Summary of R. Parthasarathy’s Exile from Homecoming

R. Parthasarathy is a famous Indian English poet.   He hails from the southern parts of India.  As the title, Exile from Homecoming, announces, R. Parthasarathy comes home after spending sometime abroad, but he is not able to fit himself in the current scenario culturally, linguistically, sociologically and psychologically.  The poem builds on the idea of the poet feeling exile and isolated, in spite of familiar things that surround him.

            The persona opens the poem by sharing his linguistic instability or inability.  He accepts that his tongue is been tied by English and he is not fluent with Tamil, as he was abroad.  He expects people to speak good Tamil, as been used in good old Tamil literature and scriptures.  His expectations are in vain and his hopes vanish, when he hears people use Tamil that is articulated by the characters in celluloid world or cinema.

            The persona moves on to brief his attempts to establish relation with his relatives.  The family members gather at a Tiruchchenur for family function, which happens after 1959, when his grandfather died.  They come in crowded buses loaded with dust of many years of memory.  The relatives gather in groups and sit without much formality.  They ear the packed food they have brought for lunch.  He looks at Sundari, probably his relative, who had once climbed up and down a tamarind tree with the poet.  She is married and has three daughters clinging to her like three planets.  The poet cannot relate himself with his relatives and with the circumstances.  He stays aloof and he claims expertise when it comes to farewell.  He feels guilty of losing his familiar tradition.  He regrets for throwing stones from a glass house built by his father.  He has evaded from his father’s footprints and he hopes that his son will not follow him in the future.

            The poet walks near river Vaigai that flows in Madurai, his hometown.  He is not satisfied with the sight it offers him.  He calls it as river once and not as a river.  The river is barren and empty without water.  Boys get into the river to play with paper boats.  Buffaloes also loiter in the river and they diminish it into a pond.  It is filled with hair and stale flowers.  Though the banks of the river are full of temples and other sacred things, the happenings inside the river are mean and degrading.  No emperor or poet can talk or boast of river Vaigai.  Not even birds like kingfisher and egrets come to river Vaigai. 

            The poet walks home.  The roads are dusty, which fills his eyes.  The streets are jammed with traffic.  His thoughtful walk is answered by the barking dogs.  He goes home and climbs up the stairs carefully only to be tripped off over the mat.

            The poet persona becomes fed up with things around the world.  He considers himself as a poet and a creator.  All he could do is defined a poet.  He looks himself as a poet and comes out defining him.  A poet is someone who becomes fat (fills his brain) by reading many old poems and poets.  He also reads more commentaries.  He is been invited to conferences and sometimes to schools and colleges to teach.  The poet is against himself being a poet and abuses himself of being one.

            The poet persona is finally willing to retire from life, yet he is not content with life.  He establishes himself as a freelancer.  He prays to god that a few of his articles should be published in newspapers and his prayers are sometimes answered.  He concludes the poem with a compelling thought of contentment that he should go through his life with “small change of uncertainities.”

COMPARATIVE LITERATURE AND TRANSLATION STUDIES

            Some critics consider comparative literature as a subject and some do not consider it as a subject.  However, comparative literature depends very much on translation. Translation studies promote comparative literature.

            Comparative literature is a reaction against the narrow 19^th century nationalism.  It is originated in France in the year 1816.  Matthew Arnold popularized the term in England in 1848, through his lectures.

            Comparative literature is a study of intertextuality, for example, if we have to compare an English novel with that of an Oriya novel, we have to use English or Oriya as out medium.  Certain conditions determine high translation activities.  According to Evan Zohr, translation activity takes place when the literature is in its initial stage or when it is marginal.  For example, in 12^th century Europe the translation activity was significant because of a shift from epic to romance.

            In India there is craze for translation in recent times for two reasons:

1)      The writers or the critics want their literature to be translated into English or any other language because they want others to notice their literature and language.

2)      When their literature is translated there is so much scope of comparing their literature with other literary texts and its own text in source language.

Derrida’s theory of translation is very important.  He does not consider the source text as original because it is an elaboration of an idea, of a meaning and it in itself is a translation.   This idea about the original translation makes us conclude that translation is no more a secondary work.

To conclude, we could quote Susan Bassnett, who says “We should look upon translation studies as the principle discipline from now on, with comparative literature as a valued but subsidiary subject area.”

Biography - The Genre

What is Biography?

Biography, as an art form, developed recently.  Suetonius Lives of Caesars and Plutarch’s Lives are classical biographies, which are in the form of odd notes.  John Aubrey’s Brief Lives written in the 17^th century is more of a gossip.

In 1683, Dryden used the term ‘biography’ for the first time.  He defined biography as “the history of particular men’s lives.”  It does not have a proper form.  It is not governed by any artistic principle.  The Oxford dictionary defines biography as “history of lives of individual men as a branchy of literature.”  Harold Nicolson defines biography as “a truthful record of an individual, composed as a work of art”

Biography differs from history.  It is a record of the life of one individual.  It studies its subject both within and without.  The character and exploits of the subject are most important.  Biography should be no more than a formal praise than a verbal attack.  It should be a faithful picture of a subject, with virtues and faults.  Biography should be work of art, something that will leave the reader a lasting impression.  It should rebuild a living man from his death.  An ideal biography is like a novel of character with verifiable facts.  Apart from the artistic quality, a biography should also be helpful to a historian by giving the details of contemporary history.  A biographer must be truthful and beauty comes from it.

Pure and Impure Biography

            Pure biography would give a perfect picture of the development of both the external and the inner life of its subject.  A few factors may intervene as a hindrance to achieve it and this makes it impure.  The most common of the factors is to conceal the truth and speak nothing but good of the subject.  The Victorian biographers talk only about the virtues and the modern biographers talk only about the foibles.  Both are wrong.

The second factor making for impurity is author’s own views and prejudices.  The author must stand away from the subject so that he can view it clearly.  He must avoid his personal interest and have only professional interest.  The author should not substitute moral and other utilitarian aims in his biography.  Biography must stand or fall for itself.  It must be faithful to the history of the human soul.

Basis of Biographical Instinct

The basic instinct of biography is man.  The biographer should capture the individuality of his subject and show the common touch of humanity.  As in novel, biography’s psychological element has become more interesting and significant than mere record of events.

Difficulties of the Biographer

            It is extremely difficult for a biographer to present a life of a man who is not of his age.  Biography is a herculean task in which failure is more likely than success.  Another important difficulty is that it is difficult to contain a life history within certain pages.  Doing full justice to human life is impossible.  The next difficulty is that half of man is his thought.  It is difficult is bring the thought process of another man in the biography.  Even then English literature is rich with its biographies.

Modern Tendencies

            In modern days, biographers are intended in ruthless dissection of the subject.  Debunking is the popular used for biographies which talks about human weakness.  They belittle the characters by magnifying their trivial matters.  In modern days, application of psychology has resulted in over emphasizing certain motives.  Modern biographers are also interested in presenting the exact social background and environment of their subject.  The biographer must therefore be a historian, philosopher and a psychologist.

Autobiography - The Genre

What is Autobiography?

            In an autobiography, an author writes about his own life and achievements.  It is a successful presentation of a personality.  It ends before the death of the writer.  Dr. Johnson says autobiography is better than biography because everyman’s life is best written by himself.  In psychological point of view, autobiography is better because the autobiographer knows his motives, secret hopes and ambitions better than anyone else does.  Longfellow said that autobiography is a product of first hand experience and biography of second hand knowledge.  Stevenson said that autobiography is the true writing.

Types of Autobiography – Objective and Subjective Autobiography

            Autobiography is a narration of events with the purpose of candid telling of the author’s inner life and his public career.  It progress from the outward to the inward, from the objective to the subjective.  St. Augustine’s Confessions, 5^th Century A.D, was the earliest autobiography.  After ten centuries, Rousseau wrote his autobiography in 18^th Century.  Later David Hume, Edward Gibbon and Benjamin Franklin wrote their autobiographies, which were not candid, sometimes repellent, self-revelation or self-exhibitionism.  They are clear, distinct in style and well planned.  These writers inspired many other writers like De Quincey, Benjamin Robert Haydon, Ruskin, H.G. Wells, Rudyard Kipling, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Winston Churchill.  Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn wrote autobiographies in the form of diaries in the 18^th century.  Dorothy Osborne, Thomas Gray, Charles Lamb and John Keats’ wrote autobiographical sketches in the form of letters.

Difficulties of the Autobiographer

            An autobiographer faces many special problems. 

1)      According to Abraham Cowley, writing an autobiography grates the authors heart when he praises himself. 

2)      It is not easy to tell the truth. 

3)      It is difficult to recapture the emotions of the distant past. 

4)      Some episodes may be embarrassing not only the author but also others. 

5)      It is impossible for anyone to be entirely objective. 

6)      Great care must be taken while commenting people who may be alive.  Sometimes it might lead to libel. 

7)      Herbert Spencer pointed out that a biographer and an autobiographer should omit common situations in life and should present the striking and exceptional ones.  This is difficult. 

Whatever difficulties autobiography poses, many authors are victorious in overcoming the problems and have presented their life in the best way.

Summary of Stephen Leacock’s How T Be A Doctor

Introduction

            Stephen Leacock is a Canadian essayist and short story writer.  All his writings are humorous  in nature.  He is a satirist, who makes fun of human nature.  In this essay he makes fun of educated doctors and science.  He compares and contrasts modern science with old age wisdom.  He questions about the pathetic condition of patients.

Progress of Science

            Stephen Leacock is proud while discussing the progress of science.  He feels as if he invented electricity and vacuum cleaner.  He says that the progress in the field of medicine makes our heart expand with pride.  Hundred years ago, there were no diseases like bacilli, ptomaine poisoning, diphtheria, appendicitis, rabies, psoriasis and parotits.  Today, they all have become common household names.  Leacock satirically thanks the advancements in the field of medicine for this.

Harmful Diseases and Substances Before Many Years

            Before 100 years, fever was cured by letting of the blood.  Before 70 years, sedative drugs were given for fever.  Before 30 years, low diet and application of ice was given for fever.  Today, no such simple medication is followed to eradicate fever.  During olden days, people carried potatoes in their pockets to kill rheumatism.  Now no such thing happens.  Advancement in medical science has led to complications.  Epilepsy was also cured easily during olden days.

Modern Doctors

            Leacock discusses about the time taken by a person to become a qualified practioner.  During olden days, it takes two winters to complete a medical course.  During summer, the learners would do some other work.  However, in modern days a learner takes more than eight years to be a practioner.  It makes the person lazy.

Doctors Handling the Patients

            Modern doctor’s business could be acquired in two weeks, says Leacock.  When a patient consults the doctor, the doctor hits him at his back and sends a hook under the heart of the patient to know whether if pains or not.  The doctor gives a blow on his stomach, which makes the patient fall.  The doctor would read the morning newspaper and ask the patient to be quiet and go to bed.  The patient will get well quietly, if not he will die quietly.  They never question the doctor.

Advice On Diet

            A doctor’s advice on diet to his patient, varies according to his mood.  It the doctor is hungry, he will ask the patient to eat anything he likes.  If the doctor has eaten well, then he would suggest his patient not to eat anything.  The same is the case with the intake of drinks.  The patients are pathetic in the hands of the doctors.

Conclusion

            Even after knowing all these hardships, all of us, including Leacock, would like to rush to a hospital to save our lives.