MEG-05

MEG-05 For Master of Arts (English) (MEG) SHRI CHAKRADHAR PUBLICATION (PVT.) LTD. www.shrichakradhar.com F-69 Raghubir Nagar, Near Tagore Garden New Delhi–110027 Self-Published, Printed in India Editor: SCP Panel of Experts All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher. For permissions and feedback contact: [email protected] © 2023 Literary Criticism and Theory Important Questions (Exam Solutions)

PREFACE This Important Questions (Exam Solutions) has been developed to help you learn the most important ideas and sections of your whole course. utilizing data gathered from past year question papers, we can correctly estimate the questions that will occur in the forthcoming term-end examinations utilizing artificial intelligence, natural language processing, and computer-generated algorithms. Our goal is for students to pass their examinations with honors simply by studying this book. We propose that you study the material offered by Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) and use it as a guide to attain the maximum possible grade. This is a primarily educational book. We believe that in order to get the best results, students should study the material provided by IGNOU because it is the most credible source of information, and teachers will correct your papers based on the important issues addressed in the study material. Third-party content will have a negative impact on your marks. When writing this book, our authors kept this in mind. Its material is based on the IGNOU syllabus. Where IGNOU’s study material is insufficient, we have simplified the subject for students and supplemented it with supplementary information and illustrations. To provide feedback on the content of this book, please send an email to [email protected].

Most Important Questions Answers through analysis of the past 20 IGNOU’s Previous Years Question Papers. Topics Covered Q1. Explain the relevance of Marxism to literature. Q2. What is Marxism? Q3. What is the ideological implication of “philosophers have so far interpreted the world? The point, however, is to change it. Q4. In what way are literature and superstructure related? Q5. Write a short note on base and superstructure. Q6. What do you understand by the term “committed writers”. Q7. Discuss the structuralist mode of Macherey’s view. Q8. Discuss the role and function of ideology in literature. Q9. Discuss Aristotle’s view of the plot in tragedy. Q10. What role does Shelley assign to poets in the nineteenth century? Explain. Q11. What according to John Crowe Ransom are the “duties” of a critic? Explain. Q12. Explain with the help of suitable examples, the Marxian concept of base and superstructure. Q13. Evaluate Elaine Showalter’s contribution to feminist criticism.

Q14. What according to Barthes is the difference between ‘work’ and ‘text’? Explain. Q15. What according to Barthes is the difference between ‘work’ and ‘text’? Explain. Q16. Signifier Q17. Irony Q18. Alamkara Q19. Why does Plato declare the role of the poet as subversive? Q20. What does Wordsworth think of the distinction between the language of prose and metrical composition? Q21. Tragic Hero Q22. Explain “ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN DIGITAL AGE” Q23. Sphota Q24. Objective Correlative Q25. Discuss the ideas expressed by Cleanth Brooks in his essay “Irony as a Principle of Structure”. Q26. Write a critical note on the essentials of Marxist literary theory OR Freudian psychoanalysis. Q27. Comment on the significance of the title The Second Sex. Q28. Why does Derrida resist definitions? Give reasons for your answer. Q29. What is Raymond Williams’ contribution to Cultural Studies? Q30. Why do you think there was a tremendous insistence on emotional experience in classical aesthetics? Discuss with reference to classical criticism.

Shrichakradhar.com 1 Ans. Since Marxism lays stress upon the importance of history within which various social and cultural trends emerge, it gives a new dimension to the study of literature. It is with the help of Marxism that we comprehend the relationship between a writer and his/her society. This relationship is that of a sensitive individual with his her environment. This individual is deeply concerned with the conditions of people around him/her. She recognises the existence of not merely pain and anguish but also anger and a sense of resistance in their lives. At the same time, the writer notices among people the great urge to enjoy celebrate and be happy. This makes him/her combine within their writing the different human emotions of melancholy, disquiet as well as anger and joy. On the surface, these appear to be expressions of an individual's response. However, the writer's response has its roots in the society to which she belongs and, therefore, reflects upon the nature of his/her surroundings. Marxism does not stop at this point but takes the consideration further to the specific mode of production, the governing economic structure, which regulates the activity of men and women in a decisive way. Marxism also pinpoints the role of human beings in shaping their society through sharp questioning and active mobilisatior. How do other theories relate to literature and what fiction do they perform? Do they not exclusively stress upon the social background to reach the conclusion that' literature is wholly determined by its environment (mechanical materialism), and say that the individual will operates unhindered by anything whatsoever and is, according to them, not subject to the laws of history and society? In the first case, literature is seen as an exact replica of its times because according to the theory of determination by society, it could not be anything better or different. Thus, characters, voices or Iarxist View of attitudes in a literary work are interpreted Q1. Explain the relevance of Marxism to literature. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

2 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) as the fill and final pictures of the society Literature that produced it with no scope for an alternative set of representation in it. In the second case, the individuals will becomes free from all social constraints and the criticism using the concept sees the work as operating on a much higher universal plane. For instance, this kind of criticism may separate the reference to myths in a particular work from the other things present in it and relate them in an arbitrary manner to other myths that existed in the past. Much of the anarchy in modernist criticism owes its existence to this tendency. In either case the significance of literature as a powerful cultural endeavour is seriously dtermined. By restoring to literature its ability to critique and oppose certain tendencies as also to project the creative interests of the larger masses, Marxism places this most fulfilling and meaningful human endeavor within the parameters of society and history. To illustrate this, I briefly refer to a trend in early twentieth century writing. In this writing, one can see two clear and distinct streams of writers. To the former belong poets such as W.H. Auden, C. Day Lewis and Luis MacNeice and to the latter belong W.B. Yeats, Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot. The critical intelligence and vigor of the former stems from their intense hatred for the philistinism and superficiality of culture in their time. They clearly recognised the source of this philistinism in money and privilege. On the other hand, Yeats, Pound and Eliot distrusted the common masses. These poets were unable to notice the potentiality of change in the collective action of people. In fact, they looked for inspiration towards the privileged and the elite who in their opinion were capable of transcending the lay uninformed masses. The powerful voice of overall rejection in their poetry cannot be separated from their acquiescence in, if not open approval of the existing system. An interesting aspect of this trend is that it forms the basis of cynical rootless writing that emerged in the post-Second World War period. We may ask as to why a playwright like Beckett use two tramps, floating rootless idlers and do-nothings as symbols of humanity in modern times. Without relating these trends to the class reality of the day, we cannot adequately comprehend the way in which the writers in question interpreted their environment and expressed their concrete responses to it. In this context, we cannot overlook the sharp contrast that Bertolt Brecht's plays offer to the works of Samuel Beckett. While Beckett's plays fall in the category of the drama of the absurd, not in the sense that they lack meaning and significance but that they reveal and emphasise absurdity as the central principle in modem-day human existence, Brecht's plays are characterised as heroic drama. Brecht is remarkable in his portrayal of courage and perseverance in ordinary people. The heroism, the spirit to withstand pressures in Brecht's characters is largely owing to the writer's adoption of the Marxist outlook because of which common people appear to him as carriers of a definite revolutionary fervor. Both Beckett and Brecht belong to the period around the Second World War. It could be expected that because of their sensitivity and intelligence, the two would exhibit identical social concerns. However, the fact is that Beckett concentrates upon what can be called human fate Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 3 and human destiny in modem times while Brecht endeavours to bring out the creative, the noble and the heroic in the common masses of the day. Ans. Marxism sees different phenomena in the environment as a part of the larger social reality. This sounds rather simple. From this we infer that since we live in a society, whatever we think, feel or believe in, would necessarily be a part of our society and, therefore, reflect upon the social reality surrounding us. Organised under a specific system of production and distribution, a society exerts immense amount of pressure on its members. At the same time, according to Marxism, individuals or groups in a society, moulded as they are by the forces of production and distribution, are not totally helpless in their environment. In fact, classes of people, the haves and have not’s, remain in constant clash with one another and strive to establish or retain their supremacy in the structure they operate in. Marxism tells us that class struggle is the essence of a society and nothing happening in society can be adequately explained without reference to this fact. At the philosophical level, Marxism provides investigative-analytical methods, superior, objective and scientific, to' study and assess the phenomena of history. Through an application of these methods, various historical phenomena can be probed and comprehended in their fullness and interconnection. The Marxist method of enquiry and analysis is called the dialectical method under which the contending and opposing elements of a phenomenon are seen as linked to each other in an ever-changing process. This means that when two elements clash, they should be studied and judged with reference to the structure that produced them. At the same time, the clash is a positive and productive clash in which a struggle for resolving the conflict may also be noticed. The dialectical method shows how the very survival of a structure rests on its different conflicting elements. Seen dialectically, a historical phenomenon is both a product of one particular phenomenon and the producer of the other. For this reason, Marxism assigns a deeper significance to terms such as "society" and "social reality" and makes us aware of the fact that society is a living and changing reality subject to the laws of history, such as the class struggle, the role and function of the state and radical restructuring of society by actual political formations. Growth and development are the outcome of important conflicts taking place between groups, sections and classes of people. To repeat, social reality is more than mere information about the various components of a society, which we cannot grasp unless the "facts" and aspects of a society are seen in their interconnection. What I mean is that there is something in sqciety, which can explain for us the reasons behind a phenomenon. The writer of literature is supposed, therefore, to have a fairly intimate knowledge of his society. Q2. What is Marxism? Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

4 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) Ans.Marx believed that history determines consciousness. In other words, the things we think and do are determined by our social and economic institutions. This includes all of culture. Therefore, all of our cultural artifacts, textual and otherwise, are products of history. There are ideological forces working through political and economic structures that condition the roles of classes. This includes the actual conditioning of personalities. People will continue to allow themselves to be oppressed if they think this is their role. This is called “false consciousness.” In order to make a change, the worker (or reader in this context) must become aware to the social forces that influence him/her. He/she must think outside the box of his/her own historical moment. This is very difficult to do, but not impossible. These social forces also influence writing since writing is a part of culture which is influenced by historical conditions. To spark change, writers can awaken readers to the social forces that influence how they live and how they read. Marx was expressing his theory of historical materialism. All the things we do and all the things we create are produced by our understanding of our role in society and our place in history. If people are influenced to act in certain ways, then writers are influenced to write in certain ways. If you apply this quote by Marx to the theory of New Historicism, which is indebted to Marx’s theory of historical materialism, then literature plays a big role in the development and/or revolutions of history. New Historicism is the theory that history influences literature but literature can also influence history. A New Historical approach to literature or criticism is as objective as it can be. The goal of this approach is to understand the historical forces that guide society. Another goal of the New Historicist is to understand his/her own biases resulting from historical determination. So, in order to spark change, writers and critics have to be aware of the social forces that determine what they are studying/reading. This means that interpretation does not go far enough. Philosophers must deconstruct the world and be aware of their own influences. In this context, Marx interprets “interpretation” as “this is how the world works.” Here, interpretation sounds like a justification of the ways of the world. This is hardly revolutionary. To change the world, philosophers have to look for what conditions the world and point out oppression or brainwashing when they see it. Some writers do this. But some writers also just reflect (interpret) the world; these literary texts must also be deconstructed to reveal how they were influenced. Q3. What is the ideological implication of "philosophers have so far interpreted the world? The point, however, is to change it. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 5 Ans.The relationship you mention can be established through a Marxist approach to literary criticism. Superstructure and base are the two pillars of the Marxist view of society. The base involves economic relations between labor and capital and includes the actors: employers and workers. The superstructure comprises culture in every form, politics, religion, the legal system, and ideology. Thus, a Marxist approach to literary criticism will take the above items into account in order to show how a literary work expresses these concerns at a given time. By looking at the lives of the different social classes and at the economic development of their members in particular and of the country or area in general, the Marxist approach will draw conclusions regarding the success or failure of social mobility. Moreover, from the Marxist point of view, literary creation is the combined product of both the writer's personal inspiration and the way in which he/she is affected by the ruling system or regime. Writers such as Jean-Paul Sartre intentionally described society along the lines of Marxism, but in fact practically any work of literature can be analyzed in the light of the Marxist approach. Bearing in mind the components of the superstructure, you may find striking facts and thoughts in many authors that were in no way supporters of Marx, or that wrote before his time. An outstanding example of this is Henry Fielding's Tom Jones, first published in 1749. Ans. Base and superstructure are two linked theoretical concepts developed by Karl Marx, one of the founders of sociology. Simply put, base refers to the forces and relations of production—to all the people, relationships between them, the roles that they play, and the materials and resources involved in producing the things needed by society. Superstructure Superstructure, quite simply and expansively, refers to all other aspects of society. It includes culture, ideology (world views, ideas, values, and beliefs), norms and expectations, identities that people inhabit, social institutions (education, religion, media, family, among others), the political structure, and the state (the political apparatus that governs society). Marx argued that the superstructure grows out of the base, and reflects the interests of the ruling class that controls it. As such, the superstructure justifies how the base operates, and in doing so, justifies the power of the ruling class. From a sociological standpoint, it’s important to recognize that neither the base nor the superstructure is naturally occurring, nor are they static. They are both social creations (created by people in a Q4. In what way are literature and superstructure related? Q5. Write a short note on base and superstructure. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

6 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) society), and both are the accumulation of social processes and interactions between people that are constantly playing out, shifting, and evolving. Ans. There are very few committed writers in twentieth century English literature. By "committed" writers I mean those who consciously and effectively draw the attention of the reader towards injustice, exploitation and oppression in society through their writing and provide a rational-critical dimension to their representations in literature. Committed writing has the power to involve readers as participants in their own problem-ridden environment as well. And the few committed writers we have with us such as Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), for instance, are either kept out of critical discourse or treated by entrenched interests in the academic world with excessive scepticism. But, in the first place, what do we understand by a committed writer? In my view, a committed writer assigns great importance to the historical context and situates his themes in the middle of significant developments of his time. I know that "historical context7' and "significant developments" are big words but it is these that relate meaningfully to the life of the common people. The historical context makes difficult things comprehensible to the readers and tells them that they are products as well as producers of history. Again, it is the historical context that adequately explains the phenomenon of a period by linking up the phenomenon with the way human beings live in their particular surroundings. Human beings as "products of circumstances" would be readily accepted as a correct formulation. But how are they producers? This has been explained earlier in this block as a bdamental point of Marxism. The writing is committed in the sense that it is informed by a distinctive historical approach according to which the ordinary people decisively contribute towards social production because of which they develop a stake in an appropriate running of the social process. It is history - the changing and evolving (not static) conditions of existence - that makes us conscious of the importance of ordinary people in society. Looked at differently, the ordinary people are in fact not ordinary but the most productive and, therefore, the most extraordinary. What would happen if we change our viewpoint so radically? Such a viewpoint is bound to make us rethink our parameters of criticism. What I mean is that commitment in literature is a question of attitude to one's society - its structure and organisation. If we place ourselves in opposition to the forces of our day, our commitment would reflect itself as a distinct mode of behaviour. This would indicate also a highly conscious act on the writer's part. Here, the word 'conscious' assumes added significance because the writer evolves for himself herself in hisher surroundings a role vis-A-vis the people among whom she lives. Many a time, this induces writers to openly propagate their views through poems, plays and novels. A clear propensity for propaganda through literature emerges in times of social turmoil in which the poor exploited masses agitate to secure social and political rights. At such a time, committed writers decide Q6. What do you understand by the term “committed writers”. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 7 to merge their voices with those of the large mobilised masses. In the act of representing the people's mood, committed writers also use specific literary devices (comedy, rhetoric) to give a fillip to popular urges. Ans. Once Macherey has clarified the negative parametres of the case, he proceeds to lay down the thesis of a specific science. Here, 'specific' stands for that which belongs to literature alone and is useful in that particular area. What does the word 'science?' mean in this context? The question assumes significance since our view has so far been that science - the precise world of experiment and analysis - should be kept out of the literary-critical discourse. Macherey, on the other hand, wishes to exclude the subjective, the reader's own, preferences that disturb the internal order of a work. ye critic or read should see the work as it is, as a reflection through the working of words of the response the writer gives to his/her environment. In this sense, the critic should 'consciously' avoid the intrusion of his/her own biases and Marxist View of Literature presuppositions. This' self-conscious' element in Macherey's argument should be borne in mind. However, in this part of the statement, Macherey makes a different kind of reference to the various theories - of linguistics, history, etc. - which he finds useful for the understanding of a literary work. According to Macherey, these theories should be applied to the work for the purpose of revealing the unique meaniw the work embodies. Nonetheless, at the end Macherey returns to the negative mode to state that theories "can in no.way replace this specific science of the literary work," their job being to only help the critic gauge the constructed meaning of the work. The most important words in the latter part of Macherey's statement are "self - elaborating," "law unto itself' and "intrinsic standard," What does Macherey mean by them? Does he suggest that on one side, you are allowed to use whichever theories you like to understand a work, while on the other you should desist from violating the laws, which the work has evolved within itself to become what it has become? Yes, the word is 'violate.' Never ask violate the intrinsic worth of a work. Macherey, in fact, suggests this and pinpoints the authenticity as well as validity of critical enterprise. For him, this does not in any way go against the inner virtue of the literary work. But the fear is that it might, since it is possible for the critic to expect a priori the expression or assertion of a particular meaning from the work under consideration. Thus, we see that Macherey's argument goes totally against the critic's subjectivity. At the same time, according to Macherery , there is an intrinsic standard in a work that assigns proportion and value to its constituents within its totality. In sum, Macherey advocates the use of different available theories (not Q7. Discuss the structuralist mode of Macherey’s view. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

8 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) subjective, irrational preferences) to ascertain and recognise the truth of a work that is inseparable from its wholeness and specificity. Viewed closely, it makes sense because a literary work is to be given as much respect and independence as enjoyed by critical endeavour. How do we interpret and evaluate Macherey's argument about the autonomy of a literary work? Is this a general argument useful in literary theory at all times? I am not sure. My doubt rests on the fact that literary theory or criticism has been seen to perform different fictions at different times in history. For instance, there have been situations, as in eighteenth century England, in which criticism asked writers to provide works of social use. In other situations, it has ruthlessly attacked those who failed to adhere to the idea of artistic and aesthetic norms. A whole stream of early Marxist criticism was prescriptive, telling writers to focus upon what it thought to be the important themes. Therefore, Macherey, too, should be understood in his specific cultural context of post-Second World War Europe. I feel that Macherey apprehends a great threat from the contemporary capitalist world to the intrinsic value of a work of art. The modem world with its powerful ideological weapons (the newspaper, film, and television) threatens to reduce any given thing, however distinct, human and unique, to a commodity. What would happen if this venture was successful? Secondly, capitalism through this act of reducing art to the status of a thing kills the vital being and spirit of productive labour. Have I not implied all along that literature was a form of creative-productive labour? This is the inherent contradiction. You can understand the result of productive labour in its irreducible, actual aspect. However, if you impose upon it, the new cultural product, the a priori logic of the already existing world, you would fail in the effort since the new product with its inherent standard and life would not be turned into what it is not. In this way, Macherey expects of literary criticism to protect and preserve the dignity and materiality of art. Needless to say, in this act a decisive blow is dealt to the bourgeois productive process of the modem world. By assigning such a vital role to criticism, Macherey underpins the high aesthetic and political significance of committed literary thought. Apart from what I have said in the preceding paragraph, what should be our response, particularly in terms of theory, to Macherey's standpoint regarding the inherent inviolable nature of art? My answer to the question would be that Macherey's view of the literary work is too deeply entrenched in the structuralist mode which sees I literature as a finished product with a shape and form that is final. Under this mode, a literary work has structures, which are difficult to interfere with, and that the writer wrestles with these structures in the act of writing. Is this not the inherent suggestion in 'specificity'? Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 9 Ans. This takes us to the next question. What is the role and function of ideology in literature? Does it regulate or determine the act of writing so that the writer's observations and perceptions attain a comprehensible dimension? Also, can ideology come in the way of and obstruct literary writing? A common answer to these questions is that there definitely is an important way in which ideology and literature are related. The two do not merely coexist in the act of writing but also influence each other. In one way, an ideology, already formed in the mind of the writer in the course of living stands constantly challenged by certain new aspects of life that have. Manelst Vim of emerged on the scene. In many a case, these developments call them radical it you LZrerature like, question the very notion of order and meaning in day-to-day existence. What should the writer do in such a situation? Should the writer allow the old ideology, with its grip on his her consciousness, to oppose and negate the energy of the new trends by terming them dangerous to conventions? Or should one probe the factors that produced those trends? We shall understand this idea of literature-ideology relationship better when not literature in general - poetry, drama, fiction or essay - but fiction in particular is focused upon and considered. I do not want to go here into the question of why fiction gets this peculiar emphasis, but rather draw your attention to the fact that a large number of critics explain their notion of ideology with reference to novels. There is something in fiction because of which modem novelist Joseph Conrad (1857-1924) has remarked that "fiction is history, human history, or it is nothing. "See the paradox in Conrad's assertion according to which fiction and history, the imaginary and real, are identical. Also note that Conrad talks of human history, something that human beings have produced with their efforts to pursue dynamic and progressive goals. Here, we see that fiction as human history is not and cannot be an aesthetic category under which the construction of internal harmony and beauty is important. Instead, it is a realistic category under which day-to-day occurrences, perceptions, ideas and beliefs as well as collective life-struggles are important. Of course, Conrad does not directly point towards ideology here. Still, the use of "human history" clearly indicates those acts and interventions through which men and women assert their common interests. A movement in human affairs in pursuit of social goals necessarily requires a unifying thought-process and ideology. Roland Barthes broadly supports Conrad's paradoxical idea about fiction as history in his comment on the nature of a literary work. In Barthes's view, "The literary work is essentially paradoxical. It represents history and at the same time resists it." In this comment, literary work and history are seen as distinct and interactive. While the former stands for the text, the latter signifies a train of events, a process of change in time as well as those ideas and interpretations which combine seemingly scattered happenings into a totality. There is no doubt that for Barthes, ideology is an important component of social life and that in its formation the Q8. Discuss the role and function of ideology in literature. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

10 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) literary work has a significant part to play. But in Barthes's statement, too, the word "ideology" has not occurred. Why? Perhaps Barthes is wary of diluting history in terms of happenings, ideas and interventions and seeks to illuminate the essential nature of a literary work as representation and resistance simultaneously. At the same time, representation is a peculiar ordering, a pattern that a writer gives to his her work. Also see that resistance signifies the critiquing of an already existing view of the circumstance. In either case, whether as pattern giving or resistance, ideology would emerge as an inescapable category, something that enables the writer to "represent" the world. Lennard J. Davis, an American critic who has probed the nature of fiction quite objectively, is more conscious of the role of ideology. He has argued that our view of fiction would depend a great deal upon how we visualize the working of ideology in literature. 1'0 quote: "Novels do not depict life; they depict life as it is represented by ideology. By this, I mean that life is a pretty vast and uncoordinated series of events and perceptions. But novels are pre-organized systems of experience in which characters, actions and objects have to mean something in relation to the system of each novel itself, in relation to the culture in which the novel is written, and in relation to the readers who are in that culture”. Do you agree that novels are "pre-conceived systems of experience," in the sense that their authors have planned to express an opinion in them about the reality of the time, or at least that individual experiences get connected in the novels to project a general view of things? Davis has also stated that each novel has an independent and distinct system of this kind with reference to which each incident or character begins to represent a meaning or a general trend. Such a "system of experience" is the ideology of the novel - it is the outcome of clash between an author's general viewpoint and actual happenings in the arena of an existing culture. Through the use of "culture," Davis has drawn the reader into the discussion as a significant participant because like the writer, the reader, too, has a viewpoint and ideology which gets conveyed or constructed at his her level also. That novel has their peculiar "pre-organized systems of experience" and that each novel (also in the case of novels of the same author) has distinct systems of experience might suggest that such a system is open to change and evolution. This means that an author constantly works out his her system in the novels. The obvious implication is that a system or an ideology can be false or true and thus project an angle not entirely acceptable to another system - in a different novel of the author or to the reader. Such a system may also have a bearing upon the culture of which the work, the author and the reader are a part. This makes Davis consider ideology in a broader framework, "as a system of beliefs of a particular group or class; as false ideas or false consciousness; and the general cultural system for the creation of signs and meanings" In Davis's comment, beliefs of "a group or class" fall outside the purview of the novel as such and have a connection with the work through what he calls culture. There is also the hint that a "general cultural system" might also be false. But false in what way and according to which standard or criterion? An answer to this question Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 11 would inevitably lead us to the consideration of a social system under which justice vis-a-vis the distribution of surplus may be given or denied to a group of people. Davis is right in indicating that victims of injustice in a society may not be aware of this fact and may continue thinking that their world is rationally and justly governed. The idea of "general cultural system" also clearly indicates a well-regulated oppressive system that constantly provides false consciousness to the masses living under it. In quite a few cases, the literary work could reflect such a fact and give an "ideological" outline of an alternative system, amorphous but holding a clear appeal to the reader. Literature in history seems to do this all the time. Ans. Aristotle argues that, among the six formative elements, the plot is the most important element. He writes in The Poetics. The plot is the underlying principle of tragedy’. By plot Aristotle means the arrangement of incidents. Incidents mean action, and tragedy is an imitation of actions, both internal and external. That is to say that it also imitates the mental processes of the dramatic personae. In answering a question once he said that a tragedy could be written without a character but not without a plot. Though his overstatement on plot, he accepts that without action there cannot be a tragedy. The plot contains a beginning, middle and an end, where the beginning is what is “not posterior to another thing,” while the middle needs to have something happened before, and something to happen after it, but after the end “there is nothing else.” The characters serve to advance the action of the story, not vice -verse. The ends we pursue in life, our happiness and our misery, all take the form of action. Tragedy is written not merely to imitate man but to imitate man in action. That is, according to Aristotle, happiness consists in a certain kind of activity rather than in a certain quality of character. As David Daiches says: ‘the way in which the action works itself out, the whole casual chain which leads to the final outcome.’ Diction and Thought are also less significant than plot: a series of well-written speeches has nothing like the force of a well-structured tragedy. Lastly, Aristotle notes that forming a solid plot is far more difficult than creating good characters or diction. Having asserted that the plot is the most important of the six parts of tragedy, he ranks the remainder as follows, from most important to least: Character, Thought, Diction, Melody, and Spectacle. Character reveals the individual motivations of the characters in the play, what they want or don't want, and how they react to certain situations, and this is more important to Aristotle than thought, which deals on a more universal level with reasoning and general truths. Diction, Melody/ Songs and Spectacle are all pleasurable accessories, but the melody is more important in tragedy than spectacle. Q9. Discuss Aristotle's view of the plot in tragedy. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

12 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) Ans. Shelley was born the eldest son of Sir Timothy and Elizabeth Shelley, landed aristocrats living in Horsham, Sussex. He was educated first at Syon House Academy, then Eton, and finally University College, Oxford. Before the age of twenty he had published two Gothic novels, Zastrozzi (1810) and St. Irvyne; or, The Rosicrucian (1811), and two collections of verse, Original Poetry by Victor and Cazire (1810), written with his sister, and Posthumous Fragments of Margaret Nicholsen (1810), coauthored with his Oxford friend Thomas Jefferson Hogg. Shelley's 1811 publication of The Necessity of Atheism caused him to be expelled from Oxford, an event that estranged him from his family and left him without financial means. Shelley belonged to the Later Romantic writers and poets of mid-18th century England to the early 19th century. Like most Romantics in his period, Shelley’s work is inspired by the political happenings in his time, the very concept of poetry itself, and the exploration of poetry. His work is highly emphatic and genuine, and he wrote with such a talent beyond his years. Shelley belonged to the second generation of Romantic writers. Shelley does occupy an important role in English Literature primarily because of his own unique take on Romanticism. Shelley is able to bring out the fundamental concerns that the artist might hold towards their own work and their own creative state of being in the world. One of Shelley's fundamental concerns would be how the artist can be remembered after they pass. In this, Shelley is one of the first thinkers to bring out the idea that the artist actually suffers two deaths. The death that everyone else experiences and the death of their art. The death of the artist's name or their work might be even more painful to endure because it represents glory and prestige that once was. Recall this idea with his poem “Ozymandias”, in which the decrepit statue, in the middle of the desert, no longer the tower of inspirational strength it once was reads, "King of Kings." This is a metaphor that Shelley feels that applies to all artists. Shelley spent much of his poetry wondering how he can achieve artistic immortality because he understood it impossible to gain physical immortality. At the same time, Shelley's examination of the transcendent nature of art and artist is what makes his contribution to English Literature so profound and significant. Q10. What role does Shelley assign to poets in the nineteenth century? Explain. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 13 Ans. "Criticism Inc." which was first published in the Virginia Quarterly Review in 1937, makes a strong plea for the development of literary criticism as a distinct discipline in universities. It expresses the New Critics' concept of what criticism should be a collaborative effort in the elucidation and evaluation of literary texts, including contemporary works. He attacks other rival approaches: historical scholarship, impressionistic, emotional appreciation, and the various kinds of criticism which focus on the abstracted content of a work of literature instead of the work itself. The essay begins by reviewing the current state of criticism: "critics nearly always have been amateurs", they feel that no special training is needed to be a literary critic. According to Ransom, the critic needs the kind of competence that three different people possess: the artist, the philosopher, and the university teacher of English. But each profession has its drawbacks. The artist's evaluation is intuitive, he cannot explain it to others; however, practitioners often make the best critics as T.S. Eliot also believed in his later writings , because they have a good command of the language. The philosopher knows the function of the fine arts, but his theory is too general-he cannot appreciate the technical effects. He has no intimate knowledge of particular work of art, and his generalizations are drawn not from observation and study, but from other generalizations. The professors should take charge of critical activity, but they are not critical enough. They are learned men who are ready to spend a lifetime in compiling the data of literature, but they avoid making literary judgment. Ransom insists that it is the duty of the university professors to set up proper standards of criticism. Criticism should be developed by the systematic effort of learned persons, and the proper place for this is the university. (When we read this, we should keep in mind the fact that most universities in England and America did not offer English studies as a discipline till the second quarter of the twentieth century. Cambridge University offered courses in classical languages, in the history of the English language and Old English, but the school of English was established only after the First World War. In the nineteen-thirties, American universities would offer courses in literary history, but nothing in criticism or twentieth century literature.) Though Ransom suggests that criticism should be made scientific, he does not mean that it can ever be an exact science. What he means is that it should be systematic, and professionals should take charge of it. Q11. What according to John Crowe Ransom are the "duties" of a critic? Explain. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

14 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) Ans. Base and superstructure are two linked theoretical concepts developed by Karl Marx,, one of the founders of sociology. Simply put, base refers to the forces and relations of production—to all the people, relationships between them, the roles that they play, and the materials and resources involved in producing the things needed by society. In Marxist Theory, Capitalist Theory consists of two parts: the base (or substructure) and superstructure. The base comprises the force and relations of production (e.g. employer–employee work conditions, the technical division of labor, and property relations) into which people enter to produce the necessities and amenities of life. The base determines society's other relationships and ideas to comprise its superstructure, including its culture, institutions, political power structures, roles, rituals, and state. While the relation of the two parts is not strictly unidirectional, as the superstructure often affects the base, the influence of the base is predominant. Marx and Engels warned against such economic determinism. Superstructure, quite simply and expansively, refers to all other aspects of society. It includes culture, ideology (world views, ideas, values, and beliefs), norms and expectations, identities that people inhabit, social institutions (education, religion, media, family, among others), the political structure, and the state (the political apparatus that governs society). Marx argued that the superstructure grows out of the base, and reflects the interests of the ruling class that controls it. As such, the superstructure justifies how the base operates, and in doing so, justifies the power of the ruling class. From a sociological standpoint, it’s an important to recognize that neither the base nor the superstructure is naturally occurring, nor are they static. They are both social creations (created by people in a society), and both are the accumulation of social processes and interactions between people that are constantly playing out, shifting, and evolving. The Base-Superstructure is a central component of Marx’s theory and is oft debated. In the most simplistic terms, Marx was a materialist—meaning that historically specific sets of social relations give rise to a specific set of ideas and consciousness, not the other way around. Ideas don’t make reality, reality creates the framework for ideas. To offer up some extreme examples, God didn’t create man, man created God to explain things that seemed inexplicable. The concept of God has changed over time, reflecting changes in our material world, not actual changes in God. The Enlightenment did not create the autonomous individual, market relations, anti-clericalism, but the emerging middle class created the enlightenment to explain their rise, justify their revolutions, devise their laws, and Q12. Explain with the help of suitable examples, the Marxian concept of base and superstructure. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 15 pave the way for capitalism. The ideas sprang from an emergent group, it did not create the group. So the “base” is the sum of our material reality, our social and economic relations. The superstructure is the ideas and consciousness that spring from this reality, including those institutions which represent those ideas (the state, media, the church, etc). Marx believed that the dominant ideas of any period are the ideas of the dominant social class. Just as rule by divine right and centrality of religion were the dominant ideas of the feudal aristocracy, classical liberal ideas were those of the nascent capitalist class which toppled those regimes. Marx viewed the emerging socialist movement as the ideas of the growing working class, as the working class became more organized, the ideas develop further. In the US, a simple base-superstructure explanation of the two party system is that, in reality, the Republicans and the Democrats primarily represent the interests of competing wings of the capitalist class, the rest is all show. The role of the superstructure is reproducing capitalist relations has been a central component of debate among Marxists. Althusserian, structural, Gramscian, and post-structural Marxism all hinge on interpretations of the base-superstructure paradigm, some abandoning it completely. Ans. Elaine Showalter (born January 21, 1941) is an American literary critic, feminist, and writer on cultural and social issues. She is one of the founders of feminist literary criticism in United States academia, developing the concept and practice of Gynocritics, a term describing the study of "women as writers". The essay by Elaine Showalter is an attempt to study the field of literary criticism from the feminist point of view. Showalter has tried to study the various aspects of feminist criticism while also pointing out the aims it should be trying to attain, the problems it faces and the reasons for these problems. The essay considers the fact that like feminist creative writers, feminist critics also face certain obstacles which have got highlighted after the rise of feminism. Showalter has tried to analyze in detail the belief that feminist criticism is in wilderness, which means, feminist critics are not capable enough to produce coherent speculations. (1) Pluralism and the Feminist Critique: Showalter begins this essay by pointing out a dialogue by Carolyn Heilbrun and Catherine Stimpson. They had pointed out that two poles were identifiable in feminist literary criticism- one concentrating on the errors of the past and the other focus on the beauty of imagination. Both these aspects contribute in removing the effects of ‘female servitude’ that has existed in the society since ages. She also quotes Matthew Arnold to state that criticism, as a process, has to pass through a stage of wilderness to reach at the desired standards. Then, taking Q13. Evaluate Elaine Showalter's contribution to feminist criticism. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

16 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) support from Geoffrey Hartman’s quote, she forwards the belief that all criticism, and not only feminist criticism, is in wilderness. Analyzing one of the reasons for this, so called, wilderness in feminist criticism, she clarifies that the reason is lack of an exclusive theoretical framework for feminist criticism. It is always seen in association with some other strategy and, therefore, fails to work consistently. For instance, feminist critics supporting Marxism treat feminist criticism differently than those opposing racism. Showalter points out that feminist criticism is revisionist being dependent on male creative theory, i.e. the creative works and interpretations produced on the basis of male experience. Feminist critics try to analyze and respond to male creative theory. This need to be changed to achieve feminist criticism that is, ‘women centered, independent and intellectually coherent’. (2) Defining the Feminine: Gynocritics and the Woman’s Text: It is well accepted that a woman’s writing would always be feminine but defining ‘feminine’ has always been a problem. The second mode of feminist criticism concentrates on this definition. It analyzes women as writers. It undertakes the study of ‘history, styles, themes, genres, and structures of writing by women’. It also studies in details the various aspects of female creativity and female literary tradition. Showalter has coined the term ‘gynocritics’ for the ‘specialized critical discourse’ that uses women’s writings as its exclusive subject. However, identifying the unique elements of women’s writings is again a problem. French Feminist Criticism has identified the influence of female body on female language and texts. However, the issue has been approached towards differently in different countries. Four basic models of difference are being used most commonly-biological, linguistic, psychoanalytic and cultural. Each of these models is like a school of gynocentric feminist criticism and has its own preferences for texts, methods and beliefs. (3) Women’s Writing and Woman’s Body: It is one of the clearest statements of gender difference. Theories like that of better developed frontal lobes in case of males and of the use of 20 percent of creative energy for physiological functions in case of women have been used in the past to advocate the superiority of men over women. Many critics have associated the act of creation of text to the generative process which only male used to be considered capable of undertaking. The metaphor of literary paternity used to be associated to penis and, thus, to male. Showalter, however, associates it to womb comparing literary creativity to childbirth. The level and implication of the mention of anatomy in text by male and female writers, respectively, has also been different. However, study of biological imagery in women’s writings could be helpful only when other factors affecting them are also kept in mind. (4) Women’s Writing and Women’s Language: This concept analyzes if men and women use language differently while creating texts. It studies if factors like biology, social preferences and cultural beliefs could affect the Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 17 language of a gender. It also considers the concept of ‘the oppressor’s language’, the use of language by men to dominate women. For woman, the popular language could be like a foreign language which she is unable to be comfortable with. So, there is a call for development of separate feminine language. However, the irony is that even in communities where women are believed to have developed a separate language, their language is marked by secrecy. (5) Women’s Writing and Woman’s Psyche: This aspect deals with the connection between author’s psyche and creative process in general. The difference in creative process in case of a male and a female is then studied on the basis of this connection. Various psychological theories have suggested that female is inferior in terms of creative capabilities. Critics have been trying to establish new principles of feminist psychoanalysis which would try to differentiate gender identities rather than following Freudian theories. Certain common emotional dimensions could be identified in texts of women writers belonging to different countries. (6) Women’s Writing and Women’s Culture: The theory of culture as a factor affecting women’s writing is inclusive of the theories of biology, language and psyche. The influence of all these factors is guided by the cultural situation of a woman. History has not included female experience. Thus, history is inadequate to understand women’s experience. Woman’s culture is not a sub-culture of main culture. They are part of general culture itself. If patriarchal society applies restraints on them, they transform it into complementarity. Thus, women experience duality of culture including general culture and women’s culture. Women form ‘muted group’ in society and men form ‘dominant group’. Ardener suggested a diagram with two circles representing these two groups respectively. All language of the dominant group is all acceptable language. So, the muted group has to follow the same language. The part of the circle representing the muted group which does not coincide with the other circle represents that part of women’s life which has not found any expression in history. It represents the activities, experiences and feelings of women which are unknown to men. Since they do not form part of men’s life, they do not get representation in history. This ‘female zone’ is also known as ‘wild zone’ since it is out of the range of dominant boundary. Women could not write on experiences belonging exclusively on the wild zone. They have to give representation to the dominant culture in their texts. There are other muted groups as well than women. For instance, literary identity of a black American poet is forced upon her by the trends of the dominant group. Feminist critics try to identify the aspects of women writers which do not follow the trends established by the male writers. For instance, Woolf’s works show tendencies other than those of modernism. However, these tendencies are visible in the sections which have so far been considered Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

18 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) obscure or imperfect. Feminist critics should attempt ‘thick description’ of women’s writings. It is possible only when effect of gender and female literary tradition are considered among the various factors that affect the meaning of the text. Showalter concludes that the ‘promised land’ or situation when there would be no difference in the texts written by man and woman could not be attained. Attainment of that situation should not be the aim of feminist critics. Ans. French Philosopher, Linguist and Semiotician Roland Barthes (1915–1980) was one of the leading structuralist thinkers of the 20th century. He built his concept of the transformation of our approach to literary works based on the theories of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), Julia Kristeva, and Mikhail Bakhtin (1895–1975). Roland Barthes made a distinction between a Work and a Text. He said that a Work is a physical output of the author; the Text a ‘field’ of meanings when a work of an author becomes a strand in a huge web of interpretation. He states that a Text is subjective to multiple interpretations. One may ask: Can a Work be separated from a text? He said that the Text is an event; it turns into a ‘field’ whereas the Work enters in & becomes. The Differences: • A Work has 2 meanings: the literal & the concealed, the Text goes beyond them. • The Text is plural: The Work’s meaning is integrated into the Text. It ‘explodes’ with meanings & is highly inter-textual; in the Text, there’s no definite beginning & end. • The Work’s source is the Author, but the Text doesn’t have a source, hence the author is merely a guest in a work. • The Work is meant to be consumed by the reader, yet the Text is entangled with free play of collaborative reading, making the gap between the author & the reader narrower. • The Text is always superior to the Work, but one must not disregard the Work itself. Barthes said that one is able to lose oneself in the Text: linked to a kind of pleasure that’s not separated from (the Text) itself. Hence, it is turned into a social construction, turning the reader from being a passive consumer to one who can interact with the Text. He also mentions the Seven Propositions when reading a Text: Method, Genre, Signs, Plurality, Filtration, and Reading & Pleasure. Q14. What according to Barthes is the difference between 'work' and 'text'? Explain. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 19 Ans. The field of postcolonial studies has been gaining prominence since the 1970s. Some would date its rise in the western academy from the publication of Edward Said’s influential critique of Western constructions of the Orient in his 1978 book, Orientalism. The growing currency within the academy of the term “postcolonial” (sometimes hyphenated) was consolidated by the appearance in 1989 of The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures by Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. Since then, the use of cognate terms “Commonwealth” and “Third World” that were used to describe the literature of Europe’s former colonies has become rarer. Although there is considerable debate over the precise parameters of the field and the definition of the term “postcolonial,” in a very general sense, it is the study of the interactions between European nations and the societies they colonized in the modern period. The European empire is said to have held sway over more than 85% of the rest of the globe by the time of the First World War, having consolidated its control over several centuries. The sheer extent and duration of the European empire and its disintegration after the Second World War have led to widespread interest in postcolonial literature and criticism in our own times. Michelle Cliff: Michelle Cliff writes in a wide variety of genres including essays, novels, short stories, and literary criticism as well as poetry. She began writing after having read an article about Jamaica that she felt did not portray Jamaica as she had known it. In all of her writings, she depicts the real Jamaica as she believes it to be and elucidates what it means to be Jamaican. Throughout her works, she addresses the problems of oppression, colonialism, post colonialism; prejudice in regard to color, race, gender, and sexual orientation; and the loss of oral history. In her novels, in particular, she treats the need for revising mainstream history to include the lost oral history of the oppressed and ostracized. Cliff is also recognized as an important literary critic. Michelle Cliff is considered one of the most important writers addressing the issues of race, color, feminism, sexual orientation, and heritage and identity, particularly as faced by mixed-race individuals in a postcolonial society. Through her fictional works and prose poetry, she has made an important contribution to the “rewriting” of history by revealing the “other” history that has been omitted from official history. She is also esteemed for her literary criticism. Cliff received a MacDowell Fellowship (1982), National Endowment for the Arts grants (1982, 1989), a Massachusetts Artists Foundation Fellowship (1984), an Eli Kantor Fellowship from Yaddo (1984), and a Fulbright Fellowship (1988). Cliff is recognized as one of the most significant writers of fiction exploring the complex issues of race, color, sexual orientation, and feminism as well as the postcolonial concerns of identity and Q15. What according to Barthes is the difference between 'work' and 'text'? Explain. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

20 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) heritage for people of mixed race. She has played a critical role in revealing the “other,” or unofficial, history in her novels, and in a sense has been rewriting history. Cliff also is respected as a literary critic. In 1982, she received a fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts and a fellowship for study at MacDowell College. In 1984, she won a Massachusetts Artists Foundation award and was named an Eli Kantor Fellow. Frantz Fanon: Frantz Fanon’s relatively short life yielded two potent and influential statements of anti-colonial revolutionary thought, Black Skin, White Masks (1952) and The Wretched of the Earth (1961). These works have made Fanon one of the most prominent contributors to the field of postcolonial studies. Fanon was born in 1925, to a middle-class family in the French colony of Martinique. He left Martinique in 1943, when he volunteered to fight with the Free French in World War II, and he remained in France after the war to study medicine and psychiatry on scholarship in Lyon. Here he began writing political essays and plays, and he married a Frenchwoman, Jose Duble. Before he left France, Fanon had already published his first analysis of the effects of racism and colonization, Black Skin, White Masks (BSWM), originally titled “An Essay for the Disalienation of Blacks,” in part based on his lectures and experiences in Lyon. For Fanon, being colonized by a language has larger implications for one’s consciousness: “To speak … means above all to assume a culture, to support the weight of a civilization”. Speaking French means that one accepts, or is coerced into accepting, the collective consciousness of the French, which identifies blackness with evil and sin. In an attempt to escape the association of blackness with evil, the black man dons a white mask, or thinks of himself as a universal subject equally participating in a society that advocates equality supposedly abstracted from personal appearance. Cultural values are internalized, or “epidermal zed” into consciousness, creating a fundamental disjuncture between the black man’s consciousness and his body. Under these conditions, the black man is necessarily alienated from himself. Fanon insists, however, that the category “white” depends for its stability on its negation, “black.” Neither exists without the other, and both come into being at the moment of imperial conquest. Thus, Fanon locates the historical point at which certain psychological formations became possible, and he provides an important analysis of how historically-bound cultural systems, such as the Orientalist discourse Edward Said describes, can perpetuate themselves as psychology. While Fanon charts the psychological oppression of black men, his book should not be taken as an accurate portrait of the oppression of black women under similar conditions. The work of feminists in postcolonial studies undercuts Fanon’s simplistic and unsympathetic portrait of the black woman’s complicity in colonization. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 21 Ans. Semiotics is concerned with signs and their relationship with objects and meaning. One way to view signs is to consider them composed of a signifier and a signified. Simply put, the signifier is the sound associated with or image of something (e.g., a tree), the signified is the idea or concept of the thing (e.g., the idea of a tree), and the sign is the object that combines the signifier and the signified into a meaningful unit. Stated differently, the sign is the relationship between the concept and the representation of that concept. For example, when I was a child I had a stuffed animal. OK, it was a stuffed green rat, but it was a smiling rat. That rat was the signifier. Think what a stuffed animal could signify to a child. In my case, it signified safety, warmth, and comfort. So, when I walked into my room and looked at my stuffed green rat it was a sign to me that everything was ok. Notice that the signifier and the signified cannot be separated and still provide a meaningful basis for the sign. Today, that stuffed green rat is just a memory to me. I cannot even recall what I named it. In fact, as time passed that rat became a sign of something else. The rat is still a signifier but it signifies my early childhood when the world seemed calm, safe, and inviting. Now the rat could be considered a sign of my youthful innocence, long past and hard to remember, just like the name of that rat. Ans. Irony is a figure of speech in which words are used in such a way that their intended meaning is different from the actual meaning of the words. It may also be a situation that ends up in quite a different way than what is generally anticipated. In simple words, it is a difference between appearance and reality. On the grounds of the above definition, we distinguish two basic types of irony: • Verbal irony, and • Situational irony. Verbal irony involves what one does not mean. For example, when in response to a foolish idea, we say, “What a great idea!” This is verbal irony. Situational irony occurs when, for instance, a man is chuckling at the misfortune of another, even when the same misfortune is, unbeknownst to him, befalling him. Let us analyze some interesting examples from our daily life: • I posted a video on YouTube about how boring and useless YouTube is. • The name of Britain’s biggest dog was “Tiny.” • You laugh at a person who slipped stepping on a banana peel, and the next thing you know, you’ve slipped too. • The butter is as soft as a slab of marble. • “Oh great! Now you have broken my new camera.” Q16. Signifier Q17. Irony Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

22 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) Ans.Alamkara is a figure of speech. Alamkara earliest and most sustained school; it studies literary language and assumes that the focus of literariness is the figures of speech in the mode of figurative expression, grammatical accuracy and pleasantness of sound. This does not mean that meaning is ignored. In fact structural taxonomies of different figures of speech are models of how meaning is cognized and how it is to be extracted from the text. Bhamaha talks of the pleasure of multiplicity of meaning inherent in certain ‘Alamakara’ such as ‘Arthantaranyasa’, ‘Vibhavma’, and ‘Samasokti’. Bhamaha is the first ‘Alamkara’ poetician. Bhamaha describes 35 figures of speech in ‘kavyamkara’. Others who continued the tradition are Dandin, Udbhata, Rudrata and Vamana. Finally in ‘Anandavarahana’, Alamkra was sought to be integrated with Dhavni and Rasa. Alamkara is the dharma of poetry and not a mere embellishment. The categories of ‘Alamkara’ have been classified by different poetic into different kinds of systems. For example, Rudrata divides all Alamkara into two types those based on phonetic form and those based on meaning and then further sub classification of these leads to a total of sixty –eight Alamkara. Bhoja did not provide a fresh classification but added the third category – Ubhayalankara- to the two major types of Rudrata. Ruyyaka classified Alamkara into seven classes on the basis of how meaning is constituted. Ans. He argues that the influence of poetry is pervasive and often damaging, and that the ideas it presents about nature and the divine are often mistaken. Although Plato acknowledges the usefulness of poetry, in education, in civil celebrations etc., he regards it at all times with suspicion. Plato saw Philosophy to be opposed to Poetry and Rhetoric. In fact, he alludes to the "ancient quarrel" between these two sides, as he saw them. One of the ironies concerning Plato is that despite his unremitting hostility towards poetry and rhetoric, he is famous for his own poems and rhetoric. Go figure! Plato, in his work, Republic, attacks viciously the poetry of Homer and those who support it. He addresses his remarks at the "praisers of Homer who say that this poet educated Greece, and that in the management and education of human affairs it is worthwhile to take him up for study and for living, by arranging one's whole life according to this poet”. Plato seems to be setting himself up against the entire worldview that Homer and his followers have created and sustained. He Q18. Alamkara Q19. Why does Plato declare the role of the poet as subversive? Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 23 argues that the influence of poetry is pervasive and often damaging, and that the ideas it presents about nature and the divine are often mistaken. Although Plato acknowledges the usefulness of poetry, in education, in civil celebrations etc. he regards it at all times with suspicion. Although he recognizes poetry is a vital and necessary part of human society, he sees it as a mark of humanity's fallen state. Of course, his remarks must be read within the cultural framework of Plato's time, where the dissemination and spread of poetry was very different. Ans. "Preface to the Lyrical Ballads" by William Wordsworth is an epoch-making contribution to English literature. It is a landmark of literary criticism. Wordsworth has declared a break of the Neo-classical tradition in English poetry through this piece. He has discussed the characteristics of a poet, his functions and his dominions elaborately. His famous theory of poetry is highly expressed in this "Preface". His remarkable definition of poetry and the use of language in poetry are obviously highlighted. During the Neo-classical Age, the language of poetry was decorated and figurative. It dealt with the aristocratic way of life. But Wordsworth revolts against it. He changes the classical theory of poetry. He declares that a poet is a man speaking to men. The language of poetry is the language of common people. He boldly proclaims that there is no essential difference between the language of prose and that of metrical composition. In fact, with the publication of this "preface ", Wordsworth started the Romantic Revival. In writing poetry, Wordsworth has chosen the incidents and situations from humble and rustic life. He also asserts to adopt the language of the people in rural life. The common people hourly communicate with the best objects from which the best part of language is originally derived. Wordsworth thinks that people in rural life convey their feelings and notions through simple and unelaborated expressions. These people are less under the influence of social vanity than the people live in cities. Such a simple and common language is permanent and philosophical. It is greater than the language generally employed by poets. Wordsworth says that the language of prose can be used in poetry. There is no essential difference between the language of prose and that of metrical composition. Rather he asserts that there is a perfect affinity between metrical composition and prose composition. The language of a metrical composition will be a selection of the language really spoken by men. The language of a poet is not different from that of other men. Wordsworth says, "A poet is a man speaking to men. " Basically there is no difference among the poets and the common men. A poet can be different from other men not in kind but only in degree. He has a comprehensive soul, inner insight and a power to express which Q20. What does Wordsworth think of the distinction between the language of prose and metrical composition? Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

24 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) want in common men. His passions, thoughts, and feelings will be the general passions, thoughts and feelings of mankind. He thinks and feels in the spirit of human passions. Therefore, the poet's language cannot differ in any material degree from the language of all other men who feel vividly and see clearly. William Wordsworth says that personifications of abstract ideas are by no means a natural or regular part of the real language of men. He has also taken pains to avoid the use of what is called "poetic diction". He does it to bring the language of his poems near to the language of men. He has tried to express his ideas in language fitted to their respective importance. Wordsworth further says that metre is superadded. Metre adds the beauty to the poem. He wants to avoid figurative language in poems. The importance of the selection of language is very great to Wordsworth. He does not say that the poet should use the actual language of the people just as they speak it. Here Wordsworth says that the poet should make a 'selection' from the real language of men. He is giving enough freedom to the poet in choosing his words and vocabulary from the real language of men. Then a poet can compose a poem with this selected language. He will give a new shape and from in writing poetry with his own imagination and feelings, thoughts, emotions etc. Ans. The term hero is derived from a Greek word that means a person who faces adversity, or demonstrates courage, in the face of danger. However, sometimes he faces downfall as well. When a hero confronts downfall, he is recognized as a tragic hero or protagonist. Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, characterizes these plays or stories, in which the main character is a tragic hero, as tragedies. Here, the hero confronts his downfall whether due to fate, or by his own mistake, or any other social reason. Aristotle defines a tragic hero as “a person who must evoke a sense of pity and fear in the audience. He is considered a man of misfortune that comes to him through error of judgment.” A tragic hero’s downfall evokes feelings of pity and fear among the audience. Characteristics of a Tragic Hero: Here we have basic characteristics of a tragic hero, as explained by Aristotle: • Hamartia: A tragic flaw that causes the downfall of a hero. • Hubris: Excessive pride and disrespect for the natural order of things. • Peripeteia: The reversal of fate that the hero experiences. • Anagnorisis: A moment in time when hero makes an important discovery in the story. • Nemesis: A punishment that the protagonist cannot avoid, usually occurring as a result of his hubris. Q21. Tragic Hero Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 25 • Catharsis: Feelings of pity and fear felt by the audience, for the inevitable downfall of the protagonist. Ans. Hamartia is a personal error in a protagonist’s personality, which brings about his tragic downfall in a tragedy. This defect in a hero’s personality is also known as a “tragic flaw.” Aristotle used the word in his Poetics, where it is taken as a mistake or error in judgment. The term envelops wrongdoings, which may be accidental or deliberate. One of the classic hamartia examples is where a hero wants to achieve something but, while doing so, he commits an intentional or accidental error, and he ends up achieving exactly the opposite with disastrous results. Such a downfall is often marked by a reversal of fortune. A typical example of hamartia in tragedies is hubris, which is excessive pride and ego in a hero’s character. This often ultimately brings about his tragic downfall. In Greek tragedies, the hubristic action of a hero in a powerful position causes his shame and humiliation. Ans. Sphota is more specifically identified as the underlying totality of linguistic capability, or "potency" and secondarily as the cause of two differentiated aspects of manifested meaning: applied meaning expressed as dhvani, the audible sound patterns of speech and artha-language as meaning-bearing. The theory of sphoṭa is associated with Bhartṛhari (c. 5th century), an early figure in Indic linguistic theory, mentioned in the 670s by Chinese traveller YiJing. Bhartṛhari is the author of the Vākyapadīya ("[treatise] on words and sentences "). The work is divided into three books, • The Brahma-kāṇḍa, (or Āgama-samuccaya "aggregation of traditions"), • The Vākya-kāṇḍa, and • The Pada-kāṇḍa (or Prakīrṇaka "miscellaneous"). • He theorized the act of speech as being made up of three stages: • Conceptualization by the speaker (Paśyantī "idea") • Performance of speaking (Madhyamā "medium") • Comprehension by the interpreter (Vaikharī "complete utterance"). For Bhartrihari, linguistic meaning cannot be conveyed or accounted for by the physical utterance and perception of sounds, so he puts forth the sphota theory: the theory which posits the meaning-unit, which for him is the sentence, as a single entity. The term "sphota" dates back to Pânini's reference to “sphotâyana” in his Q22. Explain “ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN DIGITAL AGE” Q23. Sphota Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

26 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) treatise Ashtâdhyâyî, however it was Patanjali who explicitly discusses sphota in his Mahâbhâshya. According to him sphota signifies spoken language, with the audible sound (dhvani) as its special quality. In Bhartrihari’s treatment of this concept, while the audible noise may vary depending on the speaker’s mode of utterance, sphota as the meaning unit of speech is not subject to such variations. This is so because for Bhartrihari, meaning is conveyed by the sentence. To explicate this theory, Bhartrihari depends on the root of sphota, namely sphut, meaning “to burst forth…” as in the “idea that spews forth” (in an internal mental state) when a meaningful sound, the sentence as a whole, is uttered. Ans. Objective Correlative is a term popularized by T.S. Eliot in his essay on 'Hamlet and His Problems' to refer to an image, action, or situation – usually a pattern of images, actions, or situations – that somehow evokes a particular emotion from the reader without stating what that emotion should be. Explaining his view Eliot says, "The only way of expressing emotion in the form of art is by finding an 'objective correlative'; in other words, a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that particular emotion; such that when the external facts, which must terminate in sensory experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked' it is from this point of view that he finds Hamlet defective and “an artistic failure.” He also says that in Macbeth Shakespeare is successful in finding an 'objective correlative' to express the emotions of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. Eliot says: “If you examine any of Shakespeare’s more successful tragedies, you will find this exact equivalence; you will find that the state of mind of Lady Macbeth walking in her sleep has been communicated to you by a skillful accumulation of imagined sensory impressions; the words of Macbeth on hearing his wife’s death strike us as if given the sequence of events, these were automatically released by the last even in the series. The artistic “inevitability” lies in this complete adequacy of the external to the emotion; and this is precisely what is deficient in Hamlet. Hamlet (the man) is dominated by an emotion which is inexpressible because it is in excess of the facts as they appear ……Hamlet is up against the difficulty that his disgust is occasioned by his mother but that his mother is not an adequate equivalent for it; his disgust envelops and exceeds her. It is thus a feeling which he cannot understand; he cannot objectify it, therefore remains to poison life and abstract action. None of the possible actions can satisfy it: and nothing that Shakespeare can do with the plot can express Hamlet for him. According to Eliot, when writer fails to find objective correlatives for the emotions they wish to convey, readers or audiences are left unconvinced, unmoved, or even confused. Eliot applied his theory of 'Objective Correlative' to Shakespeare’s play Hamlet (1602), arguing that it is an “artistic failure” because Q24. Objective Correlative Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 27 occurrences in the play do not justify Hamlet’s depth of feeling and thus fail to provide convincing motivation. Objective Correlative was the term first used in a mid-nineteenth-century art lecture given by the American poet and painter Washington Allston, but later it was redefined by T.S. Eliot and became widespread among the critical circles specially the New Critics. The phrase 'Objective Correlative' and the concept lying there in have gained great currency since then. It has become so popular with the people that critics like Wimsatt and Brooke have gone to the extent of saying that “the phrase objective correlative has gained a currency probably far beyond anything that the author could have expected or intended.” The phrase has been used by Eliot to express how emotion can be best expressed in poetry and it is a part of his impersonal theory of poetry concentrating not on the poet but on the poetry. The theory of impersonal art implies that greater emphasis should be laid upon the work of art itself as a structure. Eliot has learnt from the French symbolists that emotion can only be evoked; it cannot be expressed directly. Eliot’s theory was also anticipated by Ezra Pound in 'The Spirit of Romance.' Pound admitted that in the ideographic process of using material images to suggest immaterial relations, the poet has to be as impersonal as the scientists: “Poetry is a sort of inspired mathematics, which gives us equations, not for abstract figures, triangles, spheres, and the like, but equations for the human emotion." Ans. “Irony as a principle of structure” is an important critical theory by Cleanth brooks. In this essay he says that metaphor allows poet to show particular thing to give a more general level of meaning. According to him theme of poem is a result of coherent structure of elements used in poetry. He also says that particular statement get different meaning when used on different context. He defines irony harmony between contradictory things and creates multiplicity of meaning. All his arguments and its application the poems are described in detail as follows. Metaphor is rediscovery of modern poetic techniques. By using metaphor in modern poetry poet can deal with universal things in the world. Metaphor allows poet to point out particular objects, events, or experience. It helps to give a more general or universal level of meaning e.g. ‘a red red rose’ in this poem ‘rose’ is a particular flower which gives fragrance. But with the help of this poet suggest universal thing that is ‘love’. By using metaphor poetry takes risk of saying something particularly and obscurely of not saying anything at all. The poet has to take this risk because he can’t make direct statements. If a poet makes direct statements, poetry will be full of abstraction and threatens. It will not be poetry at all. Q25. Discuss the ideas expressed by Cleanth Brooks in his essay "Irony as a Principle of Structure". Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

28 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) According to brooks, metaphor implies a principle of organic relationship. That means poetry consist of different elements like words, phrases, images, symbols, figure of speech, rhyme, rhythm, meter etc. All of them contribute in generating meaning of a poem, all these part are interdependent and all are connected to the main theme. Thus poetry has coherent structure. It is like a kite or a plant or a drama where different parts contribute to make total effect. The tail of the kite seems to navigate the kite’s function. It weights the kite down, it paradoxically is a necessity that allows the kite to rise, and a plant too, is compassed of several parts that allow the plant to grow as a whole. The leaves, roots, branches, and stem are all essential the plan’s growth. The poem is also like a little drama. The total effect proceeds from all the elements in the drama and in a good poem as in a good drama, there is no waste motion and there are no superfluous parts. Thus small things are important to form a big complete. Brooks says that because of the organic relationship of poetic structure context becomes the most important thing. Context means relationship of words with each other and with the main theme of overall meaning that poetry generates. It can be called as something like a them or subject of a poem. All great poems have poetic qualities because of particular context. Meaning of a particular utterance becomes something different because of the context. Poetic statement gain new meaning of unexpected references because of context and not in isolation. When particular sentence is used for particular context the meaning has modified or changed. Simple statement gets a different meaning in literary context. E.g. In ‘king lear’, the expression ‘ripeness is all’ is used not is positive thing. It has negative kind of significance. Edger wants to say old age is of no scope for improvement. Ans. In Marxist theory, the 4 essentials are: Economic power (society is shaped by its forces of production). There are two main classes: the bourgeoisie (those who control the means of production) and the proletariat (those who operate the means of production). Capitalism is flawed. Materialism versus Spirituality: society is not based on spiritual forces (ideas, abstractions), but things (materialism); any notion otherwise is denial. Class Conflict: in a capitalistic society there is a division of labor between the rich and the poor, the bosses and the labor: the former exploits the latter; the latter resents the former Art, Literature, and Ideologies: art and literature are vehicles for the bourgeoisie (the makers of art) to instill its values on the proles (the consumers). For Freudian criticism: There is an Oedipal / Elektra Complex: connotations of passive-aggression, repression, and guilt toward parents: The son’s desire for his mother the father’s envy of the son and rivalry for the mother’s attention the Q26. Write a critical note on the essentials of Marxist literary theory OR Freudian psychoanalysis. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 29 daughter’s desire for her father the mother’s envy of the daughter and rivalry for the father’s attention. There is an emphasis on the meaning of private dreams as they oppose public and social values. There is a correlation of the Id, Ego, and Superego to a trio of characters or all within the same character. Ans. The Second Sex was published in 1949, at a time when feminism was not yet widely discussed as a pressing social issue. It is widely considered to be a formative text of second-wave feminism. This strain of feminism shifted focus from gaining certain legal rights—such as suffrage, property rights, etc.—toward considering how sexism also impacted women across many different spheres of their lives. Although this wave is often attributed to the 1960s, de Beauvoir’s text arguably helped to lay the foundations for the kinds of thinking that defined second-wave feminism. By considering the many ways in which femininity was significant in determining women’s outcomes across different spheres of society, de Beauvoir helped to push feminist thinking in new directions. After the publication of de Beauvoir’s text, feminists would consider many of the issues she had raised, such as the ways in which gender and sexuality are interrelated. Along with being a female critical thinker de Beauvoir was also a female writer. The exact fact that she had to specify the fact that she was a female was what made her write The Second Sex in 1945. The Second Sex is a book that reflects the so called second wave of feminism. De Beauvoir demonstrates her logical reasoning regarding the perception of female sex by men and women, males and females. For her, there is a distinct difference between the terms female and woman. However most importantly Beauvoir believed that these perceptions on gender are not biologically inherited but they are 'imposed' to us by the society we live in. This particular edition contains extracts from the original book so it is a great choice for older teenagers who are interested not only in gender equality but in philosophy in general. It would be impossible to analyse the value of Beauvoir's reasoning in a review, for this reason I am rather going to focus on why this is a book you should definitely read. Just few days ago Carey Mulligan stated in an interview of hers for The Guardian film that 'the film industry is massively sexist'. And she is right; just consider how many women directors we are aware of, how many stories for great women–apart from fairy tales–have become movies, how we would react in the presence of a female actor who is not in agreement with the typical beauty guidelines. We have reached a point where the term feminism has become more confusing than ever. Some of us, women and men, believe that the struggle has come to an end; others believe that gender inequality is simply not here anymore. However there are people claiming that nothing is over, that we have long way to go. What is however worrying is that people tend to associate feminism with men-hating. Then Q27. Comment on the significance of the title The Second Sex. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

30 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) we have campaigns such as He for She which only by their title it is easy to tell that they are highly controversial, but even if this is the case they serve in reminding us that the problem is still here. The Second Sex offers a solution in the style of 'back to basics'. Whenever we are stuck in a problem we tend to look at it from the beginning. In this case The Second Sex serves as the root which we should appeal to for help. In order to understand the sex related problems of our society we should look back to the point it all started. Simone de Beauvoir offers you this chance through her masterpiece so do not wait any longer, grab the chance and read it! Ans. Originated by the philosopher Jacques Derrida, deconstruction is an approach to understanding the relationship between text and meaning. Derrida's approach consisted of conducting readings of texts looking for things that run counter to the intended meaning or structural unity of a particular text. The purpose of deconstruction is to show that the usage of language in a given text, and language as a whole, are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible. Throughout his readings, Derrida hoped to show deconstruction at work. Many debates in continental philosophy surrounding ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and philosophy of language refer to Derrida's observations. Since the 1980s, these observations inspired a range of theoretical enterprises in the humanities, including the disciplines of law, anthropology, historiography, linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychoanalysis, LGBT studies, and the feminist school of thought. Deconstruction also inspired de constructivism in architecture and remains important within art, music, and literary criticism. Jacques Derrida's 1967 book Of Grammatology introduced the majority of ideas influential within deconstruction. Derrida published a number of other works directly relevant to the concept of deconstruction. Books showing deconstruction in action or defining it more completely include Difference, Speech and Phenomena, and Writing and Difference. According to Derrida and taking inspiration from the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, language as a system of signs and words only has meaning because of the contrast between these signs. As Rorty contends, "words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words...no word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form)". As a consequence, meaning is never present, but rather is deferred to other signs. Derrida refers to the—in this view, mistaken—belief that there is a self-sufficient, non-deferred meaning as metaphysics of presence. A concept, then, must be understood in the context of its opposite, such as being/nothingness, normal/abnormal, speech/writing, etc. Q28. Why does Derrida resist definitions? Give reasons for your answer. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 31 Further, Derrida contends that "in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiological, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand": signified over signifier; intelligible over sensible; speech over writing; activity over passivity, etc. The first task of deconstruction would be to find and overturn these oppositions inside a text or a corpus of texts; but the final objective of deconstruction is not to surpass all oppositions, because it is assumed they are structurally necessary to produce sense. The oppositions simply cannot be suspended once and for all. The hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself. Deconstruction only points to the necessity of an unending analysis that can make explicit the decisions and arbitrary violence intrinsic to all texts. Finally, Derrida argues that it is not enough to expose and deconstruct the way oppositions work and then stop there in a nihilistic or cynical position, "thereby preventing any means of intervening in the field effectively". To be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not to synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference and eternal interplay. This explains why Derrida always proposes new terms in his deconstruction, not as a free play but as a pure necessity of analysis, to better mark the intervals. Derrida called un decidable—that is, unities of simulacrum—"false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition, but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions—resisting and organizing it—without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of Hegelian dialectics (e.g., différance, archi-writing, pharmakon, supplement, hymen, gram, spacing). Ans. Williams, a mid-twentieth century scholar of English literature who died in 1988, brought a "people's" perspective to literary and cultural studies. In 1958, he published Culture and Society, his most famous work, which studies how the concept of culture evolved between the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England, circa 1780, and the year 1950. He contends that our current ideas about culture are influenced by history and by economic realities—they are not "timeless," as some have argued. During the period he describes, he writes, two competing views of culture evolved. One identified culture with the "arts," and defined it as a higher, refined, and more perfect way of life. The other view, which Williams embraced, identified culture with "a whole way of life," a manner of living humanely which is far broader than reading "good" literature and viewing Old Master paintings. In another famous book, The Country and the City, Williams shows how the literature of the elites obscures the real suffering of the rural laborer, idealizing it to make it seems as if crops grew themselves and livestock took care of itself. He reveals as well how we can use literature to help critique these blind spots in society. Williams wrote in a simple, Q29. What is Raymond Williams' contribution to Cultural Studies? Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

32 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) accessible style, unlike many literary theorists of his period. He interpreted literature and society through the lens of the common man, and his work has held up well. Ans. The term “aesthetics”, though deriving from the Greek (aisthetikos meaning “related to sense experience”), is a modern one, forged by Baumgarten as the title of his main book (Aesthetica, 1750). Only later did it come to name an entire field of philosophical research. Aristotle does not use that term. But after Plato, he does use the word mimêtikê (that is, literally, the art of producing a mimesis), and since he considers mimesis to be the most general term (or the genus) of all instances (or species) that we consider “art”, like painting, sculpture, music, poetry, or dance, such a word would probably have been well suited to such an inquiry into (what we call) “works of art”. But the fact is that he did not write any such book as a “Treatise on mimêtikê”. Instead, the main treatise he wrote bears the name of Poêtikê, that is, literally, “the art of composing poetry” which mainly focuses on tragedy in its first “book” which we can still read, and on comedy, in its second, which is now lost.[1] Nowadays known as the Poetics, this treatise was never published or properly edited by Aristotle himself (and may have mainly consisted of “teaching notes”); like the other treatises that have come down to us, it remained inside his philosophical school, the Lyceum (among, that is, his so-called “esoteric” works). But Aristotle also published, as “exoteric works” (that is, writings that were circulating outside of the Lyceum), various books on poetry, notably a book entitled “On Poets”, and another “Homeric Problems” (both of which we can still read a few fragments of) and even a (now entirely lost) catalogue of the tragedies and comedies that were put on stage in Athenian festivals, recording those which won which prize. Thus, poetry, and especially dramatic poetry and theater, rather than art in general, were apparently Aristotle’s chief concern. It is probably the case that Aristotle considered tragedy and comedy to be paradigmatic works of art, which constituted the most attractive and exciting parts of the civic and religious festivals that were such important events in the lives of most Athenians and, more generally, of the people of Greek cities. But he also dedicated almost an entire book to music (book VIII of the Politics), and it is to be noted that his followers did likewise: in addition to his own books on poetry and comedy, Theophrastus wrote a work on music in three books (all lost, except for a few fragments), and Aristoxenus is the author of important treatises on music that we still (partly) have. On the other hand, before Aristotle Plato had expressed quite strong views on art generally speaking, and not only on poetry or music; in book X of the Republic, Socrates embarks on a critical review of mimesis as a whole, where mimetic art quite generally is at stake. Since it is difficult not to take Aristotle as responding to Plato’s Q30. Why do you think there was a tremendous insistence on emotional experience in classical aesthetics? Discuss with reference to classical criticism. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

Shrichakradhar.com 33 critique of the arts in one way or another, it is quite natural to suppose that he also had some views on art in general, and not only on poetry or music. But perhaps the main reason why one should seriously consider Aristotle as having general aesthetic views comes from an extraordinary passage which is too rarely quoted in Aristotelian scholarship. In one passage of the Eudemian Ethics (EE), Aristotle insists that the pleasurable experience (paschein) of contemplating a statue or listening to music has nothing to do with the pleasure that is at stake in the lack of self-control (akrasia, or what we usually call “weakness of will”): no one would be considered to be unself-controlled for gazing at a beautiful statue or a beautiful horse or human, or listening to someone singing, without any desire to eat or drink or have sex, but just to gaze at beautiful objects or listen to the singing—any more than those who were spellbound by the Sirens would. (EE III 2.1230b25–35) When people look at beautiful statues or persons, or listen to music without any other desire than the desire for such gazing or listening, they enjoy all these things “for their intrinsic qualities” and not “for their incidental associations” (or “accidentally”, kata symbebêkos). Only humans can enjoy such experiences, not animals; a lion can enjoy seeing a gazelle only as a potential meal and never for its beauty (Nicomachean Ethics (NE) III 13.1118a22–23). And the same goes for the sense of smell, Aristotle adds, quoting a witty saying by the musician Stratonicos: while a meal “smells delicious”, a flagrant flower “smells beautiful” (EE III 2.1231a11–12). It can hardly be denied that this passage points to what we nowadays call an “aesthetic disinterestedness”, which implies the idea of a pleasurable experience that is typically human, one which pays attention to the object itself and its intrinsic qualities. And, one may add, it also points to the idea of judging the quality of the thing that is gazed at or listened to. And indeed, in another passage from the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle clearly implies this: A virtuous person, as a virtuous person, takes pleasure in [others’] actions that express moral virtues, and is upset by actions caused by moral vices, just as a musician enjoys beautiful songs but finds bad ones painful. (NE IX 9.1170a8–11) The virtuous person rejoices in someone else’s performing a morally good act thanks to her knowledge of what virtue consists in. The pleasurable experience a musician gets from music is primarily a sensory one linked to her faculty of hearing, to be sure, but also derives, as in the case of morality, from her musical knowledge. In other words, having experience and knowledge of music, or any kind of art, allows one to be a good judge of music, or any kind of art —that is to say what we would call a person of “aesthetic” taste. The goal of building and transmitting such knowledge in order to help his readers to become good judges could be considered the main reason why Aristotle wrote about art. The following presentation reviews some of the most central topics we find in the works Aristotle dedicated to (what we call) art. The Poetics is of course our main entry into this, but his published works were actually the only works that were Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060

34 Important Questions (Exam Solutions) available outside his school throughout antiquity; most probably, non-Aristotelian philosophers from Philodemus to the late neo-Platonists only had access to those works, and not to the Poetics. In modern scholarship, those works are usually marginalized if not dismissed, on the grounds that they do not seem to reflect any deep philosophical insight. And, indeed, they were addressed to a general public. But (as we shall see), nothing indicates that the philosophically less elaborated views of On Poets would have been totally different from those in the Poetics, and in the latter work Aristotle does not hesitate to refer to the former. And the same goes for the Homeric Problems: chapter 25 of the Poetics seems to reformulate in a more abstract way the principles from which Aristotle discussed numerous examples of interpretive problems in that work. It is therefore a plausible hypothesis that Aristotle wanted to provide a broader public an echo of what he was teaching his philosophy students. Aristotle often recommends that we begin with more evident, concrete views before aiming at more sophisticated, deeper insights. Let us follow this methodological recommendation, and begin with the two published works. Caveat lector: Before we get into the heart of our topic, a warning. The Poetics is one of the works from the ancient world that has elicited the most controversies, and it still does. As everybody knows, the word katharsis has more than any other made the greatest quantity of ink flow from the Renaissance onwards (when the treatise was rediscovered). But it is no exaggeration to say that almost every page, if not every sentence, of the Poetics has been interpreted in different ways, and so have many more general themes as well, such as the problem of who the treatise is addressed to, its general aim or, quite simply, its overall significance. The Greek text has not only been rather poorly transmitted (and it is still subject to many philological disputes among specialists), but it is also extremely dense and convoluted, and many terms are actually rather vague or ambiguous, and therefore subject to various possible interpretations (and translations). The reader of this general presentation should thus be warned that, like any other presentation of the Poetics, it is based on a (hopefully coherent) series of interpretive choices; some of the other main interpretive choices will be briefly described, or flagged in the notes. Shrichakradhar.com 9958947060