Victorian Literature

Assignment: Paper No. - 6

Topic: MAJOR THEMES IN MIDDLEMARCH

Name: Patel kavita

Roll No. – 11

Semester: II

Batch: 2011- 12

MAJOR THEMES IN THE MIDDLE MARCH

   The Imperfection of Marriage:

          In the novel Middlemarch, we can see that many of the character marry for love rather than obligation. Marriage appears negative and unromantic. We can find two example of failed marriages, Dorothea - Casaubon and Lydgate – Rosamond. Dorothea’s marriage fails because of her young age and disillusions about marrying a much older man. Lydgate’s marriage fails because of conflicting personalities. He wants love but Rosamond wants material comforts. Mr. and Mrs. Bulstrode also face a material crisis due to his inability to tell her about past. Fred Vincy and Mary Garth also face a great deal of hardship in making their unification.

   Responsibility:

This is a major theme of Fred Vincy’s story, and he must become responsible for his finances and his choices.

   Stubbornness:

Rosamond is extremely stubborn; it means that if the things are not done in her way, she will go behind other people’s backs to do things the way she thinks they should be done.

   Prejudice:

People of Middlemarch do not like anyone who is not from Middlemarch or anyone whose identity is ‘Questionable’. Will and Ladislaw both are good people, but it is initial prejudice.

MINOR THEMES IN MIDDLEMARCH

   Conformity:

People of Middlemarch are supposed to conform to certain social ideas and norms. Dorothea is supposed to be a proper wife and then a proper widow, and fellow society’s set guidelines about how to fill each position.

   Unity of Middlemarch:

The decisions made by every person in Middlemarch seem to have direct effect on at least one other person. Dorothea’s decision to marry Casaubon leads Sir James to choose Celia. Bulstrode’s dirty dealings with regard to Raffles mean disgrace to both Lydgate and Will Ladislaw.  

   Love:

Love keeps people together. Those who are truly in love like Will and Dorothea, Mary and Fred are bound together by it, and are very alike in temperament and outlook.  

   Societal Expectation:

Lydgate proposes to Rosamond because society expects that he should do it. Dorothea is pushed to live with someone else or marry again after she is widowed, because society accepts that it is right.

   Vanity:

This theme is especially relevant to Rosamond and her suitors. Rosamond is exceptionally about her charm and her appearances; so it is a shock to her when her friend Ladislaw says he doesn’t love her. Her unsuccessful suitors are all equally vain, and blamed Lydgate, rather than Rosamond’s lack of interest, when she would not return their favour.

   Self-discovery:

There are certain truths which every character learns about him in the course of trials; Lydgate and Rosamond find out more about their characters through their money troubles, though they do not always adjust accordingly.

   Reality vs. Expectations:

Many characters preconceived ideas, especially of marriage, are proven tragically wrong in the course of book. Casaubon and Dorothea both have unrealistic ideas about marriage, and are disappointed. Lydgate and Rosamond have the same idea, and are let down

   Conscience vs. self-interest:

This is a major question in Lydgate’s life in particular. Does one do what one thinks is right, or what gives one the most benefit? Lydgate often goes for self-interest, though it gets him into trouble.

   Gender roles and expectations:

Middlemarch society has very defined ideas of what people of each gender should do within the society, and people, especially women who deviate from this norm, are looked down upon. Dorothea is tolerated because she is of good family and does not disrupt the society she is in. however, she faces a great deal of pressure to change herself, conform to other’s ideas, and submit herself to male leadership at all times.

   Progress:

English society is evolving in social, economic, technologic areas, same thing happens in Middlemarch. Socially ideas of Gender and Class are in flux, as women are proving more and more component, and the industrial Revolution is causing a greater amount of social mobility in England.

   Pride:

This is something which both helps and hinders many people in the book, and it is most applicable to Dorothea, Will Ladislaw and Lydgate. With Lydgate, pride is a tumbling block, something that keeps him for putting his affairs in order, and sometime doing what is necessary I his marriage and practice.

   Money:

In the novel Middlemarch, money is Evil, but much good. Lydgate gets desperate for want of money, Fred despairs when he has little, Dorothea becomes generous when she has too much, and the Garths save carefully since their money is limited.

   Strength of rumor:

In Middlemarch, we can see that how rumors can do a great deal of damage, having even more weight than fact in some cases. Both Bulstrode and Lydgate are blackened by rumors passed around the society, and Will is blackened as well, though he is falsely accused.

   Politics:

In the novel, everything is political, with most people strongly breaking the conservative party. Personal alliances and aversion are based on matters of politics and political identification.

   Family obligation:

It means varying ideas of character in Middlemarch, though it is a strong force in Middlemarch society. Mr. Featherstone’s relations believe they are entitled to money; Mrs. Bulstrode believes that she must help and advice her family in order to show support.

  

 

 

Cultural Studies

                  Topic: NEW HISTORICISM

                       Name: Patel kavita

                            Roll No. – 11

                            Semester: II

                           Batch: 2011- 12

                                        Submitted to:

                                Dept. of English,

                             Bhavnagar University,

                                Bhavnagar.

                 WHAT IS NEW HISTORICISM?

Definition:

A method based on the parallel reading of literary and non-literary texts, usually of the same time period. It refuses to privilege literary text.

            New Historicism is a theory applied to literature that suggests literature must be studied and interpreted within the context of both the history of the author and the history of the critic. The theory arose in the 1980s, and with Stephen Greenblatt as its main proponent, became quite popular in the 1990s. Unlike previous historical criticism which limited itself to simply demonstrating how a work was reflective of its time, New Historicism evaluates how the work is influenced by the time in which it was produced. It also examines the social sphere in which the author moved the psychological background of the author, the books and theories that may have influenced the author, and any other factors which influenced the work of art. All work is biased.

             New historicism is no longer a matter of literature maintaining the foreground and history the background; instead it is a matter of literature and history occupying the same area and given the same weight.

          New Historicism acknowledges that any criticism of a work is necessarily tinged with the critic’s beliefs, social structure, and so on. Most New Historicists may begin a critical reading of a novel by explaining themselves, their backgrounds, and their prejudices. Both the work and the reader are corrupted by everything that has influenced them. New Historicism thus represents a significant change from previous critical theories like New Criticism, because its main focus is to look at things outside of the work, instead of reading the text as a thing apart from the author.

           There is a relationship between Marxism and New Historicism, it can be said that the New Historicist often looks for ways in which populations are marginalized through a literary work. For example, a Jane Austen novel is a novel confined to a very limited sphere of society, namely the landed gentry. While the New Historicist may praise the novel, he or she will also duly note that the servant class is completely marginalized in Austen’s work. Austen asserts the pre-eminence of the landed gentry above any other class of society, and is quite critical of those who marry “beneath” their social status.

Differences between old and new historicism:

Old: hierarchical, with literature being the “jewel,” and history the background.

New: Parallel readings, no more hierarchy.

Old: A historical movement: creates a historical framework in which to place the text

New: a historicist movement. Interested in history as represented and recorded in written documents—history as text.

“The word of the past replaces the world of the past.”

 “The aim is not to represent the past as it really was, but to present a new reality by re- situating it.”

Advantages:

* Written in a far more accessible way than post-structuralist theory.

* It presents its data and draws its conclusions in a less dense way

*Material is often fascinating and distinctive.

*New territory.

* Political edge is always sharp, avoids problems of straight Marxist criticism.

Barry gives an example of Montrose’s essay on Fantasies, reinforces the idea that literature plays off reality and reality plays off literature.

             New Historicism focuses on the way literature expresses-and sometimes disguises-power relations at work in the social context in which the literature was produced, often this involves making connections between a literary work and other kinds of texts. Literature is often shown to “negotiate” conflicting power interests. New historicism has made its biggest mark on literary studies of the Renaissances and Romantic periods and has revised motions of literature as privileged, apolitical writing. Much new historicism focuses on the marginalization of subjects such as those identified as witches, the insane, heretics, vagabonds, and political prisoners.

 tu

Literary Criticism

    Topic: ARCHETYPAL CRITICISM

Name: Patel kavita

Roll No. – 11

Semester: II

Batch: 2011- 12

                                                            Submitted to:

                                       Dept. of English,

                                  Bhavnagar University,

          Bhavnagar.

                   ARCHETYPAL CRITICISM:

              An archetype differs from a prototype (even though the two words have often been used interchangeably) in that prototype refers primarily to a genetic and temporal pattern of relationship.  In modern literary criticism archetype means a recurring or repeating unit, normally an image, which indicates that a poet is following a certain convention or working in a certain GENRE.  For example, the PASTORAL ELEGY is a convention, descending from ritual laments over dying gods, and hence when Milton contributes Lycida’s to a volume of memorial poems to an acquaintance who was drowned in the Irish Sea, the poem is written as a pastoral elegy, and consequently employs a number of conventional images that had been used earlier by Theocritus, Virgil, and many RENAISSANCE poets.  The conventions include imagery of the solar and seasonal cycles, in which autumn frost, the image of premature death, and sunset in the western ocean are prominent; the idea that the subject of the elegy was a shepherd with a recognized pastoral name and an intimate friend of the poet; a satirical passage on the state of the church, with implied puns on pastor and flock (naturally a post-Virgilian feature); and death and rebirth imagery attached to the cycle of water, symbolized by the legend of Alpheus, the river and river god that went underground in Greece and surfaced again in Sicily in order to join the fountain and fountain nymph Arethusa.

         One of the conventional images employed in the pastoral elegy is that of the red or purple flower that is said to have obtained its colour from the shed blood of the dying god.  Lucida contains a reference to “that sanguine flower inscribed with woe” [l.  106], the hyacinth, thought to have obtained red markings resembling the Greek word air (“alas”), when Hyacinthus was accidentally killed by Apollo.  Milton could of course just as easily have left out this line: the fact that he included it emphasizes the conventionalizing element in the poem, but criticism that takes account of archetypes is not mere “spotting” of such an image.  The critical question concerns the context: what does such an image mean by being where it is? The convention of pastoral elegy continues past Milton to Shelley [Adonais], Arnold [The Scholar Gypsy], and Whitman’s When Lilacs Last in Dooryard Bloom’d.  Here again are many of the conventional pastoral images, including the purple lilacs: this fact is all the more interesting in that Whitman regarded himself as an antiarchetypal poet, interested in new themes as more appropriate to a new world.  In any case the gathering or clustering of pastoral archetypes in his poem indicates to the critic the context within literature that the poem belongs to.

        The archetype, as a critical term, has no Platonic associations with a form or idea that embodies itself imperfectly in actual poems: it owes its importance to the fact that in literature everything is new and unique from one point of view, and to the reappearance of what has always been there, from another.  The former aspect compels the reader to focus on the distinctive context of each particular poem; the latter indicates that it is recognizable as literature.  In other genres there are other types of archetypes: a certain type of character, for example, may run through all drama, like the braggart soldier, who with variations has been a comic figure since Aristophanes’ Acharnians, the first extant comedy.  The appearance of a braggart soldier in a comedy by Shakespeare or Molière or O’Casey is quite different each time, but the archetypal basis of the character is as essential as a skeleton is to the performing actor.  Thus the archetype is a manifestation of the extraordinary allusiveness of literature: the fact, for example, that all wars in literature gain poetic resonance by being associated with the Trojan War.

       In JUNGIAN CRITICISM the term archetype is used mainly to describe certain characters and images that appear in the dreams of patients but have their counterparts in literature, in the symbolism of alchemy, in various religious myths.  The difference between psychological and literary treatments of archetypes is that in psychology their central context is a private dream.  Hence they tell us nothing except that they appear, once we leave the psychological field of dream interpretation.  The dream is not primarily a structure of communication: its meaning is normally unknown to the dreamer.  The literary archetype, on the other hand, is first of all a unit of communication: primitive literature, for example, is highly conventionalized, featuring formulaic units and other indications of an effort to communicate with the least possible obstruction.  In more complex literature the archetype tells the critic primarily that this kind of thing has often been done before, if never quite in this way.

Romantic Literature

       

Topic: “Science v/s Nature in Frankenstein”

Name: Patel kavita

Roll No. – 11

Semester: II

Batch: 2011- 12

         SCIENCE VS NATURE IN FRANKENSTEIN

               Now a day’s people have reached in the depth of ocean. Discovered and invented gadgets have not been remained utilized and they are running behind new. Now, science is becoming a basic essential not only that but an intoxication. Sometime why people don’t find good result in the age of science and technology? Frankenstein deals with this topic.

        The question arise in our mind that why Victor Frankenstein motivated to plunge in bringing new life from life from inanimate body parts? Frankenstein‘s life was destroyed because of an obsession with the power that he possessed by an education of science to create new life where none had been before. Victor’s evolving mind reminds us Charles Darwin’s famous lines:

                                Man is not the first and final creation of God.

                         It is just an accident from an ameba to an ape

                         And ape to man and their might be super men

                         To come.

        But becoming supermen, human being has to suffer a lot and it is because nature does not remain in people’s side to support but vice versa. It is against of the law of Nature that Victor has created a huge, grotesque and man like a Monster. The main result of Victor’s creation is his desire to keep science In hand and he wants to get triumph over nature, that’s why he says,

                     “My eyes were insensible to charm of nature”

          One 0f the reason behind create of Monster is that his creation could be seen as a manifestation of all those who are wronged in the selfish name of science. In Frankenstein we find a clash between science and nature. We can give a name Victor as a science and Monster as a nature.

             Victor’s irresistible and unfulfilled desire of demystifying the deepest mysteries of human being that cautiously indicate the circumstances and                                                    Reverberation of the future disaster that he will face. Nature can be rendered as both human nature as well as an omnipotent or natural cycle of every leaving being. In these two phenomena, science does not prepare its place because it contains artificiality that a monster, a nameless creature on the earth, does not have. He behaves as naturally as other normal being. He helps people, because a victim of great hatred, disgusting, insulted, kicked, humiliated, got nothing in return to rescuing a girl when she was drowning and ultimately all circumstances turn him a real monster from real human being.

          Not only this novel deal with science v/s nature but is all about knowing ones own self. So the novel, apart from science and nature, can be thought as a novel of quest for identity of nature itself. So the novel has to binary oppositions like man and monster and their self-exploration. Victor explores his self by getting knowledge of Science while monster (nature) evolves his self by reading literature and it is because his master created him. So quest for identity is interdependent remaining torn apart. The understanding monster toward life and death, human relationship and its complexity indicate that nature studies human beings to treat them rudely and cruelly.

Now both Victor and monster get support of different ingredients for their own self-understanding and quest. Generally monster is supposed to behave with cruelly and with lack of pity. But we observe the monstrosity in victor and humanity in monster.

Here, Marry Shelley has reflected the image of Science v/s Nature as an equipment of learning lesson from humanity of the monster and dangers from the monstrosity of Victor. It shows nature still gives one chance for realization that shows its sympathy toward human beings. Monster cautiously and consciously even constantly reminds his master that in coming days, someone is going to be killed. But Victor’s eyes don’t open. So the nature that is hurt by science and its misuses, still ready to forgive human being if they give up.

The desire by which Victor was consumed to discover the secret of life is monster, a nameless grotesque creature like mankind that gives meaning to name of humanity as a whole. He also knows how to distort the meaning by killing people. He proposes and disposes, too. Monster proposes to his so-called master to create monster as his life partner but Victor it disposes many a time.

Victor says will-be-coming female monster ‘as a race of devil’ is crystal cover reality of mankind. Is monster a devil? To be considered a nature as devil is somewhat, a devil mind of human being. Now Victor and the monster never come to term. Keeping Charles Darwin’s idea of evolution, one may lead to believe that throughout the novel, the monster remains a monster whereas Frankenstein travels from man to monster. Monster evolves by observing people and reading books of literature. Somewhere the idea of appearance v/s reality pertains directly to science v/s nature.

The very crucial and valuable point of the essay lies in below stated line that is more symbolic and relevant to nature’s rage upon mankind.

“The rain was pouring in torrent.”

This line has a deep innuendo that human beings have to pass from reality that is ultimate death. The monster also goes away after atoning on his creator’s body. No one can escape from nature’s clutches. The nature requires just a bit of moment to vex human being and this happens in the novel Frankenstein. To sum up the discussion, one reaches to a place where Nature always conquers everyone who goes beyond it. In the novel nature is macrocosm of the monster and the monster is a microcosm of nature in real sense of the term. By conflict between science and nature, Marry Shelley wants to say that science is not still everything. It is limited and should be limited otherwise people have to face its repercussions.