us say a popular hero, or actor smokes on the screen and drinks alcohol, the viewers who like him will be prompted to imitate him and thus, such depiction will promote vices in society. To protect society, Plato suggests that poetry should be censored to ensure that only morally uplifting and truthful representations are allowed. He particularly criticizes the portrayal of the gods in Homeric epics for their immoral actions. Plato places philosophy above poetry in the hierarchy of knowledge. He argues that philosophers seek to understand the eternal truths and the Forms, whereas poets merely convey subjective experiences and illusions. Despite his criticisms, Plato acknowledges that poetry can have a role in education if it promotes virtue and truth. However, he emphasizes that the primary aim should be to foster rational thought and moral development. One may say that the idea of Poetic justice raised its head from Plato’s The Republic.

Apart from these, Plato discussed rhetoric and the art of persuasion in Phaedrus. He discussed rhetoric, ethics, and the nature of power in Gorgias while debating the merits of rhetoric versus philosophy.

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

The Colossus by Sylvia Plath | Structure, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. The Colossus is a poem by Sylvia Plath first published in her poetry collection ‘The Colossus and Other Poems’ in 1960. ‘The Colossus and Other Poems’ is the only book of poetry by Plath that was published during her lifetime. The title of the poem ‘The Colossus’ refers to The Colossus of Rhodes, an ancient wonder of the world that was a giant statue of the Greek sun god Helios astride two islands. An earthquake rocked the Rhodes island and the structure trembled down. The poet used the Colossus as an extended metaphor for the speaker dealing with the loss of her father. When it was standing upright, the statue was a symbol of strength, victory, and a seemingly all-powerful sun god. Kids often see their fathers as invincible, all-powerful providers, like Helios. The speaker loves her father to the extent that she worships him, and seeing him defeated by death seems to have shattered her as much as it did him. Thus, the poet uses the fall of the Colossus of Rhodes as a significant allusion. It symbolizes the speaker's relationship with her father and the impossibility of reclaiming the past. The speaker makes the reader feel the hugeness of loss she suffers after the death of her father.

Sylvia Plath was a confessional poetess, often depicting her own struggles, issues, and shortcomings in her poetry. It is also a well-known fact that she lost her father at the age of eight. Thus, it is safe to assume that the speaker is the poet, Sylvia Plath herself.

Structure of The Colossus:

It is a 30-line poem set in six stanzas of five lines each (quintains). The poem is written in free verse and the stanzas follow no particular rhyming scheme. The poet has used apostrophes, extended metaphor, symbolism, imagery, alliteration, allusion, caesura, and enjambment in the poem. The poem follows a conversational tone as if the speaker is conversing with the reader.

Summary of The Colossus:

Stanza 1 Lines 1-5

“I shall never get you put together entirely,

Pieced, glued, and properly jointed.

Mule-bray, pig-grunt and bawdy cackles

Proceed from your great lips.

It’s worse than a barnyard.”

The speaker begins with an apostrophe, expressing her exasperation to “you”, the Colossus of Rhodes, as she tries to perform a huge project. She addresses the broken ‘colossus’ or statue directly. The speaker seems to be admitting defeat. She's sure she'll never get this job done. Words like "pieced" and "glued" also conjure the image of someone trying to put together the shattered remnants of a statue. The speaker hints at the extended metaphor she has begun to elucidate. The remnants of the statue represent the memories of her father, who is no more.

The vivid sounds of animals create a cacophony, symbolizing chaos and lack of dignity. This imagery suggests that the remnants of the Colossus, once grand, have become something grotesque and disorganized in the speaker’s mind. The degrading comparison of the remnants of the statue to ‘worse than a barnyard’ suggests a sense of disappointment and frustration. The barnyard symbolizes raw, uncultured chaos, contrasting sharply with the grandeur one might expect from the giant Colossus in its grandeur.

Stanza 2 Lines 6-10

“Perhaps you consider yourself an oracle,

Mouthpiece of the dead, or of some god or other.

Thirty years now I have labored

To dredge the silt from your throat.

I am none the wiser.”

The speaker continues to mock the fallen statue of the Colossus while expressing her frustration at her loss. The speaker alludes to the Oracle of Delphi, who was known to offer prophecies from Apollo. She speculates that the colossus views itself as some sort of ‘oracle’ able to transmit the words of the dead, or even the words of some god, to the living. The speaker has tried hard for thirty years to remove the ‘silt’ or sand from the statue’s throat, but still cannot make sense of what it is trying to say. She may be mocking the fallen statue, but she's "labored" for "thirty years" to try and clear out its silty throat. It seems like, even though she resents it, she must care for it deeply in some way. The speaker still does not clarify the significance of the remnants of the statue or her relationship with it. Though she does clarify that it is something she once expected to get wisdom from, but now just can't—no matter how hard she tries.

Stanza 3 Lines 11-15

“Scaling little ladders with glue pots and pails of lysol

I crawl like an ant in mourning

Over the weedy acres of your brow

To mend the immense skull plates and clear

The bald, white tumuli of your eyes.”

In the third stanza, the speaker describes the vastness of the statue. The speaker describes herself crawling over the ‘acres’ of its brow or forehead, carrying pails of glue and Lysol (a disinfectant) like an ant in ‘mourning’ for this broken colossus. She is trying to mend its skull and clear the ‘tumuli’ – mounds, but also burial mounds, specifically – from the statue’s eyes. ‘Ant in mourning’ offers an excellent simile. One may never see an ant ‘mourning.’ The idea is that the memories and the loss of the grandeur of the statue are so enormous that no matter how much she tries, she cannot cover it. The speaker is yet not ready to actually declare or reveal the essence of her extended metaphor.

Stanza 4 Lines 16-20

“A blue sky out of the Oresteia

Arches above us. O father, all by yourself

You are pithy and historical as the Roman Forum.

I open my lunch on a hill of black cypress.

Your fluted bones and acanthine hair are littered”

In the 16^th line, the poet uses caesura, breaking the line, and using a full stop in the middle of the line. And then she reveals the extended metaphor. She addresses “you”, the Colossus, as ‘O father,’ her dead father. The speaker also alludes to Electra mourning her murdered father, Agamemnon, from the trilogy of Greek tragedies by Aeschylus, Oresteia.

 The word "pithy" implies substance and conciseness, suggesting that the father's essence is significant yet perhaps overshadowed by the passage of time. Comparing the father to the Roman Forum, a place of public life and history, suggests that he has left a lasting impact on the speaker's life. However, it also implies that he is now a relic of the past, revered yet distant.

The speaker takes a break and tries to go away from the colossus, the memories of her father. But as she sits to take her lunch, she notices, the ‘fluted bones’ and ‘acanthine hair’ of the colossus, her father littered here and there. This suggests that even if the speaker tries to get rid of the memories and grief of her father’s loss, she is unable to. It suggests that the speaker is left to sift through the remnants of their relationship.

Stanza 5 Lines 21-25

“In their old anarchy to the horizon-line.

It would take more than a lightning-stroke

To create such a ruin.

Nights, I squat in the cornucopia

Of your left ear, out of the wind,”

The poet used enjambment in between the two stanzas while using the first line of the fifth stanza to complete the sentence of the previous line in stanza four. The old "fluted bones and acanthine hair" appear everywhere stretching out to the horizon. Escaping from the memories and the sense of loss because of her father’s demise is impossible for her. The use of ‘old anarchy’ offers a sense of just how long the speaker has suffered this loss. A cornucopia symbolizes abundance and nourishment, suggesting that the speaker is seeking solace or understanding from her father's memory. The ear represents listening and communication, indicating that the speaker wishes to express or communicate her fears, troubles, and feelings of loss to her father, in death, out of the troubled life.

Stanza 6 Lines 26-30

“Counting the red stars and those of plum-color.

The sun rises under the pillar of your tongue.

My hours are married to shadow.

No longer do I listen for the scrape of a keel

On the blank stones of the landing.”

Stars often symbolize hope, guidance, or the remnants of what once was. The act of counting suggests a yearning for order or understanding amidst chaos. The speaker feels or desires to communicate with her father as he could offer some guidance and recluse from the troubles of life to her. The sun often represents enlightenment, rebirth, or clarity. Here, it rising "under the pillar of your tongue" suggests that the speaker associates her father’s voice or words with enlightenment or a source of strength. However, she notices that her hopes are futile, her father is no more, and he will never come back and thus, she asserts that her ‘hours are married to shadow.’ Despite the sun rising, the sun that could clarify her darkness will never rise. She feels forever bound by the depression caused by the death of her father.

In the last lines, the poet expresses her exasperation and hopelessness. The keel of a boat represents balance and steadiness which she lacks. She is no longer waiting to hear the arrival of a boat or wondering if her father is going to turn up. She knows she can’t put her father, the colossus back together again but she can’t stop trying. She has no escape.

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!