Northrop Frye - Thinking activity

Northrop Frye - Archetypal Criticism

Thinking activity

This blog is a thinking activity assigned by Dilip Barad sir H.O.D. of  English Department M.K.B.U. In this blog I am going to ask chatGPT about some questions of archetypal criticism and try to see how correct explanations can generate.

(1) What is Archetypal Criticism ?

Archetypal criticism is a form of literary criticism that focuses on identifying and interpreting recurring symbols, patterns, and themes in literature that are based on universally recognizable and ingrained human experiences, such as birth, death, love, and power. This approach to literary analysis is rooted in the theories of Carl Jung, a Swiss psychologist who developed the concept of archetypes, which he believed were universal patterns of behavior and symbols that are inherited from our collective unconscious.

Archetypal critics examine literary works to identify archetypal motifs, characters, and symbols, and interpret them in the context of their cultural and historical significance. They often draw on mythology, folklore, and religious traditions to understand the archetypes present in a work of literature.

Archetypal criticism is often used to explore the deeper meanings and themes in works of literature and to understand how they relate to universal human experiences. This approach can also shed light on the psychological, cultural, and historical contexts in which a work of literature was created, and how it reflects the values, beliefs, and experiences of its author and its audience.

(2) What is the Contribution of Northrop Frye in Archetypal Criticism?

Northrop Frye was a Canadian literary critic and theorist who made significant contributions to the development of archetypal criticism. Frye's major work, "Anatomy of Criticism" (1957), is considered a foundational text in literary theory and archetypal criticism.

Frye's main contribution to archetypal criticism was his theory of the "archetypal patterns" that underlie all literature. According to Frye, all literature is based on a set of archetypal patterns that are drawn from the collective unconscious and that recur throughout human history. These patterns include the journey, the quest, the death and rebirth motif, and the struggle between good and evil.

Frye argued that archetypal patterns can be found in all literary genres, including poetry, drama, and fiction, and that they can be used to analyze and interpret works of literature in a more comprehensive and systematic way. He also emphasized the importance of understanding the cultural and historical context in which a work of literature was created in order to fully appreciate its archetypal meanings.

Frye's work helped to establish archetypal criticism as a major approach to literary analysis and inspired many scholars and critics to explore the archetypal dimensions of literature. His influence can be seen in the work of subsequent archetypal critics, such as Harold Bloom and Joseph Campbell, and his ideas continue to shape the way that we understand and interpret literature today.

(3) What do Archetypal Critics do ? Explain with Examples.

Archetypal critics analyze literature by examining the use of archetypes, which are recurring patterns or symbols that have a universal meaning and significance. These critics focus on identifying and interpreting the underlying archetypes that shape the themes, characters, and imagery in a work of literature.

Here are some examples of what archetypal critics do:

1. Identify Archetypal Motifs: Archetypal critics look for recurring motifs or patterns that are universal across different cultures and times. For example, the hero's journey is a common motif found in literature that depicts a protagonist who goes on a quest or adventure, faces obstacles and challenges, and returns transformed. An archetypal critic might analyze a work of literature to identify the hero's journey and explore how it contributes to the themes and characters of the story.

2. Interpret Archetypal Symbols: Archetypal critics analyze the use of symbols in literature, looking for images or objects that have a universal meaning and significance. For example, water is a common archetypal symbol that can represent life, purity, or transformation. An archetypal critic might analyze how water is used in a work of literature to convey a particular theme or to shape the development of a character.

3. Explore Archetypal Characters: Archetypal critics analyze the use of characters in literature, looking for archetypal figures that represent universal human experiences. For example, the trickster is a common archetypal character that appears in many cultures and can represent chaos, mischief, or the need for change. An archetypal critic might analyze how a trickster character is used in a work of literature to challenge the status quo or to reveal hidden truths.

Overall, archetypal critics seek to uncover the deeper meanings and themes in literature by examining the archetypal patterns that underlie them. By identifying these patterns and symbols, archetypal critics can offer new insights into the cultural, psychological, and historical significance of literary works.

(4) "Every organization of knowledge can be learned progressively, and experience shows that there is also something progressive, our opening sentence has already got us into a semantic difficulty." Explain the semantic difficulty.

The semantic difficulty in the opening sentence is the word "progressive." While the sentence suggests that every organization of knowledge can be learned progressively, the term "progressive" can be interpreted in different ways.

On the one hand, "progressive" can mean that knowledge is learned through a process of gradual accumulation and development, in which new information is added to existing knowledge over time. This interpretation suggests that knowledge is always advancing and improving, and that there is a sense of ongoing progress.

On the other hand, "progressive" can also have political connotations, referring to a particular ideology or movement that emphasizes social or political reform. This interpretation suggests that knowledge is not just about accumulation and development, but also about social change and transformation.

So, the semantic difficulty in the opening sentence arises from the fact that the term "progressive" can be interpreted in multiple ways, and it is not clear which meaning the author intends. The sentence seems to suggest that knowledge can be learned in a progressive way, but it is not clear whether this refers to a process of gradual accumulation or to a political or social agenda.

(5) as above " The relation of criticism to religion, when they deal with the same documents, is more complicated. In criticism, as in history, the divine is always treated. As a human artifact, God for the critic, whether he finds him in paradise lost or the Bible, is a character in a human story."

The passage suggests that the relationship between criticism and religion can be complicated, particularly when they both deal with the same texts or documents. In this context, the passage argues that the divine is always treated in criticism and history, even if the critic or historian is not a believer. This means that when critics analyze religious texts, they are examining them as human artifacts rather than as divine revelations.

For the critic, God is treated as a character in a human story, regardless of whether he appears in literary works like "Paradise Lost" or religious texts like the Bible. This approach assumes that religious texts are not simply divine revelations but also products of human culture and history, shaped by the social, political, and cultural contexts in which they were produced.

By treating religious texts as human artifacts, critics can analyze them in a more objective and critical way, without being bound by religious dogma or belief. However, this approach can also be controversial, especially for religious believers who view these texts as sacred and divinely inspired.

Overall, the passage suggests that the relationship between criticism and religion can be complex, and that the treatment of the divine in criticism depends on the critic's approach and worldview.

Waiting For Godot by Samuel Beckett

 Waiting For Godot

Thinking Activity

This blog is a thinking activity given by Dr. Dilip Barad sir. In this blog I am going to answer some questions which are mentioned in the task.

Waiting for Godot

"Waiting for Godot'' as a tragicomedy written by Samuel Beckett, this play written in two acts, published in 1952 in French as 'An attendant Godot' and first produced in 1953. This play is recognised as an innovation in Drama and  Theatre of Absurd first theatrical Success.

1.1

Why does Beckett grow a few leaves in act 2 on the barren tree The tree has four five leaves?

In this play Vladimir and Estragon they both wait on a barren road. That scene was decorated by only a tree. Here The tree, symbolized  as change and death. It reveals the difference between Vladimir and Estragon. 

When Vladimir  returns to the scene in Arct II, Vladimir notices the tree’s new four or five leaves where before it was barren and concluded dead. That growing leaves is a sign of hope and positivity in that hopeless situation.

Vladimir's anxiety about the tree signifies his awareness of how strange that a tree suddenly has life, and suddenly growing some leaves on the tree. On the other side Estragon ignores Vladimir’s attempts to show the new leaves. 

1.2

Can we do any political reading of the play if we see European nations represented by the 'names' of the characters (Vladimir - Russia, Estragon - France, Pozzo - Italy, and Lucky- England) what interpretation can be inferred from the play written just after world war 2? Which country stands for 'Godot'? 

Interpreting 'Waiting for Godot' as a political allegory is a matter of literary criticism and it can be subject to debate. All those countries were waiting for something good to come out. What actually came out was world war 2 and the rise of Hitler, in the form of Godot. 

So we can say that Hitler was standing as Godot when we politically interpret this play if this play was written just after world war 2. 

1.3

In act 1, in reply to Boy's question 

Boy : what am I to tell mr. Godot sir ?

Vladimir : Tell him… (he hesitates)... Tell him that you saw us. (pause). You did see us, didn't you?

How does this conversation go in act 2? What is the significance ?

The significance of this repetition represents the circular nature of Waiting for Godot. There were the same conversations and events were continuously repeated without resolution. It also represents the theme of uncertainty and how they both depend on the boy's testimony and they wanted to confirm that the boy had seen them, and that kind of confirmation that they exist. They wanted their waiting not in vain.

1.4

In both Acts, evening falls into night and moon rises.

How would you interpret this 'coming of night and moon' when actually they are waiting for Godot?

The coming of night and moon symbolize characters' continuing  waiting and also it represents that character's existential uncertainty. 

The darkness and the moonlight represents the cycle of life and the passage of time. The both characters are trapped in this endless waiting and hoping that Godot will come one day. So in one sense the coming of night and moon are seen as metaphors, it is a search for meaning and purpose in that purposeless and meaningless situation.

So we can say that the coming night and moon basically represent their search for purpose and meaning of their life.

1.5

What is the meaning of the terms Apathia, Aphasia and Athambia in Lucky's Speech?"...

divine Apathia divine athambia divine Aphasia. Loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown…"

In Waiting for Godot, Lucky's speech is long and it also includes nonsensical terms, like "apathia," "aphasia," and "athambia." These terms created a sense of confusion.

• Apathia means a lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern. 

• Athambia means impartibility, to be incapable of being upset or not easily excited. 

• And lastly, aphasia means loss of the ability to comprehend or express speech. 

These three words characterize God as impersonal. When he uses the word divine, he is referring to God as God is often portrayed as a divine being. So he is saying that God is apathetic, meaning that he does not intervene. God is imperturbable; he has never been reached or could be reached by living human beings. And God is aphasic, meaning that he is silent and has never spoken and never will, even to prove his very own existence.

 

1.6

A better solution to the tramps predicament than to wait is sucide." it is really so? What they fail to commit suicide ?

In this play sucide is mentioned by the characters, but it is not a visible solution to their predicament. When Vladimir suggested that they should die and hang themself, they quickly refused that idea, because Estragon fritten to hang himself. The idea that sucide is better than waiting is not really a valid interpretation of the play. They just try to hang himself but they don't really do it.

This play represents the complex condition of human beings. Both characters struggle to find meaning and purpose in this meaningless world.

1.7

"Godot might have become an image of what sartre calls "Bad Faith".

Sartre's concept of "Bad Faith" refers to denying one's own freedom and responsibility by adopting a false self image or identity.

In this play "Godot" became a symbol of " Bad Faith" because both characters were blindly waiting for Godot and they thought that Godot would save them, they didn't even think that they could save their own lives and they also could make their own decisions. They have blind hope that Godot will come one day, but that has not really happened.

1.8

Explain-

"One hardly feels the absurdity of some things, on the hand, and the necessity of those other things, on the other, ( for it is rare that feeling of absurdity is not followed by the feeling of necessity of those things of which one hand just felt the necessity ( far it is rare that the feeling of necessity is not followed by the feeling of absurdity)". 

The quote suggests that sometimes there is a disconnect between what we perceive as absurd and what we perceive as necessary.

For example one may think or feel that social expectation is an absurd thing but it is necessary to do so. Those expectations are accepted by others to achieve goals. On the other side one may want to follow one particular religion and philosophical belief but they also feel absurdity in that.

To conclude we can say that overall this quest suggests that our perception about what is absurd and what is necessary are complex things.

 

For Whom the Bells Tolls

For Whom the Bells Tolls

By

Ernest Hemingway

This blog is a task given by Yesha Ma'am, visitor faculty of English Department M.K.B.U. In this particular blog I am going to discuss the attitude of Robert Jordan towards the war. and also try to answer this question briefly.

For whom the Bells Tolls

Ernest Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls" is one of the most popular novels of the twentieth century. The novel was published in 1940. The Spanish Civil War becomes a great source for 'For Whom the Bell Tolls'.  Hemingway used nearly his twenty years experience of Spain to write the novel. He witnessed the suffering of his friends in the Spanish Civil War and he had observed the death and the destruction of them which provided the main theme of the novel.

This novel was published just after the end of the Spanish Civil War which happened between 1936 to1939, whose general lines were well known at the time. It assumes the reader knows that the war was between the government of the Second Spanish Republic, which many foreigners went to Spain to help and which was supported by the Communist Soviet Union, and the Nationalist faction, which was supported by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. In 1940, the year the book was published, the United States had not yet entered the Second World War, which had begun on September 1, 1939, with Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland.

Ernest Hemingway

Earnest Miller Hemingway  was an American  novelist,  short  story writer,  and  journalist.  His economical  and understated style had  a  strong  influence on 20th-century fiction, while his life of adventure and his public image influenced later generations. Hemingway produced most of his work between the mid-1920s and the mid-1950s, and  won the Nobel Prize  in  Literature in  1954.  He  published  seven novels,  six  short story  collections,  and  two  non-fiction  works.  Additional  works,  including  three novels, four short story collections, and three non-fiction works, were published posthumously. Many of  his works  are considered  classics of American literature.

Attitude of Robert Jordan towards the war.

Robert Jordan is the protagonist of the novel "For Whom the Bell Tolls". In this novel he lives for a cause or motive in his mind. For him, his motive and his goal is everything. He is a man with a strong will and also capable of leading other people. He was the leader of a guerrilla band. 

Robert Jordan is an American teacher who joined the Republican guerrilla fighters in the Spanish Civil War. Throughout the novel, Jordan's attitude towards the war is very complex and constantly evolving.

Jordan, who is the main character of the novel, is aware and very well known  of the difficulties and importance of his mission. Jordan is asked to take the help of a guerrilla band, who are living in a cave on the mountain side above the valley. They supported each other for war.

He was ready to sacrifice his life, love and everything for the cause of freedom and liberty. He is fighting in the Spanish Civil War because he ‘loved and believed in the Republic and if it were destroyed life would be unbearable for all those people who believed in it’. 

His fight is for liberty, equality and Fraternity as he himself says.

‘You believe in Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. You believe

 In life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... if this … war

 is lost all of those things are lost.’ 

Robert Jordan's commitment to this cause continues till the very end as Jordan awaits death:

‘I have fought for what I believed in for a year now. If we win here we will win everywhere.’

Robert Jordan, the hero of For Whom the Bell Tolls, is an American volunteer. His father and grandfather are from the 'Republic'. His father committed suicide by shooting himself. It disturbed the sensitive mind of Robert. Robert's desire to struggle with problems courageously depicts his hatred for his father's cowardly behavior. He respects his grandfather's heroic nature. Robert worked as the Spanish language instructor in the university.

He is ordered to blow up the bridge and he chooses to do so. He   knows  everything that there are so many obstacles in the path of his projection. But he overcomes all his obstacles and keeps his mission or aim in his mind. He believes in commitment and action as he himself thinks:

‘ You have no responsibility for them except in action.'

He does not blame his circumstances. He does not flee away from the responsibility by thinking that these orders are impossible to carry out. His approach is that he must act and he has to prove that the orders are possible to carry out. He himself says:

‘ He should carry them out because it is only in the performing

of them that they  can prove to be impossible, How do you know,

they are impossible until you have tried them .'

In Sartre's philosophy of existentialism, choice has an important place. Sartre writes:  ‘In one sense choice is possible, but what is not  possible is not to choose, that is still a choice’. Jordan too believes in making choices.

Jordan has been placed into a situation of love. He loves Maria passionately. He can flee from his choice of mission to his beloved Maria. But he prefers to accomplish his mission. His final choice is his duty and he dies for that at the end of the novel. For him, love is not a source of disillusionment or frustration because his sense of   involvement in the lives of other people gives directions to his life. Jordan's authenticity is in his commitment to a broad humanitarian concern. Here his love for Maria is secondary. Jordan avoids every inner conflict that may take him away from his responsibility. He reminds himself now and again of his own responsibility. He thinks :

‘But my obligation is the bridge and to fulfill this I must take no useless

That's how throughout his mission, Jordan is never haunted by the fear of death. He is always ready to perform his duty even though he had to lose his own life. He speaks to Anselmo to blow up the bridge when the tanks come, even though he may be beneath it. He says, ‘Take no account of me. Blow it if thou needest to’.

In the end of the novel he states:  ‘I have fought for what I believed in for a year now’.

He expresses his contentment by saying that his life had been a good one:

‘And you had a lot of luck... to have had such a good life. You’ve had just as good life

Hemingway said of ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls.’ 

“It was everything I had learned about Spain for eighteen years."

Ultimately, Jordan's attitude towards the war is one of resignation and acceptance. He knows that he may not survive the battle he is fighting, but he believes that his sacrifice is worth it for the cause he believes in.

To conclude we can say that by this novel  Hemingway spread the message of brotherhood and humanity and his hero  Robert Jordan, like his other hero, is a wounded man. He is physically wounded and participates in the war for the sake of humanity.

Words- 1215

Pictures- 3

I.A. Richards practical criticism- Figurative Language

I.A. Richards practical criticism-

Figurative Language

This blog is a thinking activity given by Dr. Dilip Barad sir. This activity is all about interpretation of poems in context to I.A. Richards "The Figurative Language". In this blog I try to interpret Kedarnathsingh's poem "Vidroh ''.

"Vidroh" poem is written by Kedarnathsingh who is considered one of the leading voices in contemporary Hindi poetry. This poem was published as a part of his collection " Zameen pak Rahi Hai". This collection was first published in 1983.

Kedarnathsingh's poems deal with many questions like existence, identity and human existence. This poem " Vidroh" is written in a political context and critical way. This poem expresses the poet's frustration  with the political situation in india.

केदार नाथ सिंह की कविता- विद्रोह

आज घर में घुसा

तो वहां अजब दृश्य था

सुनिये- मेरे बिस्तर ने कहा-

यह रहा मेरा इस्तीफ़ा

मैं अपने कपास के भीतर

वापस जाना चाहता हूं

उधर कुर्सी और मेज़ का

एक संयुक्त मोर्चा था

दोनों तड़पकर बोले-

जी- अब बहुत हो चुका

आपको सहते-सहते

हमें बेतरह याद आ रहे हैं

हमारे पेड़

और उनके भीतर का वह

ज़िंदा द्रव

जिसकी हत्या कर दी है

आपने

उधर आलमारी में बंद

किताबें चिल्ला रही थीं

खोल दो-हमें खोल दो

हम जाना चाहती हैं अपने

बांस के जंगल

और मिलना चाहती हैं

अपने बिच्छुओं के डंक

और सांपों के चुंबन से

पर सबसे अधिक नाराज़ थी

वह शॉल

जिसे अभी कुछ दिन पहले कुल्लू से ख़रीद लाया था

बोली- साहब!

आप तो बड़े साहब निकले

मेरा दुम्बा भेड़ा मुझे कब से

पुकार रहा है

और आप हैं कि अपनी देह

की क़ैद में

लपेटे हुए हैं मुझे

उधर टी.वी. और फोन का

बुरा हाल था

ज़ोर-ज़ोर से कुछ कह रहे थे

वे

पर उनकी भाषा

मेरी समझ से परे थी

-कि तभी

नल से टपकता पानी तड़पा-

अब तो हद हो गई साहब!

अगर सुन सकें तो सुन

लीजिए

इन बूंदों की आवाज़-

कि अब हम

यानी आपके सारे के सारे

क़ैदी

आदमी की जेल से

मुक्त होना चाहते हैं

अब जा कहां रहे हैं-

मेरा दरवाज़ा कड़का

जब मैं बाहर निकल रहा था.

Kedarnathsingh wrote poems on common man problems using natural elements surrounding us like animals, mud, rivers, water, farmland, forest, trees, clouds, afternoons, rain, honey bee, crane etc. He describes life using nature as if in every poem of his he is describing a still painting or a photograph hidden in an old novel.

Here are some problematic things in the poem

1. Poet's bed speaking to him gave him resignation . He wanted to go back to cotton.

2. The unity of chair and table said enough is enough, they tolerated their owner and they missed their trees and living liquid which were murdered by the owner. They wanted to go back to the trees.

3. In the locked cupboard books screamed out to his owner and said they wanted to go back to the bamboo forest, they missed the scorpius sting and wanted to kiss the snake.

4. The strangest thing was that his shawl told him that it's dumb ship calling it and its master wrapped it in the cage of his body. That shawl was bought from Kullu just a few days ago.

5. On the other hand Television and mobile phones also speak loudly to him but he can't understand its language.

6. Dripping water from the tap also meant that it wanted to be free from prison.

7. That all prisoners wanted to be free from his man's prison.

8. At the end when the owner of all those things went out his door slammed on him and asked "where are you going now?"

In this poem the poet personifies many such things like bed, chair and table, books, shawl, T.V. and phone, water drop, and door. All those things speaking to his master that all things are inanimate things and how it behaves like animate ? That is problematic.

First when the owner entered his house he saw a strange thing that his bed was speaking to him and it gave resignation, it wanted to go back its cotton. 

आज घर में घुसा

तो वहां अजब दृश्य था

सुनिये- मेरे बिस्तर ने कहा-

यह रहा मेरा इस्तीफ़ा

मैं अपने कपास के भीतर

वापस जाना चाहता हूं

Then the unity of chair and table, they both speaking in an anonymous way that enough is enough, they tolerate his master, they miss their trees and the living liquid which has been murdered by the owner. How could the owner murder the living liquid  that is problematic?

उधर कुर्सी और मेज़ का

एक संयुक्त मोर्चा था

दोनों तड़पकर बोले-

जी- अब बहुत हो चुका

आपको सहते-सहते

हमें बेतरह याद आ रहे हैं

हमारे पेड़

और उनके भीतर का वह

ज़िंदा द्रव

जिसकी हत्या कर दी है

आपने

Books were screaming from a locked cupboard open to us, they wanted to go back from bamboo forest, they wanted to meet scorpion sting and kisses of snakes. 

उधर आलमारी में बंद

किताबें चिल्ला रही थीं

खोल दो-हमें खोल दो

हम जाना चाहती हैं अपने

बांस के जंगल

और मिलना चाहती हैं

अपने बिच्छुओं के डंक

और सांपों के चुंबन से

And the annoyist thing is that his shawl which was bought from kullu just a few days ago also says to him that it's dumb sheep calling it and it wants to be free.from the cage as a man's body. Here the poet uses a metaphor for the body as a cage.

पर सबसे अधिक नाराज़ थी

वह शॉल

जिसे अभी कुछ दिन पहले कुल्लू से ख़रीद लाया था

बोली- साहब!

आप तो बड़े साहब निकले

मेरा दुम्बा भेड़ा मुझे कब से

पुकार रहा है

और आप हैं कि अपनी देह

की क़ैद में

लपेटे हुए हैं मुझे

• Here the poet refers to Himachal Pradesh to  mention Kullu shawl. Kullu shawl is a type of shawl made in kullu. It features various types of geometric patterns and is made by Kullavi  people.

On the other hand T.V and phone were loudly speaking to their master but he couldn't even understand the language. 

उधर टी.वी. और फोन का

बुरा हाल था

ज़ोर-ज़ोर से कुछ कह रहे थे

वे

पर उनकी भाषा

मेरी समझ से परे थी

-कि तभी

नल से टपकता पानी तड़पा-

अब तो हद हो गई साहब!

अगर सुन सकें तो सुन

लीजिए

इन बूंदों की आवाज़-

कि अब हम

यानी आपके सारे के सारे

क़ैदी

आदमी की जेल से

मुक्त होना चाहते हैं

The master understands the language of all inanimate  things except the language  of T.V. and phone. 

Then dropping water said it's too much sir, now we all wanted to be free from man's prison.  

अब जा कहां रहे हैं-

मेरा दरवाज़ा कड़का

जब मैं बाहर निकल रहा था.

At the end when the man went out his house the door slammed on him and asked " where are you going now ?"  

That all inanimate things wanted to be free from his master but when his master left them they stopped him and questioned him about where he was going? That is a problematic thing to notice.

Justification

This poem is a part of ecocriticism and in this poem points out discussions like culture VS nature. We can also connect this poem with the " is female to.male as Nature is to Culture" essay written by Sherry b. In this essay she describes women as "Closer to nature than man" and it describes cultural opposition like Culture/nature, man/woman, mind/body, public/private, civilized/primitive, and active/passive.

conclusion

In conclusion, the poem "Vidroh" by Kedarnathsingh is a powerful expression of social criticism and frustration, and it making use of simple language and many imagery. The poem remains relevant today and continues to inspire people to fight against corruption, exploitation, and oppression.