Structuralism

Tuesday, 09 - 01 - 2020
Structuralism 

Hello Reader...

Welcome to all Reader on my blogspot. Today I present this blog with the example of movie, novel, poem and etc. things. Our Professor Dr. Dilip Barad sir giving that type of blog task for new learning methods and peoples use this method in his or her learning. So he try to do this and one day he is successful in his this mission and students and parents both are being learner in this method. So people use those things and gaine knowledge. This new learner method is so much use full for alla and everyone join this and also write and the excess anywhere for learning things.

Today's my blog about the Structuralism. Click here for Dr.Dilipsir's blogspot. This method use for looking things.

What is Structuralism?
According to me Structuralism means connection between words and emotions, hints and signs.

# According to dictionary :
A method of interpretation and analysis of aspects of human cognition, behaviour, culture, and experience, which focuses on relationships of contrast between elements in a conceptual system.

• The doctrine that structure is more important than function.

# Definition
Structuralism as a method is peculiarly imitable to literary criticism which is a discourse upon a discourse.

• Firstly, he emphasize that the meanings we give to words are purely arbitrary and these meaning are maintained by convention only. There is no inherent connection between a word and what it designates. Structuralist were interested in implication that if language as a sign says is based on arbitrariness of this kind then it follows that language isn't a reflection of the world and of experience but a says which stands quite separate frame it.
i.e,
Sign - Signifier - Signified
Dog : Image of 4 legs animal, pets animal, and also faithful to human. And help to other.

• Secondly, He emphasized that the meanings of words are relational. i.e, no words can be define in isolation form other words. All the meanings depends on other 'adjoining' words. i.e. Train on 8.25 Bhavngar to Surendranagar. And we show one other example in gujarati is " on bus station = 'છ ની બસ ગઈ?".

Thirdly, language 'constructs' our world - it does not just record or label it. Meaning is always attributed to the object or idea by the human mind, and constructed by and expressed within the things.
i.e. freedom fighters = terrorist.
                           Sign. = Mental horizon.


It has been said that there are three vision of every story.
1. Your vision
2. My vision and ,
3. The Truth.
But the case here is more complicated than that, since all the available terms are purely linguistic. There is no Truth..... Outside of the language.

# Important concepts in Genette's narratology.

Genette's narratology is derived from Narrative Discourse; An Essay in Method. Below are the five main concepts used by Genette in Narrative Discourse; An Essay in Method. They are often used to look at the syntax of narratives, rather than to perform an interpretation of them.

1. Order
2. Frequency 
3. Duration
4. Voice
5. Mood

I try to apply all this methods in the movie 3 Idiots movie. This story about three Idiots who is living there life with full of problems and they survive with joy and happiness. This story narrate by Farhan (R. Madhavan) and he have best friends is Raju ( Sharman Joshi) and Rancho ( Aamir Khan). R. Madhavan narrate this story. 

In this story starting with the ending scene. The order of the story is

Northrop Frye

Northrop Frye's essay The Architype of literature.
Sunday, 06 - 01 - 2020.

Hello Reader...

Today I'm present one more Blog on Northrop Frye. This blog task given by our professor Dilip Barad sir about Northrop Frye's essay on The Architype of Literature.
In literary criticism the term Archetypes denotes recurrent narratives designs, patterns of action, character types, themes, and images which are identifiable in a wide variety of works of literature.

Herman Northrop Frye (July 14, 1912 – January 23, 1991) was a Canadian literary critic and literary theorist, considered one of the most influential of the 20th century.
Frye rose to international prominence as a result of his first book, Fearful Symmetry, published in 1947. Until then, the prophetic poetry of William Blake had long been poorly understood, and considered by some to be delusional ramblings. Frye found in it a system of metaphor derived from Paradise Lost and the Bible.
In 1974–1975 Frye was the Norton professor at Harvard University. But his primary position was as a professor at the University of Toronto, and then chancellor of Victoria College in the University of Toronto.Northrop Frye did not have a Ph.D.
The intelligence service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police spied on Frye, watching his participation in the anti-Vietnam War movement, an academic forum about China, and activism to end South African apartheid.

Question - 1 : 

What is Archetypal Criticism?  What does the archetypal critic do? 


Archetypal criticism as it applies to literature is a form of criticism "that interprets a text by focusing on recurring myths and archetypes."
It was most popular during the 50's and 60's; this would have been the later part of Jung's lifetime. His work, along with other psychologist and philosophers created the ideas behind archetypal criticism.Rather than looking at the other aspects of the literary work itself, this type of criticism focuses on just the archetypes present.

However, you asked specifically about Carl Jung who was a psychologist. In this case, archetypes are usually referring to a specific behavior exhibited by a certain type of person rather than a literary example. Archetypal criticism isn't often used as a form of literary criticism now days.

Archetypes are "an original model of a person, ideal example, or a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated." With regards to literature, this usually refers to ancient models like those from myths.He interprets literature in the light of various rituals and myths. Frye has divided  the easy into three parts. 

• The First deals with the concept of archetypal criticism. 

• The second of part throws light on the inductive method of analysis of a text. 


• The third part focuses on the deductive method of analysis. All the method fall under  structural criticism.


Question - 2 :
what is Frye trying prove by giving an analogy of 'physics to nature ' and 'Criticism to literature? 

Criticism so far ranks only as a subdivision of literature; and hence, for the systematic mental organization of the subject, the student has to turn to the conceptual framework of the historian for events, and to that of the philosopher for ideas. Even the more centrally placed critical sciences, such as textual editing, seem to be part of a “‘background” that recedes into history or some other non-literary field. The thought suggests itself that the ancillary critical disciplines may be related to a central expanding pattern of systematic comprehension which has not yet been established, but which, if it were established, would prevent them from being centrifugal. If such a pattern exists, then criticism would be to art what philosophy is to wisdom and history to action.

Q - 3 : Share your views of criticism as an organized body of knowledge. Mention relation of literature with history and philosophy. 

Every organized body of knowledge can be learned progressively; and experience shows that there is also something progressive about the learning of literature. Physics is an organized body of knowledge about nature, and a student of it says that he is learning physics, not that he is learning nature. Art, like nature, is the subject of a systematic study, and has to be distinguished from the study itself, which is criticism. It is therefore impossible to “learn literature”: one learns about it in a certain way, but what one learns, transitively, is the criticism of literature.

Question - 4 : 
Briefly explain inductive method with illustration of Shakespeare's  Hamlet Grave Digger's scenes. 

Hamlet is the great novel written by Shakespeare. Frye's concept is good to understand this book and also his method is also best fo understanding this book very deeply. Inductive method was mostly used by writer. Both method are best understand with this book. In this method specifies a journey from specific to general. Hamlet is the great book is full of sad emotions, unfaithfulness and etc. In the grave digging scene in Hamlet is a specifics scene, we made the general conclusion like, grave digger scene is centrifugal which moves us away from center. In this scene Grave Digging was effected by the death of others. It is manifestation of the absolute integrity of gravedigger. They have romanticized relationship with their jobs. We came to general observation that the corruption in society. They introduced different skull with person and their works.



https://sejalnsolanki.blogspot.com/2020/01/literature-and-religion.html?m=1

Literature and Religion

Literature and Religion
Sunday, 05 - January - 2020

Hello Reader....

Today I'm sharing one more Blog with you. My today's topic is Religion and Literature. Literature gives us many things and give values and liberation. But Religion not give that type of liberation and Bondage us.

The English word ' religion ' is beloved to have been derived from the Latin root ' ligare ' which means " bind , connect " etc. It is prefixed by ' re ' meaning ' again '. Thus the world ' religion ' means ' to reconnect'. This Latin word ' religio ' means ' reverence for God, careful pondering of divine things ' etc. Thus the word religion means that which connects us to God and the practices related to divine things. 

As we know at our birth time we belong to the Religion of our parents. At home we learn the daily practices, prayers and methods of worship from our parents and elders. As we grow older we come to know about other religions as well from our friends, teachers and other sources. In a country like ours, where there is diversity of Culture, languages and religions, it is necessary for us to learn about other religions. For a peaceful co-existence and other growth of our nation we all should learn to respect the religious beliefs of others. 

Sach one's argument is justified, because each one is speaking from his own experience. But he should know that others are also speaking from their experience and their arguments are also justified. The different religions are like these different ways of communicating with god. Every Religion has its own unique way of helping people 'talk' or 'relate' to God. 

Each of of the paths may have it's its own uniqueness. Also those who took each of the ways many argue tha his way the best. But what did he know about other ways? Each path is unique, but it does not mean that the other path taken by another traveller is wrong. This different paths are the different religions.

If you want to communicate with your friends, there are different methods. You can talk in person, write a letter, send a SMS, chat online etc. Each of these methods may have its own advantage and disadvantages, but they all serve the purpose of communicating with your friends. Each one may feel that his method is the best but objectively each one is the best, good and unique. 

The relation of criticism to religion, when they deal with the same documents, is more complicated. In criticism, as in history, the divine is always treated as a human artifact. It is at this point that we can see how religious conceptions of the final cause of human effort are as relevant as any others to criticism.

God for the critic, whether he finds him in Paradise Lost or the Bible, is a character in a human story; and for the critic all epiphanies are explained, not in terms of the riddle of a possessing god or devil, but as mental phenomena closely associated in their origin with dreams. We have identified the central myth of literature, in its narrative aspect, with the quest-myth. Now if we wish to see this central myth as a pattern of meaning also, we have to start with the workings of the subconscious where the epiphany originates, in other words in the dream.

This once established, it is then necessary to say that nothing in criticism or art compels the critic to take the attitude of ordinary waking consciousness towards the dream or the god. Art deals not with the real but with the conceivable; and criticism, though it will eventually have to have some theory of conceivability, can never be justified in trying to develop, much less assume, any theory of actuality. It is necessary to understand this before our next and final point can be made.

The human cycle of waking and dreaming corresponds closely to the natural cycle of light and darkness, and it is perhaps in this correspondence that all imaginative life begins. The correspondence is largely an antithesis: it is in daylight that man is really in the power of darkness, a prey to frustration and weakness; it is in the darkness of nature that the “libido” or conquering heroic self awakes. Hence art, which Plato called a dream for awakened minds, seems to have as its final cause the resolution of the antithesis, the mingling of the sun and the hero, the realizing of a world in which the inner desire and the outward circumstance coincide. 

This is the same goal, of course, that the attempt to combine human and natural power in ritual has. The social function of the arts, therefore, seems to be closely connected with visualizing the goal of work in human life. So in terms of significance, the central myth of art must be the vision of the end of social effort, the innocent world of fulfilled desires, the free human society. Once this is understood, the integral place of criticism among the other social sciences, in interpreting and systematizing the vision of the artist, will be easier to see.

In last , summarising this God is just thing not anything. People just believe in that power. But many people are not believing in that and they believe on his or her own. And Literature helps for understanding of this unbelievable things. People things that this divine helps us in everything , so they believe but some are not believing in that because they learn and they believe on his own and also on knowledge of Literature and those people question this divine.