Othello

Othello




                                                    

           Othello (The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice) is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written in 1603. It is based on the story Un Capitano Moro ("A Moorish Captain") by Cinthio (a disciple of Boccaccio's), first published in 1565.[2] The story revolves around its two central characters: Othello, a Moorish general in the Venetian army, and his treacherous ensign, Iago. Given its varied and enduring themes of racism, love, jealousy, betrayal, revenge, and repentance, Othello is still often performed in professional and community theatre alike, and has been the source for numerous operatic, film, and literary adaptations.

Act I

oderigo, a wealthy and dissolute gentleman, complains to his friend Iago, an ensign, that Iago has not told Rhim about the secret marriage between Desdemona, the daughter of a senator named Brabantio, and Othello, a Moorish general in the Venetian army. Roderigo is upset because he loves Desdemona and had asked her father, Brabantio, for her hand in marriage.

Iago hates Othello for promoting a younger man named Cassio above him, whom Iago considers a less capable soldier than himself, and tells Roderigo that he plans to exploit Othello for his own advantage. Iago convinces Roderigo to wake Brabantio and tell him about his daughter's elopement. Meanwhile, Iago sneaks away to find Othello and warns him that Brabantio is coming for him.

Brabantio, provoked by Roderigo, is enraged and will not rest until he has confronted Othello, but he finds Othello's residence full of the Duke of Venice's guards, who prevent violence. News has arrived in Venice that the Turks are going to attack Cyprus, and Othello is therefore summoned to advise the senators. Brabantio has no option but to accompany Othello to the Duke's residence, where he accuses Othello of seducing Desdemona by witchcraft.

Othello defends himself before the Duke of Venice, Brabantio's kinsmen Lodovico and Gratiano, and various senators. Othello explains that Desdemona became enamoured of him for the sad and compelling stories he told of his life before Venice, not because of any witchcraft. The senate is satisfied, once Desdemona confirms that she loves Othello, but Brabantio leaves saying that Desdemona will betray Othello: "Look to her, Moor, if thou hast eyes to see:/She has deceived her father, and may thee," (Act I, Sc 3). Iago, still in the room, takes note of Brabantio's remark. By order of the Duke, Othello leaves Venice to command the Venetian armies against invading Turks on the island of Cyprus, accompanied by his new wife, his new lieutenant Cassio, his ensign Iago, and Iago's wife, Emilia, as Desdemona's attendant.

Act II

The party arrives in Cyprus to find that a storm has destroyed the Turkish fleet. Othello orders a general celebration and leaves to consummate his marriage with Desdemona. In his absence, Iago gets Cassio drunk, and then persuades Roderigo to draw Cassio into a fight. Montano tries to calm down an angry and drunk Cassio and this leads to them fighting one another. Montano is injured in the fight. Othello reenters and questions the men as to what happened. Othello blames Cassio for the disturbance and strips him of his rank. Cassio is distraught. Iago persuades Cassio to ask Desdemona to convince her husband to reinstate him.

Act III

Iago now persuades Othello to be suspicious of Cassio and Desdemona. When Desdemona drops a handkerchief (the first gift given to her by Othello), Emilia finds it, and gives it to her husband Iago, at his request, unaware of what he plans to do with it. Othello reenters and vows with Iago for the death of Desdemona and Cassio, after which he makes Iago his lieutenant. Act III, scene iii is considered to be the turning point of the play as it is the scene in which Iago successfully sows the seeds of doubt in Othello's mind, inevitably sealing Othello's fate.

Act IV

Iago plants the handkerchief in Cassio's lodgings, then tells Othello to watch Cassio's reactions while Iago questions him. Iago goads Cassio on to talk about his affair with Bianca, a local courtesan, but whispers her name so quietly that Othello believes the two men are talking about Desdemona. Later, Bianca accuses Cassio of giving her a second-hand gift which he had received from another lover. Othello sees this, and Iago convinces him that Cassio received the handkerchief from Desdemona.

Enraged and hurt, Othello resolves to kill his wife and tells Iago to kill Cassio. Othello proceeds to make Desdemona's life miserable and strikes her in front of visiting Venetian nobles. Meanwhile, Roderigo complains that he has received no results from Iago in return for his money and efforts to win Desdemona, but Iago convinces him to kill Cassio.

Roderigo, having been manipulated by Iago, attacks Cassio in the street after Cassio leaves Bianca's lodgings. Cassio wounds Roderigo. During the scuffle, Iago comes from behind Cassio and badly cuts his leg. In the darkness, Iago manages to hide his identity, and when Lodovico and Gratiano hear Cassio's cries for help, Iago joins them. When Cassio identifies Roderigo as one of his attackers, Iago secretly stabs Roderigo to stop him revealing the plot. Iago then accuses Bianca of the failed conspiracy to kill Cassio.

Othello confronts Desdemona, and then strangles her in their bed. When Emilia arrives, Desdemona defends her husband before dying, and Othello accuses Desdemona of adultery. Emilia calls for help. The former governor Montano arrives, with Gratiano and Iago. When Othello mentions the handkerchief as proof, Emilia realizes what her husband Iago has done, and she exposes him, whereupon he kills her. Othello, belatedly realising Desdemona's innocence, stabs Iago but not fatally, saying that Iago is a devil, and he would rather have him live the rest of his life in pain.

Iago refuses to explain his motives, vowing to remain silent from that moment on. Lodovico apprehends both Iago and Othello for the murders of Roderigo, Emilia, and Desdemona, but Othello commits suicide. Lodovico appoints Cassio as Othello's successor and exhorts him to punish Iago justly. He then denounces Iago for his actions and leaves to tell the others what has happened.

All My Sons

                                                 

           

         Arthur Asher Miller  was an American playwright, essayist, and a controversial figure in the twentieth-century American theater. Among his most popular plays are All My Sons (1947), Death of a Salesman (1949), The Crucible (1953) and A View from the Bridge (1955, revised 1956). He wrote several screenplays and was most noted for his work on The Misfits (1961). The drama Death of a Salesman has been numbered on the short list of finest American plays in the 20th century.( wiki]

           Miller was often in the public eye, particularly during the late 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s. During this time, he was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for Drama, testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee and was married to Marilyn Monroe. In 1980, Miller received the St. Louis Literary Award from the Saint Louis University Library Associates.[1][2] He received the Prince of Asturias Award, the Praemium Imperiale prize in 2002 and the Jerusalem Prize in 2003,[3] as well as the Dorothy and Lillian Gish Prize in 1999.( wiki]

          All My Sons is a 1947 play by Arthur Miller.[1] It opened on Broadway at the Coronet Theatre in New York City on January 29, 1947, closed on November 8, 1949, and ran for 328 performances.[2] It was directed by Elia Kazan (to whom it is dedicated), produced by Elia Kazan and Harold Clurman, and won the New York Drama Critics' Circle Award. It starred Ed Begley, Beth Merrill, Arthur Kennedy, and Karl Malden and won both the Tony Award for Best Author and the Tony Award for Best Direction of a Play. The play was adapted for films in 1948 and 1987.(wiki]

Miller wrote All My Sons after his first play The Man Who Had All the Luck failed on Broadway, lasting only four performances. Miller wrote All My Sons as a final attempt at writing a commercially successful play; he vowed to "find some other line of work"[1] if the play did not find an audience.

All My Sons is based upon a true story, which Arthur Miller's then-mother-in-law pointed out in an Ohio newspaper.[3] The news story described how in 1941–43 the Wright Aeronautical Corporation based in Ohio had conspired with army inspection officers to approve defective aircraft engines destined for military use.[3][4] The story of defective engines had reached investigators working for Sen. Harry Truman's congressional investigative board after several Wright aircraft assembly workers informed on the company; they would later testify under oath before Congress.[3][4] In 1944, three Army Air Force officers, Lt. Col. Frank C. Greulich, Major Walter A. Ryan, and Major William Bruckmann were relieved of duty and later convicted of neglect of duty.[5][6][7]

Henrik Ibsen's influence on Miller is evidenced from the Ibsen play The Wild Duck, from where Miller took the idea of two partners in a business where one is forced to take moral and legal responsibility for the other. This is mirrored in All My Sons. He also borrowed the idea of a character's idealism being the source of a problem.[8]

The criticism of the American Dream, which lies at the heart of All My Sons, was one reason why Arthur Miller was called to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee during the 1950s, when America was gripped by anti-communist sentiment. Miller sent a copy of the play to Elia Kazan who directed the original stage version of All My Sons. Kazan was a former member of the Communist Party who shared Miller's left-wing views. However, their relationship was destroyed when Kazan gave names of suspected Communists to the House Un-American Activities Committee during the Red Scare.[1][9]

Characters

Joe Keller — Joe, 60, was exonerated after being charged with knowingly shipping defective aircraft engine cylinder heads (for Curtiss P-40 Warhawks) from his factory to the military during World War II, causing the deaths of 21 pilots. For over three years he has placed the blame on his partner and former neighbor, Steve Deever, although he himself committed the crime. When the truth comes out, Joe justifies his actions by claiming that he did it for his family.

Kate Keller (Mother) — Kate, 50, knows that Joe is guilty but lives in denial while mourning for her older son Larry, who has been "missing in action" for three years. She refuses to believe that Larry is dead and maintains that Ann Deever — who returns for a visit at the request of Larry's brother Chris — is still "Larry's girl" and also believes that he is coming back.

Chris Keller — Chris, 32, returned home from World War II two years before the play begins, disturbed by the realization that the world was continuing as if nothing had happened. He has summoned Ann Deever to the Keller house in order to ask her hand in marriage, but they're faced with the obstacle of Kate's unreasonable conviction that Larry will someday return. Chris idolizes his father, not knowing initially what he has done.

Ann Deever — Ann, 26, arrives at the Keller home having shunned her "guilty" father since his imprisonment. Throughout the play, Ann is often referred to as pretty, beautiful, and intelligent-looking and as "Annie". She had a relationship with Larry Keller before his disappearance and has since moved on because she knows the truth of his fate. She hopes that the Kellers will consent to her marriage to Larry's brother, Chris, with whom she has corresponded by mail for two years. Ann is the truth-bearer in the play.

George Deever — George, 31, is Ann's older brother: a successful New York lawyer, WWII veteran, and a childhood friend of Chris's. He initially believed in his father's guilt, but upon visiting Steve in jail, realizes his innocence and becomes enraged at the Kellers for deceiving him. He returns to save his sister from her marriage to Chris, creating the catalyzing final events.

Dr. Jim Bayliss — Jim, 40, is a successful doctor, but is frustrated with the stifling domesticity of his life. He wants to become a medical researcher, but continues in his job as it pays the bills. He is a close friend to the Keller family and spends a lot of time in their backyard.

Sue Bayliss — Sue, 40, is Jim's wife: needling and dangerous, but affectionate. She too is a friend of the Keller family, but is secretly resentful of what she sees as Chris's bad idealistic influence on Jim. Sue confronts Ann about her resentment of Chris in a particularly volatile scene.

Frank Lubey — Frank, 33, was always one year ahead of the draft, so he never served in World War II, instead staying home to marry George's former sweetheart, Lydia. He draws up Larry's horoscope and tells Kate that Larry must still be alive, because the day he died was meant to be his "favorable day". This strengthens Kate's faith and makes it much harder for Ann to move on.

Lydia Lubey — Lydia, 27, was George's love interest before the war; after he went away, she married Frank and they soon had three children. She is a model of peaceful domesticity and lends a much-needed cheerful air to several moments of the play.

Bert — Bert, 8, is a little boy who lives in the neighborhood; he is friends with the Bayliss' son Tommy and frequently visits the Kellers' yard to play "jail" with Joe. He appears only twice in the play: the first time, his part seems relatively unimportant, but the second time his character is more important as he sparks a verbal attack from mother when mentioning "jail," which highlights Joe's secret.

Unseen characters

Larry Keller —Larry has been MIA for some years at the start of the play. However, he has a significant effect on the play through his mother's insistence that he is still alive and his brother's love for Larry's childhood sweetheart, Ann. Comparisons are also made in the story between Larry and Chris; in particular, their father describes Larry as the more sensible one with a "head for business".

Steve Deever — George and Ann's father. Steve is sent to prison for shipping faulty aircraft parts—a crime that not only he but also the exonerated Keller committed.

Act I

The play starts in the middle of the action, abruptly. In August 1947, Joe Keller, a self-made businessman, and his wife Kate are visited by a neighbor, Frank. At Kate's request, Frank is trying to figure out the horoscope of the Kellers' missing son Larry, who disappeared three years earlier while serving in the military during World War II. There has been a storm and the tree planted in Larry's honor has blown down during the month of his death, making it seem that Larry is still alive. While Kate still believes Larry is coming back, the Kellers' other son, Chris, believes differently. Furthermore, Chris wishes to propose to Ann Deever, who was Larry's girlfriend at the time he went missing and who has been corresponding with Chris for two years. Joe and Kate react to this news with shock but are interrupted by Bert, the boy next door. He tattles to Joe and wants to see the "jail". In a game, Bert brings up the word "jail", making Kate react sharply. When Ann arrives, it is revealed that her father, Steve Deever, is in prison for selling cracked cylinder heads to the Air Force, causing the deaths of twenty-one pilots. Joe was his partner but was exonerated of the crime. Ann admits that neither she nor her brother keep in touch with their father anymore and wonders aloud whether a faulty engine was responsible for Larry's death. After a heated argument, Chris breaks in and later proposes to Ann, who accepts. Chris also reveals that while leading a company he lost all his men and is experiencing survivor's guilt. Meanwhile, Joe receives a phone call from George, Ann's brother, who is coming there to settle something.

Act II

Although Chris and Ann have become engaged, Chris avoids telling his mother. Their next door neighbor Sue emerges, revealing that everyone on the block thinks Joe is equally guilty of the crime of supplying faulty aircraft engines. Shortly afterwards, George Deever arrives and reveals that he has just visited the prison to see his father Steve. The latter has confirmed that Joe told him by phone to "weld up and paint over" the cracked cylinders and to send them out, and later gave a false promise to Steve that he would account for the shipment on the day of arrest. George insists his sister Ann cannot marry Chris Keller, son of the man who destroyed the Deevers. Meanwhile, Frank reveals his horoscope, implying that Larry is alive, which is just what Kate wants to hear. Joe maintains that on the fateful day of dispatch, the flu laid him up, but Kate says that Joe has not been sick in fifteen years. Despite George's protests, Ann sends him away.

When Kate claims to Chris (who is still intent on marrying Ann) that moving on from Larry will be forsaking Joe as a murderer, Chris concludes that George was right. Joe, out of excuses, explains that he sent out the cracked airheads to avoid closure of the business, intending to notify the base later that they needed repairs. However, when the fleet crashed and made headlines, he lied to Steve and abandoned him at the factory to be arrested. Chris cannot accept this explanation, and exclaims in despair that he is torn about what to do about his father now.

Act III

Chris has left home. Reluctantly accepting the accusations against her husband, Kate says that, should Chris return, Joe must express willingness to go to prison in the hope that Chris will relent. As he only sought to make money at the insistence of his family, Joe is adamant that their relationship is above the law. Soon after, Ann emerges and expresses her intention to leave with Chris regardless of Kate's disdain. When Kate angrily refuses again, Ann reveals to Kate a letter from Larry. She had not wanted to share it, but knows that Kate must face reality. Chris returns, and is torn about whether to turn Joe in to the authorities, knowing it doesn't erase the death of his fellow soldiers or absolve the world of its natural merciless state.

When Joe returns and excuses his guilt on account of his life's accomplishments, his son wearily responds, "I know you're no worse than other men, but I thought you were better. I never saw you as a man ... I saw you as my father." Finally, the letter, read by Chris, reveals that because of his father's guilt, Larry planned to commit suicide. With this final blow, Joe finally agrees to turn himself in, saying of Larry, "Sure, he was my son. But I think to him they were all my sons. And I guess they were, I guess they were". Joe goes inside to get his coat, and kills himself with a gunshot off stage. At the end, when Chris expresses remorse in spite of his resolve, Kate tells him not to blame himself and to move on with his life

Harry Potter Thinking activity and Web-quest

This blog is a part of thinking activity given by our Professor

                                     

            Harry Potter is a series of fantasy novels written by British author J. K. Rowling. The novels chronicle the lives of a young wizard, Harry Potter, and his friends Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The main story arc concerns Harry's struggle against Lord Voldemort, a dark wizard who intends to become immortal, overthrow the wizard governing body known as the Ministry of Magic, and subjugate all wizards and Muggles. Sir has told us to make two tables,

Table 1

Table 2

Rubric 

About Author 

J K Rowling

                            

Joanne Rowling CH, OBE, HonFRSE, FRCPE, FRSL (/ˈroʊlɪŋ/ "rolling";[1] born 31 July 1965), better known by her pen name J. K. Rowling, is a British author, film producer, television producer, screenwriter, and philanthropist. She is best known for writing the Harry Potter fantasy series, which has won multiple awards and sold more than 500 million copies,[2][3] becoming the best-selling book series in history.[4] The books are the basis of a popular film series, over which Rowling had overall approval on the scripts[5] and was a producer on the final films.[6] She also writes crime fiction under the name Robert Galbraith.


Born in Yate, Gloucestershire, Rowling was working as a researcher and bilingual secretary for Amnesty International when she conceived the idea for the Harry Potter series while on a delayed train from Manchester to London in 1990.[7] The seven-year period that followed saw the death of her mother, birth of her first child, divorce from her first husband, and relative poverty until the first novel in the series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, was published in 1997. There were six sequels, of which the last, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, was released in 2007. Since then, Rowling has written five books for adult readers: The Casual Vacancy (2012) and—under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith—the crime fiction Cormoran Strike series, which consists of The Cuckoo's Calling (2013), The Silkworm (2014), Career of Evil (2015), and Lethal White (2018)( wiki souece.]

1) Feminist reading of Harmione’s character in Harry Potter:


Harmione as courageous and strong character , an integral part of ' The trio ' . Hermione's greatest strength is a vast intellect combined with her magical ability. She portrayed as an emotional character , Harry not means it is boycentric narration here. Sometimes Hermione self- conscious about physical appearance , that can be seen as feminist reading. That women cares for it much not men. She also feel jealous when Ron dating anyone. Sometimes common patriarchal gender roles have been reversed and Hermione is given the power to take control of the situation, while harry just follows her. McGonagall holds powerful position in Hogwarts against professor . Tom Riddle uses Ginny for power , Rowling criticising the immorality of society where men feel free to victimize women. nowadays fight against patriarchy in real world for own identities and empowerment.



2) Theme of Choice and Chance in Harry Potter series


“It is our choice, that show what we truly are, for more than our abilities” says Dumbledore. By and large Harry Potter series has been worked on idea of choice or better to say it has emphasised on choice. We can see that from the very beginning, from sorting hat to the Harry going in to the forest. The choice is the one which matters. There are phases where chance work more than choice, but choice is the one who dominate the narrative.


3) Discourse on the purity of Blood and Harry Potter

Pure blood, Half blood and Mud blood, these are the terms which are used in the Harry Potter books. These terms are to discriminate people, and also to show power of related to blood. Every where there is concept of superior and inferior, the base might differ. Here the base is blood. People in Harry Potter series used to think that those who have belongingness to pure blood family, have more talent and those who doesn’t belongs don’t have talent. But here making hero Half blood and Hermione, Mud blood, J. K. Rowling is showing very clearly her stance. So it proves that talent can not be inherited, it should be acquired. Secondly pure blood don’t give certificate of goodness in person. We can clearly see that Malfoys who belongs to Pure blood family are in the favour of Voldemort and Harry who is Half blood and Hermione who is Mud blood they are fighting against the evil. So everything does not come with blood.


4) Moral and Philosophical reading of Harry Potter


The notion that both children and adults are influenced by what they read has definitely inspired interest in the moral universe of Harry Potter. Fantasy literature is inherently concerned with morals because it concretizes, personifie abstract ideas such as love and evil. Similarly, in Children‟s literature morals are traditionally a practical concern because morality is viewed in the context of molding citizens. Rowling’s Harry Potter series in some ways is filling the need for moral education of today’s youth. The series’ run-away success cannot simply be attributed to her use of magical wands and interesting characters. Rowling created a fantastical world in her Harry Potter series, complete with locations, history, and cultural nuances. She gave depth to that world by having her characters face issues that people today struggle with.


5) Confronting reality by reading fantasy :


The fantasy stories such like Harry Potter can be seen as unrealistic in their setting but the message depicted can be translate into everyday life and reality. The wizard world introduced in the fiction seems very much like the human world and their ways of living. Like human community wizard's community has ministry of magic whose main duty is to control the affairs in the world of wizards. They also have Newspapers , railway station, shops , market and school.They are using Owls for deliver any Messages. Wizard world is not using computers and technology though they have their own means of communication. Like human world they also following rules and regulations. The atmosphere of fantasy collaborates with the reality. Rowling has created a medical world which is touches the reality. Through the concept of Purity of Blood social reality the racial discrimination reflects in the novel. Wizard world also seems as real because it follows the cosmic changes and cycle of season like real world. So the fiction portrayed many things like exploitation of good by the bad , poor by rich and weak by powerful. Through the fiction it shows jealousy, exploitation, power which are very humanistic. In other words Rowling is pointing out the real life issues and concerns through the fiction


6) Power Politics in Harry Potter

Whole Harry Potter series has the dynamics of power politics. Questioning authority is base of good democracy, but when power is not ready for criticism or in the name of reformation when power controls and separate people then they don’t accepts questions as something good, but rather they take it as disloyalty towards the authority. This started happening in Hogwarts also when government started interfering the education. Education is base of people. They learn to ask question when they are educating themselves. But when people from Ministry of Magic has become professor in school the atmosphere has started changing. Umbridge is a member of Ministry of Magic, she came in to education. Very first thing which she did was she started giving punishment for asking questions and started separating those who asks question. When fellow teachers ask her anything she accuse them of being disloyal to the authority. She has taken all the freedom of students. There are more restriction on students in the name of discipline. Whole Hogwarts has changed because of her large list of rules and strict application of those rules. This is how they have controlled the resistance.


7) Self Help culture and Harry Potter

Harry Potter has given many lessons which can make these books as self help books. For instance, finding happiness in dark times, doing duty honestly even if people don’t like you, recognize friend in disguise, loyalty, sacrifice, friendship, persistency, these all are the topics which can be taken as self help. But there is something more than this which make this books different from others self help cultured books. Those books asks to find reason of failure in one’s own self. It sooths the political agenda of government, who tells people that there is something lacking in you and not in the system. Harry Potter differs from these culture. Harry Potter teach us to question the authority. It teaches to doubt power also not only own self. It also teach us to fight against the power. We can take example of Dumbledore’s army, which was trained by Harry. That army was to fight against the Ministry of Magic. So it doesn’t sooths the agenda of government. It is rather teaching that question authority is betterment for society.

                              

As per the Mitchel Foucault's theory "Power and Knowledge. J. K. Rowling similarly conveys the message that question the power because what is written is not always true in the post truth era. These lines by Rowling is also relevant in the present era, we see in many political leaders and media who keep on speaking lies for remaining in the power and also there are many speeches or write fake history. So, we have to cross check everything rather than follow blindly.

'Waiting for the Barbarians'.

'Waiting for the Barbarians'.


Task given by Ma'am


About author   
                                                  

John Maxwell Coetzee  (born 9 February 1940) is a South African-born novelist, essayist, linguist, translator and recipient of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Literature. He has also won the Booker Prize (twice), the CNA price (thrice), the Jerusalem Prize, the Prix Femina étranger, The Irish Times International Fiction Prize, and holds a number of other awards and honorary doctorates.^[2][3]

He is one of the most critically acclaimed and decorated authors in the English language.^[2][4][5][6]

Coetzee relocated to Australia in 2002, and currently lives in Adelaide.^[7] He became an Australian citizen in 2006.

                                              

 Plot Summary

The story is narrated in the first person by the unnamed magistrate of a small colonial town that exists as the territorial frontier of "the Empire". The Magistrate's rather peaceful existence comes to an end with the Empire's declaration of a state of emergency and with the deployment of the Third Bureau—special forces of the Empire—due to rumours that the area's indigenous people, called "barbarians" by the colonists, might be preparing to attack the town. Consequently, the Third Bureau conducts an expedition into the land beyond the frontier. Led by a sinister Colonel Joll, the Third Bureau captures a number of barbarians, brings them back to town, tortures them, kills some of them, and leaves for the capital in order to prepare a larger campaign.

In the meantime, the Magistrate begins to question the legitimacy of imperialism and personally nurses a barbarian girl who was left crippled and partly blinded by the Third Bureau's torturers. The Magistrate has an intimate yet uncertain relationship with the girl. Eventually, he decides to take her back to her people. After a life-threatening trip through the barren land, during which they have sex, he succeeds in returning her—finally asking, to no avail, if she will stay with him—and returns to his own town. The Third Bureau soldiers have reappeared there and now arrest the Magistrate for having deserted his post and consorting with "the enemy". Without much possibility of a trial during such emergency circumstances, the Magistrate remains in a locked cellar for an indefinite period, experiencing for the first time a near-complete lack of basic freedoms. He finally acquires a key that allows him to leave the makeshift jail, but finds that he has no place to escape to and only spends his time outside the jail scavenging for scraps of food.

Later, Colonel Joll triumphantly returns from the wilderness with several barbarian captives and makes a public spectacle of their torture. Although the crowd is encouraged to participate in their beatings, the Magistrate bursts onto the scene to stop it, but is subdued. Seizing the Magistrate, a group of soldiers hangs him up by his arms, deepening his understanding of imperialistic violence by a personal experience of torture. With the Magistrate's spirit clearly crushed, the soldiers mockingly let him roam freely through the town, knowing he has nowhere to go and no longer poses a threat to their mission. The soldiers, however, begin to flee the town as winter approaches and their campaign against the barbarians collapses. The Magistrate tries to confront Joll on his final return from the wild, but the colonel refuses to speak to him, hastily abandoning the town with the last of the soldiers. The predominant belief in the town is that the barbarians intend to invade soon, and although the soldiers and many civilians have now departed, the Magistrate helps encourage the remaining townspeople to continue their lives and to prepare for the winter. There is no sign of the barbarians by the time the season's first snow falls on the town.

Central Theme

Waiting for the Barbarians Themes

• Imperialism. One of the most prominent themes in Waiting for the Barbarians is imperialism. ...
• Colonialism. Distinct from imperialism, the theme of colonialism as a physical, territorial project with far-reaching implications plays out in Waiting for the Barbarians. ...
• Male sexuality. ...
• Power. ...
• Interrogation. ...
• Rape. ...
• Fear of the other.

The most striking unique feature of this novel

Detachment is one of the most striking features about J.M. Coetzee's Waiting for the Barbarians (WFTB). The frontier fort, in which the novel is set, is geographically placed on the fringe of a nameless Empire in an unspecified era, thus detached geographically, culturally and historically.

Characters

The magistrate

The magistrate transforms from an old man living a peaceful life to an outspoken opponent of the Empire that employs him. His transition highlights how individual members of a majority population passively benefit from the violent colonization or oppression of minority populations. They benefit even if they haven't partaken in the oppression themselves. The magistrate's character indicates how there are no innocent parties in government oppression. At the beginning of the novel, the magistrate works for the Empire, enforcing laws without question. When Colonel Joll arrives and begins torturing prisoners, the magistrate feels uncomfortable with the injustice but allows it for the sake of hospitality to Joll. The magistrate houses one of Joll's torture victims, a nomad girl, whom he massages although he gets no sexual pleasure out of the act. He eventually decides to return the girl to her family. When he arrives back at town, the Empire has issued a warrant for the magistrate's arrest, alleging his collusion with the enemy. The magistrate is imprisoned, beaten, and tortured before the army eventually abandons the town. The magistrate resumes his former position but as a changed man.

Colonel Joll

Colonel Joll represents the active violence of colonization. Dressed in black with dark sunglasses and a black carriage, Joll epitomizes evil. He seeks out prisoners to torture even if they don't have information to offer. "Prisoners are prisoners," he says. It's unclear whether Joll's bloodlust is a result of wanting to showcase the Empire's power or simply personal sadism. At the end of the novel, Joll's sunglasses have been removed, symbolizing that he sees the error of his ways. Rather than facing the violence he has created, Joll runs away in fear for his life.

The girl

The girl represents the subjects of colonization and oppression. The girl comes from a nomadic fishing tribe and is one of Joll's first torture victims. The torture leaves her crippled and blind, although she retains partial peripheral vision, representing how she will never see the world in the same way. She tries to make a living as a prostitute and beggar before the magistrate takes her in. The girl shows little emotion during her relationship with the magistrate except frustration that he won't treat her the same way he treats other women. The scars on her body represent the effects of colonization. Her broken ankles, for example, represent how a colonized society cannot move forward on its own.

Mandel

Warrant Officer Mandel is sent by the Empire to take over the magistrate's post when the magistrate is accused of treasonous plotting with the barbarians. Through the magistrate's narration, Mandel is described as handsome, vain, and self-conscious. He seems intent on proving to the magistrate that he belongs in his post, despite his position of power. He treats the magistrate and townsfolk with complete disrespect and allows his men to run wild on the streets, stealing from shops and abusing their charges. Like Joll, Mandel takes personal delight in the magistrate's humiliation and physical torture. He arranges for the magistrate to be dressed in women's underwear and hung from a tree. He soaks up the admiration of the townsfolk, however falsely it may be given, and enjoys their feasts, but when the time comes to actually protect the people from the barbarians, Mandel abandons them.

Thinking activity on The Da Vinci Code

   

Thinking activity on The Da Vincy Code 

                                

                                     

Brown states on his website that his books are not anti-Christian, though he is on a 'constant spiritual journey' himself, and says that his book The Da Vinci Code is simply "an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate" and suggests that the book may be used "as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith."  

Ans. I disagree to the point of Dan Brown because the novel has anti religion elements like Mary Magdalene. As we all know that Jesus was unmarried and Magdalene is just fictional character why writers like Brown explore his own thought. It is all about nonsense kind of thing. The code and painting is only a piece of art it has nothing like any religious code and symbols. If people are saying that Council of Nicea created whole the thing about Jesus then somewhat they are right because Jesus was only a messenger of God not God himself and Jesus neither married nor had any kind of relation and children. So, here Writer shows Sophie the character in the book as a Magdalene descendant is not true. So, according to me it is anti Christian novel and writers keep on writing about anti religions for limelight and popularity.

 “Although it is obvious that much of what Brown presented in his novel as absolutely true and accurate is neither of those, some of that material is of course essential to the intrigue, and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman has retained the novel's core, the Grail-related material: the sacred feminine, Mary Magdalene's marriage, the Priory of Sion, certain aspects of Leonardo's art, and so on[1].” How far do you agree with this observation of Norris J. Lacy?

Ans. I agree to the observation of Norris J. Lacy that many things in the novel is not accurate and fact like there is no any autheniticity and reliable proofs about the existence of priory of sion and also novel has not show real opes die. Furthermore, there is no such proof about marry Magdalene and so on. And absolutely the screen writer beautiful presented the core of novel to use appropriate materials about secrets and sybmols. And also choose very wonderful places and scenes. I can say that movie is worth watching than books because movie use very wonderful materials.

• (If)You have studied ‘Genesis’ (The Bible), ‘The Paradise Lost’ (John Milton) and ‘The Da Vinci Code’ (Dan Brown). Which of the narrative/s seem/s to be truthful? Whose narrative is convincing to the contemporary young mind?

Ans. According to me the narrative of 'The Paradis lost' is better narrative than ''The Da Vinci Code' because Milton gave the voice to minor characters like Eve and Satan rather than God and Adam. So, somehow it is convince modern mind because they find the discrimination in the Bible. Whereas  'The Da vinci code' narrative look very far away from truth.

• What harm has been done to humanity by the biblical narration or that of Milton’s in The Paradise Lose? What sort of damage does narrative like ‘The Vinci Code’ do to humanity?

Ans. By this kind of narration, people's faith in God can be lost and there is nothing like morality without God. Religion gives us a right path and teach moral lesson. So, if you narrate this kind of story then as Eliot said about spiritual degradation and sexual perversion make waste land. Some People are arguing that people keep on fighting with each other in the name of religion but it is not true because religion is innocent, problem is in humanbieng. These all hatred created by people for their benefit like relegious master and saint for power and wealth. For instance, if we see three major religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism, they all have one root but different master and saint Divergence people in different religion because of power position and jealous. So, throughout the ages this kind of books and people damage the faith on divine thing.

• What difference do you see in the portrayal of 'Ophelia' (Kate Winslet) in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, 'Elizabeth' (Helena Bonham Carter) in Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or 'Hester Prynne' (Demi Moore) in Roland Joffé's The Scarlet Letter' or David Yates's 'Harmione Granger' (Emma Watson) in last four Harry Potter films - and 'Sophie Neuve' (Audrey Tautau) in Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code? How would justify your answer?

Ans. There is not much difference among all the female characters. All the characters have different role and different context. But if we see from the movie's perspective then we can realize that director portrayed all the female characters as brain with beauty but not active like male characters. In every works female characters as intellectual as male characters but they unable to show their talent hence directors show just as beautiful actresess who support male protagonist.

• Have you come across any similar book/movie, which tries to deconstruct accepted notions about Hindu religion or culture and by dismantling it, attempts to reconstruct another possible interpretation of truth?

Ans. Yes, there are many books and movies which tried to deconstruct accepted notion. For instance, 'The Satanic Verses' by Slaman Rushdie which deconstruct and blasphemy of Islam. Salman Rushdie wrote about three goddesses before Muhammad and said that prophet Muhammad spoke satanic verses. But that is not fact according to authentic history, Quran and Hadith.

• Do novel / film lead us into critical (deconstructive) thinking about your religion? Can we think of such conspiracy theory about Hindu religious symbols / myths?

Ans. Yes, there are many things and myths in Islam that I do not know how it happened but I will ask this all things with authentic and reliable master or books about Prophet Muhammad's journey to the sky, about prophet Isa(Jesus) that how Mariam(Marry) gave birth to Jesus though she was virgin and pure woman.

• When we do traditional reading of the novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’, Robert Langdon, Professor of Religious Symbology, Harvard University emerges as protagonist and Sir Leigh Teabing, a British Historian as antagonist. Who will claim the position of protagonist if we do atheist reading of the novel?

Ans. From the point of view of mine, if I do atheist reading of the novel the protagonist will be professor Robert Langdon because he himself said that I can not understand the God. Throughout the novel/movie I coudn't find Langdon had any kind of faith in God, he just solves and decoded the symbols and puzzles and I don't find that atheist attacked on religion like Teabibg. Whereas Sir Leigh Teabing seems anti christian in the novel but why? According to me he is not atheist. There are many reason behind his hatred against Christianity. Jaques Saunier and Teabing were known to each other and I think Teabing want to discover Holy Grail. If he is atheist then why very curious about Holy Grail? Jealous or avenge to Priori of sion is may be a reason behind that. So, I think Teabing not atheist but a religious man who want to reveals the secrets because of revenge.

• Explain Ann Gray’s three propositions on ‘knowability’ with illustrations from the novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’.
a.       1) Identifying what is knowable 
b.      2) identifying and acknowledging the relationship of the knower and the known
c.      3) What is the procedure for ‘knowing’?

1. The very first step is to identify that what is knowable. In the novel, things begins from the symbol of pentacle and identifying the codes of Da Vinci who is famous for keeping secrets in his work of art. Each and every symbols, paintings, object which follows Vinci's design is making some secrets which need to be revealed by the protagonist.


2. The second step in the process is to identify the relationship between the knower and the known. Means who is the knower of secrets, who knows the truth behind the codes and how it get connected with the known things of Vinci. In a way Leigh Teabing knows much about the codes and knows how to decodes things. But his relationship with the secret object known in the end. Langdon at the end decodes the cryptex but keep it secret in front of Teabing. Sophie knows everything about her so called grandfather and how he used to keep secrets and make puzzles, but each things connected in the end of the novel.


3. The last thing is to understand the process of 'knowing'. That is how Sophie and Langdon reached to the final truths by decoding each and every object in between. From the symbol of pentacle on the chest of Sauniere till the end to decoding the truth behind the Holy Grail which is the sarcophagus of Mary Magdalene which provides the DNA for living descendent.