Paper no 7 Critique on 'Eliot as a Critic'.

   Name:  Jayti R. Thakar.

Paper No: 7. Literary Theory and Criticism

Topic of Assignment: Critique On 'Eliot as a Critic'.

Roll No: 34.

Submitted to: Smt. S. B. Gardi Department of English

M. K. Bhavnagar University

To evaluate my assignment Click Here.

Critique “T.S.Eliot as a critic”.

1) What is Criticism?

“Criticism is the practice of judging the merits and faults of evaluative or corrective exercise can occur in any area of human life.

Another meaning of criticism is the study, evaluation and film and social trends. The goal of ‘Literary Criticism’ is to understand the possible meaning of cultural phenomena and the context in which they take shape.

2) Criticism before Eliot and after Eliot.

3) “Eliot as a Critic”.

Besides being a poet, playwright and publisher, T.S.Eliot shows a disinterested endeavor of critical faculty and intelligence in analyzing a work of art.

Eliot was acknowledging as one of the greatest literary critics of England from the point of view of the bulk and quality of his critical writing.

In honor to Eliot, John Hayward states that,

“I cannot think of a critic who has been more widely read and discussed in his own life-time; and not only in English, but in almost every languages, except Russian”. (Encyclopedia)

For the sake of a systematic discussion, his critical works may be grouped under the following heading:

a)         Theoretical criticism dealing with the principles of literature,

b)         Descriptive and practical criticism dealing with the works of individual artists/writers and evaluation of their achievements and,

c)         Theological study.

4) About “Tradition and Individual Talent”.

‘Tradition and Individual Talent’ has been one of Eliot’s extraordinarily influential critical works. It was first published in 1922 in ‘sacred wood’, and was subsequently included in the ‘selected essay’ (1917-1932).

In this essay, Eliot has primarily dealt with his concepts of,

a)                Historical sense and Tradition.

b)                Interdependence of the past and the present.

c)                 Impersonality in art in general and poetry in particular.

5) What is “Tradition”?

According to the Cambridge

Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, ‘Tradition means a belief, principle or way of acting which people in a particular society or group have continued to follow for a long time, or all of their beliefs, etc. in a particular society or group.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary describes ‘Tradition’ an ‘inherited, established or customary pattern of thought, action as behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)’.

But, ‘tradition’ according to Eliot means ‘principles’ that are to be followed in order to hone your skills as a writer. But, those principles are not inherit age. They are to be studied upon and to be understood in harmony with all the tradition. Eliot says that, “the literary tradition is the outside authority to which an artist in the present must owe allegiance”.

6) What is ‘Individual talent’?

From the point of view of T.S.Eliot, ‘Individual Talent’ simply means with “Inner voice”. Middleton murry first used this word, “Classicism and Romanticism”. He used this word (inner voice) for romantic poets.

According to murry, romantics have full faith in their inner-voice.

7) Eliot’s views on “Tradition and Individual Talent”.

In his essay of “Tradition and Individual Talent”, he had pointed out that there is an intimate relation between the present and the past in the world of literature.

It involves, in the first place, the historical sense. The entire literature of Europe from Homer down to the present day forms a single literary tradition that individual works of art have their significance. This is so because the past is not dead, but lives on in the present (Original text, para-3).

“No poets, no artist of any art has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists.”

“You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead.”

Past works of literature form an ideal order is disturbed if ever so slightly, when really new work of art appears. Whoever has approved this idea of order, of the form of European of English literature will not find it preposterous that “the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past” (Original text, para-4). In a peculiar sense he will be aware also that he must inevitably be judged by the standards of the past (Original text, para-5).

“He must be aware that the mind of Europe- the mind of his own country- a mind which he learns in time to be much more important than his own private minds…” (Tradition and individual talent- text, para-6)

In second part Eliot gives theory of “Impersonality” he states,

“Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation is directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry” (Original text, part: 2, Para 11).

§  Theory of ‘Depersonalization’ :-

According to Eliot bad poet Is usually unconscious where he ought to be conscious and conscious where he ought to be unconscious. Both errors tend to make him ‘personal’. “Poetry is not a turning loose of emotions, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of a personality, but an escape from personality” (Original text, Part: 2, Para 17).

§  “Inner- voice” : An Ironic Treatment:-

From the view point of Eliot, for those who believe in the “Inner-Voice”, criticism is of no value at all, because the function of criticism is to discover some common principles for achieving perfection in art, and those who believe in the “Inner – Voice” do not want any principles, they do not care for perfection in art.

Thus, in this essay, he treats tradition not as legacy but as an invention of anyone who is ready to create his or her literary pantheon, depending on his literary tastes and positions. This means that the development of the writer will depend on his or her ability to build such private spaces for continual negotiation and even struggle with illustrious antecedents (previous), and strong influences.

Through this essay Eliot simply tries to convey that,

“One must refer ‘Tradition’, but       not to imitate.”

Harold Bloom terns the state of struggle as the “Anxiety of Influence.”

8) Overview of “The Anxiety of    Influence” (an alternative approach).

Bloom derides Eliot for suggesting a complex, an elusive relationship between the tradition and the individual, and goes on to develop his own theory of influence.

Through an insightful study of romantic poets, Bloom puts forth his central vision of the relations between tradition and individual artist.

Bloom simply means that,

“One is influenced by his former/predecessors one or the other way.”

According to Bloom, in his book’s argument,

“Poetic history is held to be in distinguishable from poetic influence. Since strong poets make that history by misreading one another, so as to clear imaginative space for themselves”.

From above quote Bloom says that poetic history is quite different from poetic influence as the strong poets who created the history or tradition perhaps from their misreading and disproof. So, in that case individual talent proves much better to create an artistic work.

9) Eliot’s faults:-

As a critic Eliot has his faults too.

10)            He changed the mindset of moderns

Though, he has faults in his criticism, he could change the mindset of modernists.

Of all the western modernists, T.S.Eliot (1888-1965) has been the most pervasively influential through both his poetry and his literary criticism. He was initially influenced by the American new Humanists such as Irving Babbitt and Paul Elmer, and his early ideas owed a great deal to their emphasis on tradition, classicism and particularly to Ezra Pound and the imagist movement (A history of literary criticism and theory, M.A.R.Habib, 629).

Generally, Eliot considered himself as a “Classicist in Literature”. Because, it was he who first applied the Aristotelian method of comparison and analysis to the elucidation of works of literature. Although, he known as “Modern Critic” that perhaps because he applied the method of science to the study of literature to be able to see it as it really is. This is what he has to offer to present day. (An introduction to literary criticism, B.Prasad, Page. No 238,239)

   My opinions:-

At the end with the limited knowledge I tried to justify the topic. I arouse at a conclusion that I agree with T.S.Eliot at some extent. But, with his theory of “Depersonalization” I don’t agree. It is somehow very difficult to detach yourself from the work. You cannot be detach or disillusion that literature you are writing or the literature you criticizing, unconsciously there is always a sense of “you” in what you think, write or for that matter criticized.

To evaluate my assignment Click Here.

Work Cited: -
Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Eliot, T.S. Tradition and Individual Talent. 1920.

Habib, M. A. R. “The Poetics of Modernism: Ezra Pound and T.S.Eliot. “M. A. R. Habib. A History of Literary Criticism and Theory. New Delhi: Blackwell Publishing, Wiley India Pvt. Ltd., 2005, 2008 by M. A. R. Habib. 629.
Prasad, Brijadish. An Introduction to English Criticism. Delhi: Rashtriya Printers, 1965.

Paper no 8 What is Cultural Studies? ; And its Limitations

Name:  Jayti R. Thakar.

Paper No: 8 Cultural Studies

Topic of Assignment: What is Cultural Studies? ; And its Limitations

Roll No: 34.

Submitted to: Smt. S. B. Gardi Department of English

M. K. Bhavnagar University


To evaluate my assignment Click Here.

•   What is Cultural Studies?

To define cultural studies we should have one glance upon that what is ‘Culture’?

According to Merriam Webster dictionary, Culture means, “the way of thinking, behaving, and living of people.”

 Another meaning of ‘Culture’ is ‘set of Standards’.

Moreover, the culture means, “the arts, and other manifestation of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.” In other sense we can also say that, “ideas, customs, and social behavior of a particular people of society also known as ‘Culture’”.

Now, the question is what ‘Cultural Studies’ is?

“Cultural Studies are innovative interdisciplinary field of research and teaching that investigates the way in which culture creates and transforms individual experiences everyday life, social relations and power”.

Now the prime concern is that where it (culture) can be studied? Or In which departments it has studied?

     

Also in other departments like,

·       Archeology

·       Botany

·       Agriculture

·       Philosophy

·       Geography

What Cultural Studies doing in English Department or in Literature Class?

A collage class on the American novel is reading Alice Walker’s ‘The Color Purple (1982).’ The professor identifies African American literary and cultural sources and describes the book’s multilayered narrative structure, moving on a brief review of its feminist critique of American gender and racial attitudes. Students and professor discuss these various approaches, analyzing key passages in the novel. Class members respond to these points, examining interrelationships among race, gender, popular culture, the media, and literature.

This class is practicing Cultural Studies. But, the word ‘Culture’ itself is so difficult to pin down; “Cultural Studies” is hard to define.

As Pratick Brantlinger has pointed out, culture studies is not “a tightly coherent, unified movement with a fixed agenda,” but a “loosely coherent group of tendencies, issues, and questions.”

Arising from the social turmoil of the 1960s, cultural studies is composed of elements of, Marxism, post- structuralism, and post- modernism, feminism, gender studies, anthropology, sociology, race and ethnic studies, film theory, urban studies, public policy, popular culture studies, and postcolonial studies. The discipline of psychology has also entered the field of cultural studies.

·       Cultural Studies approaches generally share four goals.

a)    First, cultural studies transcend the confines of a particular discipline such as literary criticism or history. Cultural studies are not necessarily about literature in the traditional sense or even about ‘art’. Intellectual works are not limited by

their own “borders” as single texts, historical problems, or disciplines, and the critic’s own personal connections to what is being analyzed may also be described. For students, this sometimes means that a professor might make his or her own political views part of the instruction, which, of course, can lead to problems. But, this kind of criticism, like feminism is an engaged rather than a detached activity.

   

2) Cultural studies is politically engaged.

Cultural critics see themselves as “oppositional”, not only within their own disciplines but to many of the power structures of society at large. They question inequalities within power structures and seek to discover models for restructuring relationship among dominant and “minority” or “subaltern” discourses. Because meaning and individual subjectivity are culturally constructed, they can thus be reconstructed. Such a notion, taken to philosophical extreme, denies the autonomy of the individual, weather an actual person or a character in literature, a rebuttal of the traditional humanistic “great man” or “great book” theory, and relocation of aesthetics and culture from the ideal realms of test and sensibility, into the arena of a whole society’s everyday life as it is constructed.   

3) Cultural studies deny the separation of “high” and “low” or “elite” and “popular culture”.

You might hear someone remark at the symphony or at end art museum: “I came here to get a little culture”. Being a “cultured” person used to mean being acquainted with “highbrow” art and intellectual pursuits. But isn’t culture also to be found with a pair of tickets to a rock concert? Cultural critics today work to transform the term culture to include mass culture, weather popular, folk, or urban. Following theorists Jean Baudrillard and Andreas Huyssen, cultural critics argues that after world war 2 the distinction among high, low and mass culture collapsed, and they site other theorists such as Pierre Bourdieu and Dick Hebdige on how “good test” often only reflects prevailing social, economic, and the political power basis. For example, the images of India that were circulated during the colonial rule of the British raj by writers like Rudyard Kipling seem innocent, but reveal an entrenched imperialist argument for white superiority and worldwide domination of other races, especially Asians. But, race alone was not the issue for British Raj: money was also deciding factors. Thus drawing also upon the ideas of French historian Michel de Certeau, cultural critic examine “the practice of everyday life”, studying literature as an anthropologist as a phenomenon of culture, including culture’s economy.

4) Finally, cultural studies analyze not only the cultural work, but also the means of production; Marxist critics have long recognized the importance of such peraliterary questions as these; who supports a given artist? Who publishes his or her books, and how are these books distributed? Who buys these books? For that matter, who is literate or who is not? A well- known literary production is Janice Radway’s study of the American romance novel and its readers. Cultural studies thus join subjectivity- that is, culture and relation to individual lives- with engagement, a direct approach to attacking social ills. Though cultural studies practitioners deny “humanism” or “humanities” as universal categories, they strive for what they might call “social reason”, which often resembles the goals and values of humanistic and democratic ideals.

  Limitations of Cultural Studies:-

Cultural studies though have few limitations like,

1.    It begins from somewhere and ends somewhere else. So its strength becomes weakness.

2.   It has another limitation is that the cultural critics doesn’t analyses the matter and doesn’t collects data as historians does. To put it bluntly, cultural studies is not always fueled by the kind of hard research (including scientifically collected data) that historians have traditionally practiced to analyze “Culture”.

3.   Cultural studies practitioners often know a lot of interesting things and possess the intellectual ability to play them off interestingly against each other, but they sometimes lack adequate knowledge of the “deep play” of meaning or “thick description” of a culture. And sometimes they (Cultural Critics) directly jump upon the conclusion.  

4.   Defenders of tradition and advocates cultural studies are waging what is sometimes call “cultural wars” or “academia”.

5.   The tone of cultural studies sometimes seems rather politically incorrect or anti- power.

  Conclusion:-

Thus, cultural studies work in different terms and it also having its limitations. 

To evaluate my assignment Click Here.

Paper no 6 Mathew Arnold’s “Culture and Anarchy”

Name:  Jayti R. Thakar.

Paper No: 6 Victorian Literatures

Assignment Topic: Mathew Arnold’s “Culture and Anarchy”

Roll No: 34.

Submitted to: Smt. S. B. Gardi Department of English

M.K. Bhavnagar University

To evaluate my assignment Click Here.

Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism    -Matthew Arnold.

INTRODUCTION

Matthew Arnold (1822–88) was one of 19th-century England’s most prominent poets and social commentators. He was for many years an inspector of schools, later becoming professor of poetry at Oxford University. Amongst his books, perhaps the best known is Culture and Anarchy (1869), in which he argues for the role of reading ‘the best that has been thought and said’ as an antidote to the anarchy of materialism, industrialism and individualistic self-interest.

Culture and Anarchy is a controversial philosophical work by Arnold. And it composed during a time of unprecedented social and political change, the essay argues for a restructuring of England's social ideology. It reflects Arnold's passionate conviction that the uneducated English masses could be molded into conscientious individuals who strive for human perfection through the harmonious cultivation of all of their skills and talents. A crucial condition of Arnold's thesis is that a state-administered system of education must replace the ecclesiastical program which emphasized rigid individual moral conduct at the expense of free thinking and devotion to community. Much more than a mere treatise on the state of education in England, Culture and Anarchy is, in the words of J. Dover Wilson, “at once a masterpiece of vivacious prose, a great poet's great defense of poetry, a profoundly religious book, and the finest apology for education in the English language.”

Arnold divides the society of England into three classes - The Aristocratic Class, the Middle Class and the Working Class. He finds Anarchy very common in these classes and analyses them with their virtues and defects. He designates the Aristocratic class of his time as the Barbarians, the Middle class as the Philistines and the Working class as the Populace.

As this image given below signifies these class discrimination very appropriately. 

We normally finds three classes in Ships which also indicates exact social hierarchy in world. As elite class people enjoys seating idly on deck of the ship, Middle class people enjoying dance and food at the medieval floor, whereas, working class people hardily works for whole day at the rest floor of the ship. Their constant attempt makes ship floating upon ocean.     

His scrutiny of three classes of his time proves him a good experienced critic. For Aristocratic class, he views that this class lacks adequate courage for resistance. He calls this class the Barbarians because they believe in their personal individualism, liberty and doing as one likes; they had great passion for field sports. Their manly exercise, their strength and their good looks are definitely found in the Aristocratic class of his time. Their politeness resembles the Chivalry Barbarians, and their external styles in manners, accomplishments and powers are inherited from the Barbarians.

The other class is the middle class or the Philistines, known by its mundane wisdom, expert of industry and found busy in industrialization and commerce. Their eternal inclination is to the progress and prosperity of the country by building cities, railroads and running the great wheels of industry. They have produced the greatest mercantile navy. So, they are the Empire builders. In this material progress, the working class is with them. All the keys of progress are in their hands.

The other class is the working class or the populace. This class is known raw and half-developed because of poverty and other related diseases. This class is mostly exploited by the Barbarians and Philistines. The author finds democratic arousing in this class because they are getting political consciousness and are coming out from their hiding places to assert an English man's heaven- born privilege of doing as he likes, meeting where he likes, bawling what he likes, and breaking what he likes.

Despite such class system, Arnold finds a common basis of human nature in all. So, the spirit of sweetness and light can be founded. Even Arnold calls himself philistine and rises above his level of birth and social status in his pursuit of perfection, sweetness and light and culture. He further says that all three classes find happiness in what they like. For example, the Barbarians like honor and consideration, field sports and pleasure. The Philistines like fanaticism, business and money making and comfort and tea meeting, but the Populace class, hated by the both classes, likes shouting, hustling and smashing and beer. They all keep different activities by their social status. However, there are a few souls in these classes who hope for culture with a desire to know about their best or to see things as they are. They have desire to pursue reason and to make the will of God to prevail.

The Best Self or the Right Reason & the Ordinary Self:

Here he discusses the best self or the right reason and the ordinary self that can be felt in the pursuit of perfection only. In this regard, he talks about the bathos (excessive pathos, insincere sentimental pathos), surrounded by nature itself in the soul of man, is presented in literary judgment of some critics of literature and in some religious organizations of America. He further says that the idea of high best self is very hard for the pursuit of perfection in literature, religion and even in politics. The political system, prevalent in his time, was of the Barbarians. The leaders and the statesmen sang the praises of the Barbarians for winning the favor of the Aristocrats. Tennyson celebrates in his poems the glory of the great broad-shouldered genial Englishmen with his sense of duty and reverence for the laws. Arnold asserts that Tennyson is singing the praise of the philistines because this middle class is the backbone of the country in progress. The politicians sing the praise of the populace for carrying their favors. Indeed, they play with their feelings, having showed the brightest powers of sympathy and the readiest power of actions. All these praises are mere clap-trap and trick to gain applause. It is the taste of bathos surrounded by nature itself in the soul of man and comes into ordinary self. The ordinary self enforces the readers to misguide the nation. It is more admirable, but its benefits are entertained by the representatives and ruling men.

Arnold wants to bring reform in education by shifting the management of public schools from their old board of trustees to the state. Like politics, in education the danger lies in unchecked and unguided individual action. All the actions must be checked by the real reason or the best self of the individual. It is the opinion of some people that the state may not interfere into affairs of education. The liberal party men believe in liberty, the individual liberty of doing as one likes and assert that interference of the state in education is a violation of personal liberty. Arnold says that such ideal personal liberty has still indefinite distance.

Moreover, he has the experience of twenty- four years as the inspector of schools. It provided him so much time to meet the different classes and examine their behaviors and habits. This experience pursued him to write 'Culture & Anarchy'. In his book, he has also discussed various topics about true culture. In this book, he has discussed Hebraism and Hellenism.

In the inception of the topic, he discusses doing and thinking. His general view about human beings is that they prefer to act rather than to think. He rejects it because mankind is to err and he cannot always think right, but it comes seldom in the process of reasoning and meditation, or he is not rightly guided by the light of true reason. The nation follows the voice of its conscience and its best light, but it is not the light of true reason except darkness.

He talks about the great idea to know and the great energy to act. Both are the most potent forces, and they should be in harmony by the light of reason. So, they are Hebraism and Hellenism. He insists on the balance of the both thought and action (Hellenism and Hebraism). The final aim of Hellenism and Hebraism is the same as man's perfection and salvation. He further discusses that the supreme idea with Hellenism or the Greek Spirit is to see things as they really are, and the supreme idea of Hebraism or the Spirit of Bible is conduct and obedience. He points out that the Greek philosophy considers that the body and its desires are an impediment to right thinking, where as Hebraism considers that the body and its desires are an obstacle to right action.

Hebraism studies the universal order and observes the magnificence of God apparent in the order, whereas Hellenism follows with flexible activity. Thus, Hellenism acquires spontaneity of consciousness with a clearness of mind, and Hebraism achieves a strictness of conscience with its clarity of thought. In brief, Hebraism shows stress on doing rather than knowing, and follows the will of God. Its primary idea is absolute obedience to the will of God.

Hellenism and Hebraism both are directly connected to the life of human beings. Hellenism keeps emphasis on knowing or knowledge, where as Hebraism fastens its faith in doing. He describes that the Bible reveals the truth which awards the peace of God and liberty. The simple idea of Hellenism is to get rid of ignorance, to see things as they are, and to search beauty from them. Socrates, as Hellenic, states that the best man is he who tries to make himself perfect, and the happiest man is he who feels that he is perfecting himself.

In this treatise, Arnold asserts that there is enough of Hellenism in the English nation, and he emphasizes on Hebraism, because it is based on conduct and self- control. He admits that the age is incapable of governing itself in the pursuit of perfection, and the bright promise of Greek ideal is faded. Now the obedience or submission must be to the rules of conduct, as expressed by the Holy Scripture (Bible).Hellenism lays its main stress on clear intelligence, where as Hebraism keeps main stress on firm obedience, moral power and character.

 Conclusion: -

Thus, the mission of Arnold's culture is that each individual must act for himself and must be perfect himself. The chosen people or classes must dedicate themselves to the pursuit of perfection, and he seems to be agreed with Humboldt, the German Philosopher, in case of the pursuit of perfection. So, it is essential that man must try to seek human perfection by instituting his best self or real reason; culture, in the end, would find its public reason.

To evaluate my assignment Click Here.

Work Cited.

Richards,I. A. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B07bsmb1gS38emVTYV9DSDJwVnc/edit

Richards,.I. A. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B07bsmb1gS38ZXlSRUgyUEVIemM/edit

Richards, I. A. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B07bsmb1gS38cXIyd1BtV3lpSFk/edit

Paper 5. Significance of the title “Sense and Sensibility”, character sketch of Elinor and Marianne.

Name:  Jayti R. Thakar.

Paper No: 5 Romantic Literatures

Topic of Assignment: Significance of the title “Sense and Sensibility”, character sketch of Elinor and Marianne.

Roll No: 34.

Submitted to: Smt. S. B. Gardi Department of English

M. K. Bhavnagar University

To evaluate my assignment Click Here.

Significance of the title “Sense and Sensibility”; with the reference of two major characters “Elinor” and “Marianne”.

 Introduction:-

Sense and Sensibility (1811) by Jane Austen offers a clue to the central theme of the novel. The word “Sense” in the title means the capacity of a person to maintain his or her emotional equilibrium, while word “Sensibility” means an inability to maintain such an equilibrium and tendency to be carried away by an excess of emotions. Thus, the word “sense” interpreted as a capacity for emotional- restraint, while the word “Sensibility” may be taken to mean a lack of emotional self- restraint.

  Character sketch of Elinor Dashwood.

1.   Elinor- “the more important of the two possible heroines.”

Elinor Dashwood is undoubtedly the heroin of this novel and at any rate, the more important of the two heroines which this novel seems to possess in the opinion of several critics who even believe that the other heroine, namely Marianne Dashwood, is the more important of two. Whatever be the case, Jane Austen herself intended Elinor Dashwood as the novel’s heroine. Throughout, the novel Austen at pain to establish the greater importance of Elinor by comparison with Marianne. Though the critics are of the opinion that Austen has failed in her effort to justify and prove her intention.

2.   Elinor, an Embodiment of Sense.

Elinor, who is the eldest daughter of Mrs. Dashwood, and who is nineteen years of age when the novel opens, is described as possessing strength of understanding and coolness of judgment which qualify her to be her mother’s adviser and counselor. Elinor’s disposition is affectionate, and her capacity to keep her feelings strictly under control, she feels somewhat perturbed by the excess of Marianne’s sensibility.

3.   Mrs. John Dashwood’s opposition to Edward’s Affection towards Elinor.

Elinor becomes attached to a young man by the name of Edward Ferrars who is a brother of the wife of Elinor’s step- brother, John Dashwood. It is an act of reciprocity on Elinor’s part to feel attached to Edward Ferrars who has first given distinct signs of having become emotionally interested in her. However, this affair is prevented from developing because the hostility of John Dashwood’s wife to any attachment between her brother and her husband’s step- sister. After the removal of Mrs. Dashwood and her three daughters from Norland Park in Sussex to Barton Cottage in Devonshire, Elinor and the other members of the family expect Edward Ferrars to pay them a visit at that place; but he does not turn up. Elinor does not experience any deep grief on account of this disappointment because she knows how to keep her feeling in check. She has formed a high opinion of Edward’s merits and qualities; but, if he has not come to see her, she can endure the feeling of disappointment with great fortitude. She never feels dejected or melancholy; and her self- command is remarkable. She avoids company; and she does not appear restless or dissatisfied as a result of Edward’s failure to visit her.  

4.   Elinor’s Controlled Reaction to a shocking Discloser.

Few months later, Elinor receives a big shock when she learns that the young man, with whom she had been in love all this time, is committed to marry another girl, namely Lucy Steel. This disclosure has come to Elinor from Lucy Steel herself. She also included that the engagement between them to had taken place four years ago. This stunning disclosure certainly upsets and even grieves Elinor; but she is able to withstand even this emotional shock which could have overwhelmed and prostrated and other girl. Elinor becomes despondent and gloomy but she does not lose her interest in life and, in fact, continues to take a keen interest in all those activities in which she had previously felt interested.

5.   Elinor’s Sisterly Solicitude about Marianne’s Welfare.

As we have already noted Elinor is devoted to her whole family, and not only to her mother. In Marianne’s troubles cause no end of distress to her. Willoughby’s growing friendship with Marianne upsets Elinor a good deal because Elinor does not the real nature of this friendship. Very soon her worry becomes true when Willoughby‘s abrupt departure for London happens, this disturbs the whole Dashwood family but Elinor more particularly. And in London Willoughby’s unaccountable indifference to Marianne creates more trouble for Elinor because Marianne’s plight at that time is more pitiable. Now, Elinor, who is feeling much distressed by her sister’s predicament, tries her condition becomes almost critical, Elinor’s grief is intense. Indeed, next only to Elinor’s own affairs and difficulties, Elinor feels all the time worried, distressed, or tormented by Marianne’s misfortunes. Her solicitude and anxiety about Marianne occupy Elinor’s thoughts even more than her own emotional setback. This trait of Elinor’s character is certainly admirable.

          6 Elinor: not a Money- Minded Woman.

One other aspect of Elinor’s character is also noteworthy. She is not a money- minded person. In this respect she offers a sharp contrast to Mrs. Fenny Dashwood who is obsessed with money and who would go to any length to save every penny in orders to add to the prosperity of her family. Elinor’s husband would be having a very moderate income; and she herself does not have any fortune. She and Edward would be living at Delaford parsonage a most frugal kind of life; but Elinor has no regrets about it. Nor does she feel jealous of Marianne who has become prosperous and affluent through her marriage with Colonel Brandon. This is another admirable trait of her character.

7. Some other excellent qualities of Elinor.

Furthermore, Elinor is not a garrulous woman. Nor does she believes in ideal gossip or in spreading rumors as Mrs. Jennings is in habit of doing. Withal Elinor is neither too talkative nor a match-maker of any kind. She is a dignified, highly respectable, well- mannered, considerate, civil, and decent type of woman who would bring credit to any company, and who would certainly bring much credit to her husband, the person of Delaford.      

  The character and personality of Marianne Dashwood.

1.    An Embodiment of Sensibility.

Marianne’s abilities were in many respects quite equal to Elinor’s. She was sensible and clever, but eager in everything; her sorrows and her joys could have no moderation. She was generous, amiable, interesting; she was everything but prudent. The resemblance between her and her mother was strikingly great. Marianne is evidently meant to embody “Sensibility” or a tendency to feel too much. A person of this kind feels too happy when there is an occasion for happiness, and too sad when there is an occasion for sadness.

2.    Her assessment of the character of Edward.

Marianne has a talent for music. She can play on the piano and can sing well. While Elinor is good at drawing, Marianne is equally good at music.  It is therefore natural for Marianne to react unfavorably to Edward Ferrars who has no ear for music. Marianne‘s assessment of the character of the Edward Ferrars is widely different from that of Elinor. According to Marianne Edward is a very amiable but that there is something lacking in him. Edward’s figure she says, is not striking; it has none of that grace which she would expect in the man who has been able to win Elinor’s heart.  

3.    A woman of feelings and sentiments.

It is evident, then, Marianne is absolutely different from Elinor in her judgment of men. However, Marianne does not speak to Elinor candidly about Edward because she would not like to hurt her sister. We may also note that, while Elinor had bidden good bye to Norland Park with a feeling of perfect composure, Marianne had shed many tears at leaving a place where she had lived for a long time.

4.   The quick development of friendship between Marianne and Willoughby.

The physical appearance of Marianne certainly does her much credit. She is more handsome than Elinor, and her figure is more striking. She has a lovely face; her complexion is uncommonly brilliant; her features are all good; her smile is sweet and attractive; and in her eyes, there is life, a spirit, and eagerness which delight everybody who sees her. It is therefore natural for Willoughby to feel attract by her. After having carried the injured Marianne to her house, Willoughby becomes a daily visitor at a Barton Cottage; and friendship now begins between him and Marianne. The physical attraction between the two is strengthened by the fact that Willoughby seems to admire the same writers who are Marianne’s favorites. They also find that their enjoyment of dancing and music is mutual, that it arises from general conformity of judgment in everything which relates to both those arts. Their tests are found to be strikingly similar. The same books, and the same passages in those books, are liked both. As for Marianne herself, she begins to see bright vision of her future with Willoughby.

5.    Marianne’s distress at Willoughby’s sudden departure for London and her Illness.

Marianne’s distress is acute when Willoughby one day suddenly announces to her and to other members of Dashwood family that he is leaving for London unexpectedly at the behest of his guardian, Mrs. Smith. Marianne, with her strong sensibility now begins to experience such intense misery that her conditions become pitiable. She spends sleepless nights, and she weeps for the whole day after Willoughby has left; and in this context the author says: “Her sensibility was potent enough.” Moreover, she soon learns that Willoughby has got married to a rich heiress (Miss. Grey); and the cup of her misery is now full. We can imagine what she must have felt on this occasion because of her acute and profound sensibility. Soon afterwards Marianne falls ill. The illness is attributed to a chill but the psychological basis for this illness cannot be ignored.   

                  

6.    A Great change in her; and her marriage.

When Marianne recovers, Elinor tells her of Willoughby’s visit. Marianne comes to assess what has passed with sense rather than emotion, and sees that she could never have been happy with Willoughby’s immoral and expansive nature. She comes to value Elinor’s conduct in a similar situation and resolves to model herself after Elinor’s courage and good sense. Marianne is now a changed person. She has already expressed her sense of remorse to Elinor; and she already acknowledged her debt to her sister who had never ceased to attend upon her, to look after her, and to do everything in her power to console and comfort her despite the setback to her power to console and comfort her despite the setback to her own emotional well-being and the setback to her own love- affair. Marianne now makes up her mind to devote herself wholly to her family- her mother and her two sisters- and to think of nothing else. However, event takes a different turn. In due course she begins to like man, namely Colonel Brandon. Few years after Elinor’s wedlock with Edward, Marianne marries Colonel Brandon, having gradually fallen deeply in love with him.

7.   Her second place in the novel.

Marianne is certainly a likeable person, though we, on our part, do not feel as attracted by her as we are by Elinor. There is a basic weakness in Marianne’s character. Elinor may be suffering from a deficiency of feeling; but Marianne’s excessive capacity for feeling is by no means a sign of any moral or intellectual superiority. Excessive feeling in person is undoubtedly a weakness. To moan or to grown when overtaken by a disappointment or a in frustration of a hope; to spent sleepless night and feel miserable in the face of hurdles and obstruction- these are by no means to be regarded as virtues in human being. Some critics regard Marianne as the center of the novel and as the true heroine of the novel; but we find it impossible to agree with this view. A heroine she may be; but, as a heroine she occupies a second place, a place next to Elinor whose strength of character and whose capacity to withstand misfortunes entitle her to our respect and admiration.

8.   Social deficiencies and lapses.

In certain other respects too we find Marianne not up to the mark. She is often brusque where she should be civil and courteous. She is often indifferent where she should show some degree or friendship. She is often unsociable and inclined to shun company. Many times, what we actually find is that Marianne avoids Mrs. Jennings and is even rude to her; subsequently Mrs. Jennings has devoutly and sincerely attended upon Marianne’s critical illness. On several occasions we find Marianne leaving the room just when some visitors have arrived. She is often visible indifferent to Sir John Middleton and, of course, to her step- brother John Dashwood to whom Elinor is always polite.

  Conclusion: -

In short, Marianne is a sentimental kind of a girl and, therefore, entirely different from Elinor who can exercise full control over her feelings. And it is this basic difference between two sisters which explains the title of the novel, and which also explains the different moods and the different reactions of the two sisters on various occasions, and in dealing with various persons in the course of the story. 

To evaluate my assignment Click Here.

Works Cited

Lal, R. Sense and Sensibility. In R. Lal.