My Presentation.

01.
To evaluate my Presentation Click here.
Paper.1 The Renaissance Literature.
Title: Feminist approach and Gender Study in "Hamlet".

Feminist Approach and Gender Study with Counter Argument, "Frailty! thy name is Women" and "Cruelty! thy name is Men". from JaytiThakar94
To evaluate my Presentation Click here.




02.
To evaluate my Presentation Click here.
Paper.2 The Neo - Classical Literature.
Title: Major Male Characters from "Tom Jones".

Major Male Characters from "Tom Jones". from JaytiThakar94
To evaluate my Presentation Click here.


03.
To evaluate my Presentation Click here
Paper.3 Literary Criticism.
Title: Literary Terms: 1. Tragic Hero, 2. Hamartia.

Literary Terms: 1 Tragic Hero, 2 Hamartia. from JaytiThakar94
To evaluate my Presentation Click here

04.
To evaluate my Presentation Click here
Paper.4 Indian Literature in English.
Title: Feminism in India in reference to Character of "Nuleeni" From "Fakeer of Jungheera".

Discuss the Feminism in India in reference to Character of "Nuleeni". from JaytiThakar94
To evaluate my Presentation Click here

Paper.No 4 Indian Literature in English.

To evaluate My Assignment. 

Name: - Jayti Rudresh-Kumar Thakar.

Stream: - M.A.

Main Subject: - English

Part: - 1. Sem: - 1.

Roll. No: - 38

Paper. No: - 4. Indian Literature in English.

Assignment Topic: - Discuss the character of ‘Eklavya’ (in reference to other characters)from ‘The Purpose’.

Mentor: - Heena Ma’am Zala.

Department Of English

Batch= 2015 – 2017.

Introduction:-

The play “The Purpose” is written by very famous and well-known playwright T.P.Kailasam. His full name is Thyagaraja Paramasiva Kailasam. He was a playwright and prominent writer of Kannada Literature comedy earned him the title “the father of humorous plays” and later he was also called as “One and only Kailasam for Kannada”.

About Author: -

T.P.Kailasam is remembered as the father of Modern Kannada drama, the man of genius whose plays revolutionized the Kannada stage. Kailasam focused on contemporary social problems, a deeply compassionate vision of the human struggle, an almost Shakespearian power to evoke sympathetic laughter and an amazing grasp of the living language of men, combined with the gift of using it artistically for dramatic purpose.

“This Kannada Playwright; who wrote

 Complete plays in English did not

 Write a single play purely in

About Play “The Purpose”: -

‘The Purpose’ is a Myth; Which is taken from “Mahabharata”.  It contains a story of ‘Archery’ which took place in forest. Arjuna was a small boy who goes to Guru Drona’s Ashram for learning archery with Pandvas and cousin brothers Kauravas. Guru Dronacharya was best teacher of archery. Bhishma knows that so he sent his grand children to learn archery from him. Arjuna was the favorite student of Guru Drona. In ‘Mahabharata’ Arjuna shown fast learner, whereas in ‘Purpose’ by T.P.Kailasam Arjuna represented slow learner than the Eklavya. In ‘Purpose’ Eklavya is the protagonist.

‘Purpose’ – the title suggests its meaning that the aim of to teach archery to only royal children for Guru Drona, Purpose of learning Archery for Arjuna and for Eklavya.

For Arjuna to learn Archery was to become great Archer in his era; whereas to Eklavya; his purpose after learning the Archery was symbol of selflessness. He wanted to learn Archery because he wanted to become saviour for innocent Animals. Here, in ‘Purpose’, Kailasam represents that the Arjuna‘s aim was wholly personal and to Eklavya it was totally impersonal.

The difference in the same incidence between Mahabharata and Purpose: -

Usually when we sees in Mahabharata we finds that character of Arjuna is highlighted. Moreover, readers find that there happens unjust with Eklavya. After Guru Drona’s propound for ‘Thumb’ to Eklavya as Guru Dakshina story moves to Arjuna’s training of Archery and did not capture the pain of an Archer; who can no more be a Archer with lost Thumb(to an Archer his most precious weapon is his Thumb).

Whereas in “The Purpose” Kailasam focus on the Eklavya and his after condition. He represents Eklavya as the protagonist of the play and depicts him as a “Tragic Hero”. Here, the readers somehow satisfied with Kailasam’s idea to focus on Eklavya.

After sacrifices thumb Eklavya regret that it was not his authority to snatch a major weapon from innocents’ saviour. He was the only who could save those animals with his archery skill, but now he won’t be able to do so.          

Character overview of Drona: -

As we discussed before that Drona was a great Archer. He had first promised to Bhishma that he would never teach Archery to any other child excepting Pandvas and Kauravas (Royal Children). And the second promise he done to Bhishma and Arjuna both that he would make Arjuna the great Archer of the era. So, after knowing that the Eklavya is more allegeable and desirable guy to be a great archer than the Arjuna. Although, shake of his two promises he resisted Eklavya to become his Guru (teacher). 

Character of Arjuna: -

Arjuna is the third child among five Pandvas. He was the favorite child to Bhishma, Guru Drona and Lord Shree Krishna too. In “The Purpose” we find Arjuna selfish at some extent (we does not find the same in “Mahabharata”. The character of Arjuna was highly glorified among all others in Mahabharata.). He also feels jealous with Eklavya after acknowledge that he can be more powerful and greater archer than he can. He also threatened Guru Drona that if he will break his promise then he will tell this to Bhishma, so better to send Eklavya away. Here, we find the very ideal character of Mahabharata juxtaposes and depicted as cheaper character in “Purpose”. My verdict leads me there we can say Kailasam’s sympathy to Eklavya pushes him to represent Arjuna cheaper than him or may be the Ved Vyas had biases towards Pandvas and depicted Eklavya at inferior state.

 

Character – Sketch of Eklavya: -

Eklavya is the protagonist of the play “The Purpose”. He is Nishada boy. He also wants to become the best Archer of the world. He always speaks whatever he thinks to be true. He has great esteem. He really likes the technique of Guru Dronacharya but he also recognized Arjuna as his companion. In Mahabharata he is not powerful character, but in this play he is powerful character drawn by T.P.Kailasam.

   Once he was talk with his mother about archery that he was talk with his mother about archery that he wants to become best archer in the world, that time his mother told him that Guru Dronacharya was the best teacher for Archery if he accept you as a student so you became best archer. That time he decided that he learn archery from Guru Dronacharya and try to convince him to taught him archery, but guru Dronacharya deny him because he is a teacher of Pandvas and Kauravas. He tells him that “I am a teacher of Princes so I can’t teach you.”

When Eklavya enters into the Ashram, he expresses his feelings with these words:

“(Looking all around him) this does look like the place Mother spoke of: “A wide vast grassy play ground with bejeweled and beautifully dressed handsome young princes at bow sword and mace exercises… being taught their lessons by a tall and noble looking Brahamana” is how SHE described it! And it all fits in every bit!”

He was so interested in the archery that he thought that he must not miss a word of Drona. This shows his loves for him. He loves archery and Guru Dronacharya and he has respect for him and he has respect for him and this thing we can see in this dialogue that is spoken by Eklavya in this play.

During this entire situation Eklavya was not noticed by any one; he just shares his feelings with his own self. He tries to prepare himself because now he was going to present himself to Guru Drona.

He already knows that because of his cast, may be Drona will not teach him but he thinks that because of his aim to become a great Archer he would have to dare for this.

He has very good capturing ability seems here when he listened Guru Drona preaches to Arjuna before giving him training that to become a great Archer is in one’s hand only. One should be strong and stabile at his aim and can get the thing.  Here, Eklavya knows very well that his aim is very noble. At sometimes he also becomes negative like his aim cannot be noble than Arjuna; he is very hard-working. Although he goes to Guru Drona,

            “I have tried hard ever do hard,

 Sir, to learn by myself….. But it

 Does seem not possible, Sir, to

        Learn all by one’s own self!”

With the help of above lines we can say that he is really tries hard to convince Drona to teach him. He is just child like manner of explaining something to elders.

When he deny to teach,  Eklavya leaves and decided to create a statue of  Guru Drona and he would learn the Archery with the inspiration of that statue; he becomes successful and being a scholar in Archery. When Guru Drona saw that Eklavya could shut up the mouth of a barking wild dog with his bow very skillfully; on correct places he pointed out and nits the mouth of that dog and save Pandvas. It shows his skill in Archery. Everyone were socked, ‘who did this’? Guru Drona asked! Eklavya came and exclaimed positively that he did this. Guru Drona asked him who taught him this he replied, “From you Gurujee!” Drona asked with praise “How?” he never taught him. Then Eklavya led them to the statue of Guru Drona which he made and worshiped. Arjuna has doubt and upset with this. Guru Drona seems self centered here when he thinks for promise and reputation for shake of these; he 

Propounds for his ‘Right Hand Thumb’ as a Guru-Dakshina. So, that Eklavya can never do Archery. To save his promise and reputation he did not realize that he has no wright to propose for this. Because to beg for Guru-Dakshina is only for who actually taught to his student and at last that student offers the Guru-Dakshina to his Guru. Here, Eklavya took Drona as a teacher but seemingly Drona was not there to teach him he rejected him. so, he had no wright to ask for Guru-Dakshina.

 

Comparison between Eklavya and Arjuna: -

The similarity between both the characters is that both want to become the world’s best archer. Though, the aim is same, the purpose is different. Arjuna has the personal purpose and Eklavya has purpose to save innocent animals. The name or the title of the play “The Purpose”; which given by playwright appropriately, with the center of the story.

Contrast between Arjuna and Eklavya: -

Now let’s talk about contrast or difference between these two characters Eklavya and Arjuna; that these both characters have their own aspects and different point of views about the purpose of learning archery.

In their childhood, Eklavya tells Arjuna face to face that Arjuna can not improve it will continue his archery like he is doing at that time. It shows that Eklavya is self learner and fast learner whereas, Arjuna comparatively slow learner. Eklavya never loses his temper in small matters whereas Arjuna has hasty nature. 

 After Eklavya lost his thumb he feels very depressed and expresses his feelings with these words:

“Will you all please leave me to

  My own self?”“You know it will never be       

  Farewell between us, Gurujee.”” Gods! My  

  Fawns in distress! And I too helpless myself

  To help them”.

 

Comparison of Eklavya and Karna: -

I took this character of Karna because he has so many similarities with Eklavya’s character. Let’s see,

      Karna had a same question as Eklavya had (Karna was a character from Mahabharata). Basically, Karna was Kunti-Putra (sun of Kunti by Lord Sun) so he was Kshatriya, but he was brought up by a sut-couple and so that he known as Sut-Putra. He also wanted to learn from ‘Shree Parshuram’. But, because of his cast Parshuram could not teach him. Here, Karna speaks lie to Parshuram and get Knowledge. When Parshuram comes to know that he is not Kshatriya he got angry and curses him that “on suitable time (needy time), you would forgot your all learning skills.”

Here, the similarity between Eklavya and Arjuna is only that they both deserving and could not get just because of casticism.

Eklavya speaks truth and loses his thumb (most needy weapon for Archery) whereas Karna speaks lie and also loses his skills at last.        

Conclusion: -

               So, we can say that here in this play Kailasam      tried to give justice to Eklavya’s character which is not there is in original myth. Here he tries to destroy or break the real myth of Mahabharata. This is the typical style of T.P.Kailasam that he breaks the old rules in his all works either it is a play or any other work.

    For his art of writing he has said that,

“The greatness of art is in Proportion to the greatness, of the characters of the characters that the Artist creates”.

To evaluate My Assignment.

Paper No.3 Literary Criticism.

To evaluate my assignment click here.

Name: - Jayti Rudresh-Kumar Thakar.

Stream: - M.A.

Main Subject: - English

Part: - 1. Sem: - 1.

Roll. No: - 38

Paper. No: - 3.Literary Criticism

Assignment Topic: - Discuss the Plato’s Objection to Poetry and Aristotle’s Defense to Poetry.

Mentor: - Dilip.P.Barad.

Department Of English

Batch= 2015 – 2017.

                       Introduction: -

       Here, we will discuss the objection of Plato to Poetry and defense of Aristotle to poetry. The debate is quite logical and criticism. Let’s glance upon it. 

                       Plato’s Objection to Poetry: -

Plato’s theory of Mimesis (imitation): The arts deal with illusion or they are imitation of an imitation. Twice removed from reality.

As a moralist Plato disapproves of Poetry because it is immoral, as a philosopher he disapproves of it because it is based on falsehood.

Philosophy is better than poetry because philosopher deals with idea/ truth, whereas poet deals with what appears to him / illusion.

He believed that truth of philosophy was more important than the pleasure of poetry.

Plato was the most distinguished disciple of Socrates. The 4^th BC to which he belonged was as age of inquiry and such Plato’s chief interest was Philosophical investigation which from the subject of his great works in form of Dialogue. He was not a professed critic of literature and his critical observations are not found in any single book.

He was the First Systemic Critic who inquired into the nature of imaginative literature and put forward theories which are both illuminating and provocative. He was himself a great poet and his dialogues are full of his gifted dramatic quality. His Dialogues are the classic works of the world literature having dramatic, lyrical and fictional elements.

According to Plato all arts are imitative or mimetic in nature. He wrote in The Republic that ‘ideas are the ultimate reality’. Things are conceived as ideas before they take practical shapes. So, idea is original and the thing is copy of that idea. Carpenter’s chair is the result of the idea of chair in his mind. Thus chair is once removed from reality. But painter’s chair is imitation of carpenter’s chair. So it is twice removed from reality. Thus artist/ poet take man away from reality rather than towards it. Thus artist deals in illusion.

Plato’s three main objections to poetry are that poetry is not ethical, philosophical and pragmatic, in other words, he objected to poetry from the point of view of Education, from Philosophical point of view and from moral point of view.

According to Plato, poetry is not ethical because it promotes undesirable passions, it is not philosophical and not provides true knowledge, and it is not pragmatic because it is inferior to the practical arts and therefore has no educational value. Plato then makes a challenge to poets to defend themselves against his criticism. Ironically it was Plato’s most famous student, Aristotle, who was the first theorist to defend literature and poetry in his writing Poetics.

Plato felt that poetry, like all forms of art, appeals to the inferior part of the soul, the irrational, emotional cowardly part. The reader of poetry is seduced into feeling undesirable emotions. To Plato, an appreciation of poetry is incompatible with an appreciation of reason, justice and the search for Truth. He suggests that poetry causes needless lamentation and ecstasies at the imaginary events of sorrow and happiness.

To him Drama is the most dangerous form of literature because the author is imitating things that he / she does not understand. Plato seemingly feels that no words are strong enough to condemn drama.   

Plato is, above all, a moralist. Plato’s question in Book 10 is the intellectual status of literature. He states that, the good poet cannot compose well unless he knows his subject, and he who does not have this knowledge can never be a poet. His point is that in order to copy or imitate correctly, one must have knowledge of the original. Plato says that imitation is twice removed from the truth. Stories that are untrue have, no value, as no untrue story should be told in the city. He states that nothing can be learned from imitative poetry.

Plato’s commentary on poetry in Republic is overwhelming negative. Plato’s main concern about poetry is that children’s minds are too impressionable to be reading false tales and misrepresentation of the truth. He is essentially saying that children cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality and this compromises their ability to discern right from wrong. Plato reasons that literature that portrays the gods as behaving in immoral ways should be kept away from children, so that they will not be influence to act the same way.

Another objection is that it is often viewed as portraying either male dominance or female exploitation. Plato does not views may be deemed narrow-minded by today’s society, but one must remember that Plato lived over 2000 years ago. He probably wrote Republic with the best intentions for the people of his time. While his views on censorship and poetry may even seem outlandish today, Plato’s goal was to state what he judged to be the guidelines for a better human existence.

1.   Plato’s objection to Poetry from the point of view of Education:

§  In the ‘The Republic’ Book 2- He condemns poetry as fostering evil habits and vices in children. Homer’s epics were part of studies. Heroes of epics were not examples of sound or ideal morality. They were lusty, cunning and cruel- war mongers. Even Gods were no better. Thus he objected on the ground that poetry does not cultivate good habits among children.

2. Objection from Philosophical point of view:

§  According to Plato, Philosophy is far better than the Poetry because Philosophy deals with ‘Idea’ and Poetry is twice removed from ‘Original Idea’.

§  Plato says: “The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence; he knows appearance only …. The imitative art is an inferior who marries an inferior and has inferior offspring.”

3. Objection from the Moral point of view:

§  Plato verdicts that, “Poetry waters and nourishes the baser impulses of men- emotional, sentimental and sorrowful.

§  “Soul of man has higher principles of reason (which is the essence of its being) as well as lower constituted of baser impulses and emotions. Whatever encourages and strengthens and the rational principle is good, and emotional is bad.” – In his same Book- ‘Republic’.

These are Plato’s principles charges on poetry and objection to it. Before we pass on any judgment, we should not forget to keep in view the time in which he lived. During his time:

1. Political instability.

2. Education was in sorry state. Homer was part of studies- misrepresented.

3. Women were regarded inferior- slavery.

4. Best time of Greek literature was over- corruption and degeneration in literature.

5. Confusion prevailed in all sphere of life- intellect, moral, political and education.

Ø Example: philosophers and thinkers like Socrates were imprisoned, forces to drink wine and kill him.

Ø Now, let’s move to Aristotle; who defense Poetry in very generous way.

Plato confused the study of ‘aesthetic’ with the study of ‘morals’. Aristotle removed that confusion and created the study of aesthetics.

Plato was a great poet, a mystic and philosopher. Aristotle- the most distinguished disciple of Plato was a critic, scholar, logician and practical philosopher. The master was an inspired genius every way greater than the disciple except in logic, analysis and common sense.

He is known for his critical treatise: 1). The poetics and 2). The Rhetoric, dealing with art of poetry and art of speaking.

For centuries during Roman age in Europe and after renaissance, Aristotle was honored as a law-giver and legislator. Even today his critical theories remain largely relevant, and for this he certainly deserves our admiration and esteem.

But he was never a law-giver in literature. The poetics is not merely commentary or judgment on the poetic art. Its conclusion is firmly rooted in the Greek literature and is actually illustrated form it. He was a codifier; he derived and discussed the principles of literature as manifest in the plays and poetry existing in his own day.

His main concern appears to be tragedy, which in his day was considered to be the most developed form of poetry.

In his observations on the nature and function of poetry, he has replied the charges of Plato against poetry, wherein he partly agrees and partly disagrees with his teacher.

                       The nature of poetry: poetic inspiration: Theory of inspiration:

·      Aristotle agrees with Plato in calling the poet an imitator and creative art, imitation. He imitates one of the three objects – things as they were/are, things as they are said/thought to be or things as they ought to be. In other words, his imitation what is past or present, what is commonly believed and what is ideal. Aristotle believes that there is natural pleasure in imitation which is in-born instinct in men. It is this pleasure in imitation that enables the child to learn his earliest lessons in speech and conduct from those around him, because there is a pleasure in doing so. In grown up child – a poet, there is another instinct, helping him to make him a poet – the instinct for harmony and rhythm.

·      He does not agrees with his teacher in – ‘poet’s imitation is twice removed from reality and hence unreal/illusion of truth. To prove his point he compares poetry with history. The poet and the historian differ not by their medium, but the true difference is that the historian relates ‘what has happened?, the poet, what may/ought to have happened? – the ideal. Poetry, therefore, is more philosophical and a higher thing than the history, which expresses the particular, while poetry tends to express the universal. Therefore, the picture of poetry please all times.

·      Aristotle does not agree with Plato in function of poetry to make people weaker and emotional/too sentimental. For him, catharsis is ennobling and humble human being.

·      So far as moral nature of poetry is concerned, Aristotle believed that the end of poetry is to please; however, teaching may be given. Such pleasing is superior to the other pleasure because it teaches civic morality. So all good literature gives pleasure which is not divorced from moral lessons.

                       Conclusion: -

Plato judges poetry now from the educational standpoint, from the philosophical standpoint and the ethical one. But, he does not care to consider it from its own standpoint. He does not define its aims. He forgets that everything should be judges in terms of its own aims and objective its own critic of merit and demerit. We cannot fairly maintain that music is bad because it does not paint, or that painting is bad because it does not sing. Similarly, we cannot say that poetry is bad because it does not teach philosophy of ethics. If poetry, philosophy and ethics had identical function, how could they be different subjects? To denounce poetry because it is not philosophy or ideal is clearly absurd.

To evaluate my assignment click here.  

  

Paper No.2 The Neo-Classical Literature.

To evaluate my assignment click here.

Name: - Jayti Rudresh-Kumar Thakar.

Stream: - M.A.

Main Subject: - English

Part: - 1. Sem: - 1.

Roll. No: - 38

Paper. No: - 2. The Neo-classical Literature.

Assignment Topic: - Discuss the Psychological Growth in Gulliver’s Travels.

Mentor: - Heena Ma’am Zala.

Department Of English

Batch= 2015 – 2017.

Introduction: -

Jonathan Swift(1667-1745), an Anglo-Irish writer, was to have been writing Gulliver’s Travels from 1720 but completed and published it only in 1726.

Although, it is a travel fiction, very popular in those days, Swift uses it to laugh at the stupid ways of people in politics at that time.

It is at once a delightful, fantastic story of adventure for children, a political allegory, and a serious controversies and on the morals of the age. The book is written in the form of a travelogue.

Hence, Gulliver’s Travels is considered to be the most famous example of Jonathan Swift’s satirical works. 

The hero and narrator of the story is Lemuel Gulliver, an English Physician who opts to travel as a ship’s surgeon.

Introduction of Novel: -

žThe book is made up of four parts, each dealing with Gulliver’s experience in a different fantasy land. Those are as below.

            1. Lilliput.

            2. Brobdingnag.

            3. Laputa.

            4. Houyhnhnm.

       Gulliver the Man: -

As one might expect, Lemuel Gulliver is the star and central character of Gulliver's Travels. In fact, he narrates the novel himself, and he is the only genuinely developed character in the whole book. Other figures in Gulliver's Travels absolutely fade into the background.

He is the Master surgeon in Ship. He belongs to a middle class family. Once he was traveled by  ship as he is a ship surgeon. A terrible storm arose and for many days the ship was driven through seas which were unknown to them all. At last he was the only one who left behind alive. He only was able to swim to a Land. It was a strange and lonely place in which he found himself. From here his journey begins and he traveled various voyages.  

 Overview of voyages: -

1. Lilliput.

žA voyage to Lilliput, deals with Gulliver’s experience in the land of the little people, who are no more than six inches tall.

žIt is on one level an absorbing tale of the adventures of the giant Gulliver among the Lilliputians and on another level rich in allegorical references to the politics in England.

žIt is above all a scathing satire on the moral pettiness of humans as seen in the behavior of the Lilliputians.

žHuman beings are filled with the sense of their own grandeur and importance, and cannot view themselves with objectivity.

žTheir pride and boastfulness are revealed as ridiculous when perceived from Gulliver’s Travels.

2. Brobdingnag.

žThe situation is reversed in second voyage.

žGulliver is now marooned and dwarfed in the land of giants who are over forty feet tall.

žHere, Swift satirizes the physical grossness of the human and the ugliness of the human body.

žThe malignancy of human as a political animal portrayed in the person of Gulliver.

žHe is little more than an insect in Brobdingnag and at his best, an amusing toy.

žGulliver ends up in a miniature box which is picked up by a giant eagle and dropped into the ocean. This signals his departure from Brobdingnag and the beginning of his voyage to Laputa.

3. Laputa.

žThis voyage floating in air.

žBalnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan are other four voyages nearer to Laputa.

žLaputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib (island of magicians) and Japan, is a satire on the scientist and philosopher of the age.

žHere, we find hierarchy structure in Laputa, because the floating island represents the distance between the government and the people.

žThe king‘s concern for people at below shown but he never tries to go there to meet them.

žHere, Gulliver neglected by king often when he suggests him to stay in contacts with his people.

žThrough the people of Laputa, Swift ridicules the experiment of the Royal Society and allied institutions of the time.

žAfter a brief journey to Japan, Gulliver returns to England before setting out on his final voyage to the land of the Houyhnhnms.

4. Houyhnhnms.

žNarrates the experience of Gulliver in the land of the Houyhnhnms or horses, and the Yahoos.

žThese horses are creature governed solely by reason, free from any emotion or passion, while the Yahoos who physically resemble human beings are ruled by ‘animal’ instincts.(humans governed by horses)

žThe human is placed between the two extremes of rationality and animality.

žGulliver is repulsed at being identified with the Yahoos in the land of Houyhnhnms.

žIn his conversation with the master-horse (whose language Gulliver has learnt) he explains the customs practiced in England, including the wearing of clothes by Humans (who resemble as Yahoos), the government of the people, the legal system, and the uses of money as instruments of purchase.

žThe Master-horse doesn’t believe when Gulliver says him that in England horses are trained by a man to ride over it.

žMany of the concepts cannot be translated into the Houyhnhnm’s Language as their vocabulary and range of experience were limited.

žThe horses with their total lack of feeling and emotion are seen as being far from ideal.

žAt some extent Gulliver whimsies to be a one of the Houyhnhnms and he grows content living with his Houyhnhnm-master and  hopes to be as like them as possible, but he has to leave the island after all he is a Yahoo to the Houyhnhnms.

Psychological Growth in this Novel: -

When we come to this point, in novel Gulliver visits four different islands and its different people and atmosphere. In movie we finds that Gulliver returns to home after nine years; he could even not recognize his wife and son. His mentally condition seems ill. Even he sent to mental asylum for psychological treatment. First his wife could not trust his behavior. Because, past nine years Gulliver spent at four different fantasy lands. He still could not accept his arrival to England. And still in illusion to that voyages. He behaved weird.

But, in novel we find that Gulliver return to home (England) after each voyage for two months and spend time with his family. In novel we don’t find Psychological illness which represented in Movie version.

Ø In first voyage (Lilliput) we find that Swift satires on people and politics or politicians that how human beings live? , what point of view they carry to move? Here, Gulliver is a giant and Lilliputians are like toy size – 6 inches only.

1.     Moral Pettiness: -

People do always wrong on name of Religion, Ideals and Morals or Morality. They mere hurt each other, do nothing else.

2.     Grandeur and Self –Importance: -

‘Man’ always stays busy to highlight himself to others instead of doing worth full deed. He always concentrates on his own reputation, importance, appearance, status etc.

Basically, he being self – centered.

3.     Pride, Vanity and Boastfulness: -

Human beings usually found with these three qualities: Pride, Vanity & Boastfulness. They boast for their life – style, status; generally these happen in royal class people. But they forgot that ‘No one is higher authority than the Nature’. They always seem with fake pride and vanity. These base nothing.

Ø In Second voyage (Brobdingnag) Swift satires on physical grossness and ugliness of Human Kind. Here, Gulliver is an amusing toy in Giants’ World.  Swift also satires on malignancy as political animal. It develops the sense which represents the ‘mud of politics’ and ‘worse power of chair’; which leads to disaster.

Ø If we compare these first two voyages we will find ‘rule of reverse situation’. It means in Lilliput Gulliver is giant and in power position whereas in second voyage- Brobdingnag we find him among giants and he treated as toy for amusement by farmer, his wife, queen etc. Here, he felt bad upon himself. He realizes the place of Lilliputians. It suggest that,

“One always stays below to another,

And he could ever find the higher authority to him; basically there is no

Highest authority.”

Ø Move to the third voyage (Laputa) Move to the third voyage (Laputa – Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan (other four nearer voyages to Laputa)). With these voyages Swift satires on Magicians, Scientists and on social hierarchy (into a political context). He also satires on the Philosophers of the age.

žHere, Gulliver finds social structural hierarchy in Laputa; when he was on the floating island (Laputa) with King, he finds that king is concerned with his people who live below but he never tries to go there and meet them personally to know their problems.

žIt suggests the best thought for anarch. While a King on his “Chair” he must concentrates to his people and their need. There is always gape remain between a King and his people, but to remove that gape always in king’s hand. Basically Swift tries to convey that,

“Authority always stands for bellow’s   wellbeing.”

Ø But, instead to think over it authority    always misused by “Authority”.

Ø Now let’s come to the final voyage (Houyhnhnms). Here, Swift satires on human nature and their fake whishes for money and all. Moreover we find here that the authority is horses (Houyhnhnms) not Yahoos (resemble as Mankind, but wild like animal).

žConversation between Gulliver and Houyhnhnm-Master, we find that they do not have knowledge of custom practices, legal system, social hierarchy, wearing cloths and all, money as the instrument of purchase, etc. Seemingly they are far from ideals and morals (seems practical). They have lack of emotions and feelings. They two have good conversation upon matrimonial matters. In Houyhnhnms there is no casticism and classicism which being an error to coupling. It is just a shake of creating new generation. Generally we do not find this sense in Human Kind. Even they are also greedy as human kind (but in other manners).

žAt one point (in movie version) Gulliver throw the precious stone which was with him. Because, he thought he would never return to his home-land. And in this world of Houyhnhnms it has no values at all.

Ø When, Gulliver returns to his Home-Land, he tries to put his experience front of all other. Very firstly he was rejected and mocked by those people as he was in illusion or not in his sane. Later, his tells was acceptable by all.

We find that Gulliver’s returning to home also brought the Knowledge for well human being. His Psychology developed, because he could find the problems in his people, government and as a human in his own.

That’s true that if one wants to capture whole picture; one need to get rid out the picture first and then only he can see that whole picture clearly.

When Gulliver spends his most time out of his world; he was able to find other different worlds. So, that he could find what should be reformed and what should be changed? This helped him to find himself somewhere better place. It proved betterment to him.

Conclusion: -

žSwift seems to indicate to us that the nature of human is complex and defies definition unlike that of the Yahoos and the Houyhnhnms.

žThe book for all its harsh satire and anger, instructs humans to see themselves with humility and honesty.

žThe imagery of size is used in Gulliver’s Travels to draw attention to misplaced human pride and the fact that power and self-importance depend entirely on circumstances and are not inherent in human nature.

To evaluate my assignment click here.