Signing off Literati 2016 with a bang!

By Swati Sinha

Day 4 of Literati was a true sight of delight and ardor. The 4 day festival that was a tribute to the Indian writer Mahasweta Devi came to a euphoric end today, with several events compelling the audience to stick to their chairs throughout.

The festival began with the much awaited theatrical rendition of the play Rudali written by Devi. Directed by alumnus Deepak Dhruvkumar H and adapted by Minal Sukumar of II M.A. English, the play showcased the powerful portrayal of the character of Shanichari, (enacted by Divya Malhari of II M.A. English) a lower caste woman who works as a Rudali to earn her bread and butter.

This short adaptation succeeded in capturing the essence of Devi’s intentions to highlight the plight of lower caste women who had to turn a natural, humane and personal mode of catharsis into labour for commerce for survival. Students from both I and II M.A. English comprising of the cast and crew left the audience absolutely speechless and were appreciated with a thunderous applause.

The second event of the festival included an academic talk by Dr. Sushma Murthy, an Associate Professor in Christ University, Bangalore who spoke on feminism in relation to the web of caste and class embedded in the crux of India. Her paper dealt with Devi’s writings and their interpretations not just of feminism or caste and class issues but an ontological study of the aspect of performativity of a human’s body and lived experiences.

Several of Devi’s stories such as The Breast Stories and Baayen were taken as examples foregrounding scholars such as Spivak, Kant and Said who elaborated on the condition of the subaltern immensely. Her presence was truly an icing on the cake for the students who learned enormously from her words of wisdom.

The participants and volunteers who toiled hard to organize Literati were presented with certificates of appreciation by Dr. Sushma Murthy and the PG English Department Co-ordinator, Dr. Padma Baliga.

Followed by this was the finale act put together by the music team comprising of students from both I and II M.A. English led by Christy Thomas and Vinaya Grace Mary from I M.A. English. It included songs of hope, togetherness and the importance of the subaltern – some highlighted Devi’s themes such as Raise Me up by Josh Groban, Love of the Common People by Paul Young, Dil Hoom Hoom Kare from Rudali by Lata Mangeshkar and Send It On by Disney’s productions. It was a perfect end to the evening, as the music that has no language brought the audience together, who could not hold themselves to the seats and sang and danced along with the performers.

Literati 2016 was wrapped with Dr. V Shilpa extended a vote of thanks to all the students and teachers for making it a grand success.

Needless to say Literati was a festival that not only honoured a legendary writer and celebrated her works but also gave the PG English department to come together and share art, smiles and spirit for life pure in nature. Literati 2017 is indeed awaited!

Of stories and social change: Literati Day 3

Navya Denis

The highlight of the third day of Literati 2016 was the Panel discussion on the topic ‘Literature and Social Change’. The discussion which was held in Aloysius Hall was a genuine encomium to the illustrious woman who exposed the true shades of the depravity that plagues the fringes of our society. It began with an introduction of the topic by Prof. Amrita Banerjee, who spoke at length about the power of literature to catalyse social change. Further, Prof. Gargi Dutta gave an amazing account on the role of the author as a “mouthpiece for change”. She also said that Mahasweta Devi was the unmediated voice of the inferior other.

The panel of five gave the audience a brilliant overview of the impact of literature, grounded on the works of Mahasweta Devi. Rajeshwari N. of II M.A. English spoke on the seemingly subtle impressions that literature leaves on the face of humanity which leads to gradual massive revolutions. Asha Sistla of I M.A. English gave a detailed description of the contributions made by Devi to the marginalised sections. Diana Sushmitha of II M. A. English spoke about the power of literature to bridge the gaps within the society, manifested how Mahasweta Devi shook the middle class consciousness through her words. Keerthi Sebastian of I M.A.English pronounced the multiple viewpoints presented by Mahasweta Devi, especially on the emergence parallel governments. Further, Atreyee Madhukalya from M. A. Political Science spoke on the impact of literature with a different perspective. Her views on the relevance of literature towards an ecological mission was a refreshing comment on the topic discussed.

Finally, the moderators Prof. Amrita Banerjee and Prof. Gargi Dutta gave their valuable comments and suggestions on the panellists’ views. Comments were welcomed from the audience; Prof. Padma Baliga appreciated the panelists’ efforts to discover and popularise Mahasweta Devi, and the hushed voice of the subaltern. The panel discussion was altogether an engaging exchange of views that developed a greater inference on the topic, with special acknowledgement towards Mahasweta Devi and her works.

Literati 2016

Blessy Thomas

After overcoming a few road bumps and hitches along the way, the Department of English at St. Joseph’s College formally inaugurated the first edition of Literati. Literati, an annual festival that celebrates some of the finest writers and artists of our generation, dedicated its first edition to Mahasweta Devi. The writer-activist passed away in July this year. She was known as the voice of the voiceless. She played a huge role in the upliftment of backward communities like the Kheria Sabar.

The first day of the four day event began with an introduction to Devi and her legacy both in Kannada and English. This was followed by an inaugural speech by the Head of the English Department, Dr. Cheriyan Alexander. “Writers are constantly creating new realms with the force of the pen, and Mahasweta Devi was no exception,” said Dr. Alexander, giving a brief insight into the works of the late writer. Combining her literary skills with her social activism that included giving a voice to the Subaltern and the oppressed, Mahasweta Devi worked tirelessly for the marginalized.

The event was formally inaugurated in true Josephite spirit with the lighting of the lamp by the members of the college support staff. The event was rounded up in style by students of the I and II year MA English who gave a fitting end to the inaugural by crooning melodious songs of solidarity in Kannada, Bengali and English, that echoed the sentiments expressed in Devi’s works. We look forward to the events to follow in the days to come.

Between Grief and High Delight: A reading of J D Salinger’s Prose

By Anugraha Madhavan

“Life is a game, boy. Life is a game that one plays according to the rules.” “Yes, sir. I know it is. I know it.” Game, my ass. Some game. If you get on the side where all the hot-shots are, then it’s a game, all right—I’ll admit that. But if you get on the other side, where there aren’t any hot-shots, then what’s a game about it? Nothing. No game.

For those unfamiliar with J D Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, it is hard to believe that a sixteen-year-old is this cynical. However, this is a small group of people for Salinger’s novel was both famous and notorious for its position in the American literary canon – as the Great American Novel of the 1950s and as the most censored book in high schools and libraries in the United States. With a plot summary that is often essentialised to teenage angst and rebellion, the novel unravels as the confessions of a confused and disillusioned teenager in his search for truth in the midst of the “phoniness” of the adult world.

The Catcher in the Rye (first published in 1951) offered notable critical and public recognition to the short story writer and war veteran Jerome David Salinger. After brief stints at New York and Columbia universities, he dedicated himself entirely to writing. Some of his unrivalled short stories – “For Esmé—with Love and Squalor” (1950) and “A Perfect Day for Bananafish” (1948) – draws from his war time experiences of serving in the US Army between 1942-46.

Salinger was “famously reclusive”. His refusal to address the media despite the colossal success of his novel counterproductively kept the spotlight shining on him. This choice made the anti-Salinger-ites emphasise the controversial nature of his writing: the use of unparliamentary language, explicit sexual references, deconstructing notions of ideal family, blasphemy, instigating rebellion and positive representations of alcohol, cigarettes, truancy and promiscuity in general. America after the War needed to forget the past and celebrate new beginnings. This was done by a false sense of order that took forms of new materialism and conservatism. J D Salinger’s works were the aporias that disturbed the age’s denial.

However, almost for the exact same reasons, Salinger fans made his works one of the most read in the country. For a group that had survived unmentionable trauma, morality and unquestioned notions of authority were almost laughable. Salinger explored loneliness, alienation and the search of depth in life in a country which at that point, celebrated superfluous material progress in the name of the American Dream.

Salinger’s interactions with Eastern mysticisms, Zen Buddhism in particular is often talked about. After The Catcher in the Rye’s phenomenal success, Salinger chose to live the life of a recluse and traces of Buddhism appear more often in his later works.

The notion of suffering in the path towards enlightenment is seen in all the Glass family stories. Nothingness of meaning and emptiness of life are Salinger’s oft-
repeated themes drawn from the Buddhist idea of the shunya as the centre. Salinger’s characters are iconic for their self-introspection, bordering on a narcissistic obsession, be it Holden Caulfield, Franny, her older brother Zooey (from Franny and Zooey, two stories published together in 1961) or any other member of the Glass family – Seymour, Buddy and Boo-Boo who are the subjects of most of Salinger’s short fiction. It is their fixation with the perceived superficiality, the phoniness of the world around them that make them recluses within their own minds. Some critics have implied that it these character’s minds that are their principal enemies, which is why Holden’s narrative begins with his memory of a psychiatric institution. However, Salinger’s literary genius has endured for he articulates the ever-present tug of war between self and culture. The Glasses and the Caulfields can be interpreted the fictional forerunners of America’s celebrated Beat movement. Ultimately, Salinger’s works were an attempt at romanticising the nature of the adolescent and a portrayal of a desperate longing for innocence, visions that post-war America seemed to forget.

Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around – nobody big, I mean – except me. And I’m standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff – I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That’s all I do all day. I’d just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it’s crazy, but that’s the only thing I’d really like to be.

–  The Catcher in the Rye

This piece was originally published in the January issue of JetWings

Father and Son

By Deepak Dhruvkumar H

“Son, I have something

To tell you.”

My son asked what

It was.

“It’s a very hard thing

To say.

My heart aches,

But I have

No say in this.”

My son wanted

To know what

It was.

“You will be

Sacrificed today.

Please do not ask

Questions.

It must be so.”

I said, with tears

​Welling in my eyes.

My son asked whether

I wished him

To be sacrificed;

If I really wanted it.

​”I have

​No say in this,

​My son.

​I love you

​More than anything

​In this world.

​But please understand-”

And that was when

A human named Abraham

Picked up

My son.

WAITING FOR A G2

An absurd short play by Deepak Dhruvkumar H

SCENE:

Late afternoon.

A bus stop. But there are no seats. There are supposed to be two railings, but there is only a broken half.

dude 1 is sitting on one end of the pavement, or the raised “floor” of the bus stop. He looks like a college student. Maybe it’s because he’s constantly staring at the screen of his phone and swiping his index finger across it constantly. Maybe it’s because he’s wearing a large pair of headphones, it seems like he’s come from a future where there are no roads. You decide.

Silence.

dude 2 walks in from R. Rather, ambles in. He is also staring at his phone and constantly swiping his finger across the screen in different directions. The bag that is on his left shoulder keeps slipping off with every second scraping of the foot along the ground, but he seems to be more engrossed in the affairs of the phone. He makes a half-hearted half-arm movement to get the bag’s sling back on his left shoulder, but fails. He does not even look up but is aware of the presence of DUDE 1.

DUDE 2:    This is where I get a G2, right?

Silence.

DUDE 1 is obviously absorbed in his phone and music and DUDE 2 is also engrossed similarly to acknowledge that DUDE 1 has not acknowledged his presence or his question. DUDE 2 notices the lack of an audible response and now addresses DUDE 1 by turning his face towards him.

DUDE 2:   (slightly louder and slightly annoyed) Excuse me, is this where G2 stops?

Silence.

DUDE 2 makes a “tch” sound. This means that he would have to waste his precious energy by dragging himself, and his shoulder bag which was falling off, closer to DUDE 1. Not to mention pulling his medium-sized trolley-bag. He moves closer to DUDE 1 with such reluctance, it could be compared to how one really does not want to brush one’s teeth, but had to do it anyway to get rid of bad breath.

DUDE 2 drags his feet noisily towards DUDE 1 and waves his hand in front of DUDE 1. DUDE 1 looks up, his eyes fixed in a gaze and mouth agape. Slightly shifts one headphone-earmuff so he can hear.

DUDE 1:    Yeah?

DUDE 2 feels like an ass when he has to say something more than twice.

DUDE 2:    G2.

DUDE 1:    Yeah. (Shifts the earmuff back into place)

DUDE 2 plops himself to the left of DUDE 1 on the platform. He finally decides to let go of his shoulder bag. He feels his pockets and takes out a pack of cigarettes. There seems to be only one left. He swears under his breath and puts it to his lips. He searches his pockets again. Leans over and taps DUDE 1’s shoulder. DUDE 1 doesn’t look but shifts his left headphone-earmuff.

DUDE 2:   Do you have a light?

DUDE 1:    What?

DUDE 2:    A matchbox or a lighter or—

DUDE 1:    Nope. (Shifts back his earmuff again. Looks like the type who doesn’t like to be disturbed.)

DUDE 2 does not like being spoken to that way. He crushes the cigarette and flings it to his right, beyond DUDE 1. He throws the empty pack in the same direction as well. Both of them sail in front of DUDE 1. DUDE 1 reciprocates with the same vigour.

DUDE 1:    Can you please not litter?

DUDE 2:    So, you can speak more than one word at a time!

DUDE 1:    Can you please pick it up? (He doesn’t seem to know that ‘please’ is usually accompanied with ‘could’ and not ‘can’.)

DUDE 2:    Why?

DUDE 1:    Why do you want to litter your own country?

DUDE 2:    (Smugly) If I didn’t litter, the sweepers wouldn’t have their jobs.

DUDE 1:    Exactly. (Beat.) They would have a better one.

Uncomfortable silence.

DUDE 1:    The dustbin is just a few steps away. Fucking put it in that.

DUDE 2 is shocked. He promptly gets up, picks up the trash, puts it in the bin which is to the left of the bus stop, and comes back to his spot.

DUDE 1:    (Drilling it in slowly and viciously) I bet you don’t even wash your coffee mugs at work. I can imagine them piled up in your crummy little cubicle and your colleagues go by every day thinking it’s better they have self-respect and can sacrifice drinking coffee instead of coming up to you and asking you to wash your damn mugs.

Beat.

DUDE 2:    Sorry I hoped you would speak. (Beat.) When is this bus going to come anyway?

DUDE 1:    Why?

DUDE 2:    Well, I have to go places.

DUDE 1:    So… go.

DUDE 2:    Are you trying to act smart, man?

DUDE 1:    I’m not acting.

Beat.

DUDE 2:    I bet you go for a lot of stand-up comedy shows.

DUDE 1:    (Shocked) How’d you guess?

DUDE 2:    You’re SO full of clichés. (A punch-line clash is heard)

DUDE 1:    Who did that?

DUDE 2:    Did what?

DUDE 1:    The symbol clash thing. Du-du-tish!

DUDE 2:    No one.

DUDE 1:    But I heard it!

DUDE 2:    You must be hearing things.

DUDE 1:    No, I’m quite sure I heard it!

DUDE 2:    It must be in your head.

DUDE 1:    Well…

DUDE 2:    I bet you laugh at something just because a bunch of people around you are laughing.

Beat.

DUDE 1:    Whatever.

DUDE 2 gets up with his bags as he sees a bus to his far right. He goes upstage, but stops.

DUDE 2:    Stupid three-thirty-fours! (Sits back in his spot.) Man, I really need a cigarette!

DUDE 1:    Stop being such a crybaby!

DUDE 2:    No one’s talking to you!

DUDE 1:    (Looks at the audience) Oh, right.

Lights off.

Lights resume. WRITER is sitting on DUDE 1’s spot and scrawling in a little notebook.

WRITER:   (Writing) No … one’s … talking … to … you …

Oh … right. (Closes the book and looks up)

Okay, that’s all I can think of now. (Beat.) Man, I really need a cigarette!

Lights off.

Faithful to the text – The Godfather

By Imtiyala Jamir

Forty three years ago, The Godfather was released to movie audiences. Both Mario Puzo’s novel about the life of the Corleone family and the subsequent films directed by Francis Ford Coppola have been subject to much discussion. This is one such movie where many scenes, even lines of dialogue, are straight from the books. Certainly not all films that have been adapted from books have been good. However, the novel’s greatest achievement is perhaps the films that it spawned- films that have inspired direction, iconic performances, memorable music and dialogue that have become part of our vernacular. In this paper, it is my aim to explore the relationship between a novel and its movie adaptation through The Godfather and analyze how both are products of creative experiences.
When a film is made from a book it is called an adaptation. Film-makers for a very long time have made films based on novels, short stories, biographies and plays. Adaptations of books may vary from being very faithful to the book or loosely based on the book. There are three main reasons a film-maker might make major changes in adapting a literary work. One is simply the “changes demanded by a new medium and sometimes they make changes to highlight new themes, emphasize different traits in a character, or even try to solve the problems they perceive in the original work”. (Adaptation: From novel to film. 15, 16)
The story of The Godfather as depicted both in the Mario Puzo novel and in the films of the same name is multi- faceted. On the one hand is “the world of organized crime, the Mafia. A world where ties are strong, loyalties are somewhat flexible and tempers are short, a world of revenge, violence and distrust, and a world where the weak cannot survive”. (Richard Warren, The Godfather). On the other hand it is the story about family – the blood family one is born into and the one where you have to prove yourself to belong.  Varying degrees of power and control and the price paid to achieve success surrounds both of these.  This is the world we are introduced to, the world of Vito Corleone.
The differences between Mario Puzo’s novel and the film versions have to do mostly with character history where several of the peripheral characters in the films are given more attention in the novel. In some cases backgrounds are omitted from the films probably due to time constraints. The first character that comes to mind is Captain McCluskey. In the film version of The Godfather, McCluskey is simply a corrupt police captain, the death of whom, by Michael’s hand turns the tide of the story and forces Michael to fulfill his destiny. In the novel we learn of McCluskey’s upbringing and how it leads to his becoming a corrupt cop. A road to corruption that was paved by his father and grandfather who’d shown him that corruption was the way to make it out in the real world. It shows why the monetary price of law outweighed the need for order. To him order always came with the greasing of his palms. None of these details are included in The Godfather film.
Another major difference between the novel and the films comes by way of the attention paid to the character of Johnny Fontaine in the novel.  Though Fontaine plays a small role in Part I, the part he plays in Puzo’s book is more substantial.  Here we get an in-depth look into his relationships with young starlets, with his wives, with his daughters and details of the trials and tribulations he lives through related to his career.  In both versions, however, one scene stands out as key and in the film becomes as memorable a scene as ever appears on the big screen.  Though Fontaine is not in the scene, it is because he is the Don’s godson and has come to ask a favor of his godfather that the scene plays out.  This scene is the one where movie mogul, Jack Woltz, discovers the head of his beloved Khartoum in his bed.  In the film the scene opens with a glorious, peaceful morning in Hollywood.  The camera pans across the mogul’s majestic estate while birds chirp happily in the background.  Slowly, the camera ascends toward a small window and that music – possibly the greatest of theme songs – begins to play ever so softly as the camera continues to move upward.  Through the window we go and upon a slumbering Woltz we come.  In an overly ornate bed he lays on satin sheets, the music swells and the camera now follows him as he discovers blood.  He uncovers the head of the horse and the music dies leaving us in the midst of a gruesome sight and blood-curdling screams.  It is unforgettable.
An adaptation is always an interpretation, involving somebody’s personal views of the book and choices of elements to retain, reproduce, change or leave out.  A film is not just an illustrated version of the book.  It is a totally different medium. When adapting the novel, the filmmaker has to leave out a number of things for the very simple reason of time difference and because the medium is different. Things can be (and often must be) added to the film because the medium requires it, or because they will be more effective on the screen. The novelist on the other hand creates and describes everything that appears in the novel — the characters, the emotions of the characters, their actions, their thoughts, the plot, the costumes, the atmosphere, the environments, etc. The novel is also a visual medium, except that the author uses words to help the reader reconstruct the visual images in their head.
It would be a serious undertaking to note all that makes The Godfather a great film, a masterpiece, because so much of it is unforgettable.  It is simply a staggering film with so many great moments, performances and lines that one cannot mention them all.  The acting – it is phenomenal – each actor perfectly personifies the character he/she is playing.  Marlon Brando plays the title character with as much style and grace as he does his many other performances.  Playing a man much older than himself, a man in the twilight of his life, he commands the respect and honor naturally given to all leaders of men.  However, despite Brando’s great performance, one he won an Academy Award for, it is not the best in the film.  That honor has to go to Al Pacino whose portrayal of Michael Corleone, the Don’s youngest, and smartest son still stands as the best in his career.  Pacino’s gradual transition from a young, fresh-faced war hero to the tortured head of the most powerful crime family is nothing short of amazing  For instance, how his shoulders slump and his posture change throughout the film as the weight of the world falls upon him, is astounding.  Although it is clearly more visible in Part II, we can already tell that the Michael Corleone who is morphing into the next Don in front of our eyes is a different man than he is in Puzo’s novel.  Michael here is much more introverted, much more tortured by his decisions, which somehow make him more menacing.
The major difference between film and books is that visual images stimulate our perceptions directly, while written words can do this indirectly. During the casting process filmmakers can do a great service to a film by matching actors to the characters of an original book source so that at least that part of the visual realization is done prior to the beginning of filming.  It is also the other choices made by Francis Ford Coppola to bring this film to life that “make it his crowning achievement as a director”.  In this case “he is a director directing the film he was born to direct.  That crowning achievement is the look and feel of this film.”(Aurora, Novel to films)
Despite the growing popularity of adaptations, there are a lot of concerns and arguments against adaptations, and they’re not all for the same reasons. One such argument is that adaptations work against the uniqueness of film. Film is its own creative art form and using other works to adapt them to film stifles that creativity and prevents original work from being produced. This “growing popularity of adaptations not only dissolves the barrier between literature and film, but it creates a stigma that film is there to serve as another medium for which to display literature, rather than existing as its own separate entity capable of narrative merit”.(Adapting to adaptations. Web 16 February 2015)
But the disdain against adaptations doesn’t seem to stem simply from the viewpoint that adaptations shouldn’t be made at all, but rather, that they shouldn’t be made into film. “It does seem to be more or less acceptable to adapt Romeo and Juliet into a respected high art form, like an opera or a ballet, but not to make it into a movie” (Hutcheon, 3). So the concern is not that adapting will reduce the quality of the original work, but that it is actually the form or medium it is being translated to that matter. In this case, a film is thought to lower the original, causing the general disdain for adapting works of literature-particularly classics-into film. Director Alain Resnais once claimed he would never shoot an adaptation because “the writer [had] completely expressed himself in the novel and wanting to make a film of it is a little like re-heating a meal.”
Film and literature are two different roads that lead to the same goal. Often, they are intertwined; more than 50% of commercial movies are book adaptations. Sometimes you need the instant, intense catharsis a movie can provide you with; sometimes you want to create your own mental images and to immerse yourself in a world of words for a longer period of time. One medium doesn’t have to be ‘better’ than the other. Film and literature are interrelated yet independent art forms.

Works cited:
1.    Puzo, Mario. The Godfather. London: Arrow random house, 1991. Print
2.    The Godfather. Dir Francis Ford Coppola. Paramount pictures, 1972. Film
3.    Warren, Richard. The Godfather. n.d. Web. 20 August 2015
4.    Adaptation: from novel to film. 23 July 2009 Web. 20 August 2015
5.    Hutcheon, Linda. A theory of adaptation. New York: Routledge, 2006. Web 20 August 2015
6.    Adapting to adaptations. N.p  web 20 August 2015
7.    “Adaptation” def 2. Merriam-webster online. Merriam-webster , n.d. Web 20 august 2015
8.    Aurora, Novels to films-The Godfather, n.d Web 21 August 2015

Is home where my heart is?

By Diana Sushmitha

Battling through life’s constant struggles,
The pain and trauma it leaves behind,

Hindering not the family’s “bond”,

I feel a funeral in my brain.

 

As dawn breaks, the “door” of a place wide open into a space, 

Mother, startled, wakes to see the miseries set afresh before her; 

Scared, she wakes her daughter; 

through the open door, a silent battlefield is all they see.

 

Holding mamma’s hand I try to face the world around us, 

Why alone I wonder? 

Men brag, crave authority, yet are unseen in this “womenly” trap.

Struck with idealistic notions left unfulfilled,

Life, like a royally crumpled paper waits to be scribbled upon.

 

Why then does Mother need her Husband?

Merely to wait in silence to be objectified or

Be pushed to accept the life of torture that awaits her?

Everything remains a secret, silenced by men.

A hidden “noise” thumps my heart,

Perplexed, I fight our battle,

Not to prove to men, 

But merely with no choice left.

 

Detached from her homeland, trusting, aspiring, depending, 

Mother walked into a “heaven”.

Least did she know it was hell amidst a “heavenly” abode.

Yet she strived, failing forever and

Bore her “wound – less” state.

 

Hopes lost, she lived for her children.

Worthless she felt,

What else could a poor woman do?

Nobody knew her struggles, her silent fear nor her pain

All she could do was yield to fate and fight her battles “still”.

 

Unraveling challenges did not seem difficult anymore, 

With the ebb and flow of time any situation seems challengeable. 

But it is the mind that plays tricks of loneliness and anxiety,

Leaving us completely bewildered.

Relationships strike a war with the mind and emotions. 

merely silencing my outside world.

The mind works without ceasing, my real world seems completely ceased.

Can the mind be held without fear or the head held high? 

Oh! It makes me wonder if I could ever capture that sight!

From nature to where it’s all fabricated

By Swati Sinha

Expressions

      This is after realising the pleasant dominion of nature, recently after a trip to Rishikesh!

All my mind can do at present is remunerate on the single image of a beautiful, stupendous hill cliff swaddled by the milky moonlight, much like someone swaddling an infant in a white satin sheet…I recall myself sitting on one of the rocks on the river bank, goggling at the moon appearing from behind the cliff and all I want to do at present is go back to the same place repeatedly and feel the pacifying breeze penetrating through my soul, inevitably giving me a tranquillizing illusion of my flight in the open air where I encounter multiple happy, amiable creatures who give me a slight taste of the eternally beautiful nature. 

A very usual yet unusual trip that happened to me when I needed a change in life the most. When I…

View original post 531 more words

Rapunzel Reinvented

By Maitri Vasudev 

  
“‘Tut, tut, child!’ said the Duchess. Everything’s got a moral, if only you can find it.’” – Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.

In the essay ‘The Historical Model of the Development of Children’s Literature,’ Zohar Shavit argues that there is a universal structure in the development of children’s literature. Over centuries, he claims that there has been a consistency in the way reading material for children has been produced. He does not mean that the very same ideas about books for children have been carried forward over time, but that the system for the generation of popular works for children has been very consistent. Ever since the Puritans made the difference between books for children and adults, there has been a clash in what has been considered appropriate by institutions and those texts that children themselves enjoy reading. Institutions – first the Puritans and then the moralists – inculcated the former, their ethics, into the latter, the commercial formats, borrowing chapbook stories and instilling morals into them, so that they were enjoyable and instructive together. Fairytales were only narrated in chapbooks and were frowned upon until the moralists realised that combining them with significant lessons could further their cause.

As a retelling of the story of Rapunzel, Disney’s Tangled is a very interesting version indeed. Grimm’s account of the fairytale, which can be assumed to be the most popular one ever since it came out in 1812 as part of Children’s and Household Tales, has been overturned completely here. As opposed to Rapunzel being the daughter of a poor couple who is bribed away by Dame Gothel in exchange for just a plant that the mother craves during her pregnancy, the protagonist in the story is a princess; by birth, therefore, she is more empowered and more likely to be rescued than in the earlier one. Prince Charming, on the other hand, is replace by Eugene, a.k.a Flynn Rider, who is no royalty but a plain thief.

The first edition of Children’s and Household Tales was heavily criticised as being far too unsuitable for children – the idea of childhood was well into its construction by 1812. In the consequent editions, sexual references were removed so that Rapunzel, instead of asking the witch innocently why her dress was getting too tight (indicating that she is pregnant), asks her why it is easier for to pull the prince up the tower than it is to haul her, which gives the game away. Evil mothers in Snow White and Hansel and Gretel became stepmothers, and the Little Red Riding Hood turned into a cautionary tale about how straying from the path could prove unsafe. Punishments meted out to wrongdoers in the tale became very intense, making the Big Bad Wolf fall into a well and die and Dame Gothel remaining prisoner in her own tower for the rest of her life.

Can Tangled, then, be considered a children’s tale at all? It follows neither the religious brainwashing nor the unrelenting moral scheme of earlier institutions. It does not even tell of a prince that rescues a powerless girl (they aid help other, and there are several people that aid both of them, including the horse). The premise behind Rapunzel’s captivity is more complicated and comprehensive – it is not in mere trade for a medicinal plant that the evil woman takes the baby away but the magic golden hair that will keep her young if only she knows the song to sing to it. This also gives the length of her hair some credibility, which, if cut, loses its powers. It could be called a romantic comedy at best, with humour that is too complicated for children to understand.

On the surface, John Locke’s advice, in Some Thoughts Concerning Education, for keeping children constantly occupied at their business (he means books, but it could be taken as just keeping them occupied usefully) is followed thoroughly in the beginning, when Rapunzel makes sure that she has something to do all the time: cook, clean, paint, read and, finally, brush her impossibly long hair. However, the whole narrative is about how abandoning her work to fulfil her dream of seeing the floating lights, rebelling against the safety and protection that her mother has supposedly sheltered her in, leads her to her true parents, whom she was taken away from at the beginning of her life. All of John Locke’s principles of keeping children occupied at their fancy if they refuse to do their work, so that they tire of it and simply return to their books as a respite, is followed by the Mother Gothel in the hope that Rapunzel return to her and acknowledge that “Mother knows best,” but it does not work. Her plan to let the girl keep going, yet sabotage her relationship with Eugene, backfires when the protagonist finds out that it was from her that she should have stayed away, not the rest of the world. Locke, in all likelihood, would not have considered this worthy of a story for children.

A generic continuum, however, as M O Grenby puts it in his book Children’s Literature, is very obvious in this case with the older versions of the fairytale. Grenby points out in his introduction that no book that is meant for children can ever be completely original in itself (this is nothing new, as it could be said of nearly all literature ever written). His point, though, is that these continuities in genre prevail over differences in style and content. “In each intervening generation the formula has been modified in many new ways,” he says, so much so that the child that watches Tangled enthralled in 2015 would certainly find the Grimms’ Rapunzel dull or even ridiculous. Yet, several details have been carried over: the mother is healed by a plant in her pregnancy, a handsome man helps the girl out of her confinement and, most importantly, the power of healing in her tears brings Eugene back to life as it cures the prince of blindness in the earlier version.

The film definitely does not conform to the idea of children’s narratives that either the Puritans or the moralists followed, but Tangled actually verifies Shavit’s claim that the form that is enjoyed by children is eventually institutionalised; what is underground comes to light and takes over, thus contributing to dominant ideology. Disney uses animation, which is the most predominant form of telling a children’s story on screen, along with a well-known fairytale to make ideas that are creeping from the periphery up to the centre more accessible to children. The heroine is no longer a helpless girl singing in a tower, waiting for her Prince Charming to rescue her. Instead, she is a bright, young woman, very capable of knocking a man out and holding him captive in her cupboard, and then striking a bargain with him to take her to see the lights. Knowing fully well that he is going to die if he does so, he cuts off her hair in order to save her, so that she can be free, even without him, thus rendering the idea that a woman is incomplete without a man null and void. Finally, she is the princess, he is the thief; it is he who is empowered by their marriage, not her.

Tangled is, in conclusion, an anecdote for children that uses ideas in the process of entering hegemonic discourse in a form that has already been accepted by its audience. The story has a moral, just as the earlier versions do, as Mother Gothel – the wicked witch – perishes in the end. Yet, the notion that didacticism is no longer necessary is slowly becoming popular in young parents and teachers, and so Flynn Rider, who is a burglar, ends up a prince, a standing he would certainly not deserve according to Locke. Children’s Literature is constantly being redefined, and this movie has undeniably facilitated its passage.