The Republic of My Dreams- Mahasweta Devi

Mahasweta Devi

Note-- "The Republic of My Dreams" was the inaugural speech delivered by Mahasweta Devi at the Frankfurt Book Fair, 2006. Deeply moving, she had the people in tears at the event. The speech can be found here -> http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main20.asp?filename=hub102106The_republic.asp

Summary-
“The Republic of My Dreams” by Mahasweta Devi is the writer’s take on the culture of India and her attempt to fit it into a satisfying definition. She says that there are many facets to this culture whose history expanses from the beginning of the World—The Indus Valley Civilisation-- to the modern day Bluetooth generation. There are two Indias that dwell in this country-- India of Light and India of Shadows-- and subsequently the Culture exhibits many paradoxes which are as intricately woven into it and integral to it like the intertwined threads of a beautiful tapestry. 
On one hand where the citizens of the Country but recently celebrated 66 years of Independence, there is, on the other hand, a lot that has been marginalized and deprived in our society-- the Tribals. Their history has been forgotten and has become invisible in the official history of India. Our Independence means nothing for these dispossessed people, who still struggle for their most basic of rights. 

The writer goes on to ask that when we talk about protecting our culture, which culture are we talking about-- The culture of the India of 21st century? Which India? Even after so many years of becoming sovereign, the culture of India couldn’t become intrinsic and native. The Indian culture is like a cloth on which all these facets are woven with a thread. The complexity of this culture gives it a unique individuality. It appears different to different people. Each person has his own definition of the Indian Culture, trying to fit it within the frame of logic. My India is something else and yours something else. But, inevitably, we both define India only. As many people are there, that many definitions and thus that many Indias exist within a single country. The khadi sari in India is nothing more than mini-skirt or backless choli. The traditional and the modern share same space and enjoy same importance in the hearts of Indians. The bullock carts run parallel to latest Mercedes or Toyota. On one hand where illiteracy haunts us, the country, on the other hand, also produces individuals at the forefront of medicine, science, and technology. India is where eight-year old kids are into child-labour. On the other hand, India is also where other eight-year olds groom in the company of air-conditioners and mobile phones. The traditional Satyam Shivam Sundaram is India. Yet, the modern Choli ke peechchey kya hai-- that too is India. The mega-malls, multiplexes, snake-charmers, maharishis, all are inevitably one definition of India or the other. 

There are various shades to this tapestry of Indian culture. Somewhere it is dark, light at others, and saffron at yet different places. From the green of the rice fields to the red of the blood-stained violent-hit areas, from the cold of the Himalayas to the red of a watermelon slice, from the blue of a Bengal autumn sky to the purple of musk deer’s eyes, all is India. Somewhere in the red of a bride’s sindoor this culture dwells. The cloth of Indian culture has thread somewhere woven in Urdu, somewhere in Assamese, and somewhere in Bengali. At some places our culture suffers at the hands of communalism, terrorism, natural calamities, and ignorance. This cloth of Indian culture frays, some of the threads break, but it manages to remain intact. 

The pattern shifts, flows, stutters, forms again and changes shape from one season to the other. I see one India in the pattern. Many individual definitions of India arise. From superstition and myth, Rabindrasangeet and rap, Sufi and Shia and Sunni, caste and computers, text and sub-plot, laughter and tears, governments and oppositions, reservations and quotas, struggles and captivity, success and achievement, hamburgers and Hari Om Hari, Sanskrit and sms, the smell of rain and the sound of the sea, this culture is seamlessly stitched. Our culture is woven by millions of hands, and is still getting weaved by another million. A torn, tattered, proud, beautiful, hot, humid, cold, sandy, bright, dull, educated, barbaric, savage, shining India is getting her history written. Though battered by circumstances and history, our culture stands the test of time. India has learnt to survive, to adapt, to keep the old with the modern, to walk hand in hand with the new millennium whistling a tune from the dawn of time. The tapestry has learnt to remain intact.

Package for a Distant Future- Sylvia Kantaris

Sylvia Kantaris

The Poem

Dear inheritor,
Since you have dared to open this container,
you must be living in some far distant
unimaginable future,
and I am writing from a time of
earth before your world began -
we call it the era of Modern Man
(a bit after the Cro-Magnon)
Enclosed you will find evidence
of our existence,
a skein of yellow silk;
a carving of a child of unknown origin
with normal limbs and features;
a violin;
some lilac seeds;
the Song of Solomon.
The selection is not scientific, just
flotsam and jetsam of our civilisation.
I hope you like them.
We had a lot of things we did not
like and could have lived without.
Do not invent gods.
I hope the earth is nearly clean again.
Sow the lilac seeds in damp soil
and if they grow and flower, and
if you can, smell them after rain.

Summary-
“Package for a Distant Future” by Sylvia Kantaris appears to be a piece of work of the rather rare science fiction genre. The remarkability of the poem lies in its ironic nature. The poem can be interpreted as the poet’s attempt to save or civilization from getting lost in the tides of time or from a pessimistic point of view, it may even be the poet’s sarcastic presentation of the deteriorating modern world disrupting the course of nature. Whatever be the intentions of Sylvia Kantaris, she does not fail to impress her by her vivid imagery arising due to her unusual choices of selection.

The poem starts off as a first-person narrative with the poet addressing an “Inhibitor”. The poet further explains that the poem is actually a letter that he will be enclosing in a time capsule along with certain other things that she has kept inside the capsule as a means of reminder to our descendants or rather, in a more appropriate way, to the people who would evolve from us after millions of years after our civilization ends, that the modern day homo sapiens once existed on Earth. The poet says since someone is reading this letter, he must be living in a “far-distant unimaginable future” millions of years from now and the World as he will know it then might even not have started as yet today. She tells the inhibitor that we belong to the era that succeeds the Age of Cro-Magnon, or the European Early Man, which is historically accurate. She says that she has enclosed evidences that the Homo sapiens really existed in this World at some point of time. For this, she encloses a skein of yellow silk, a carving of a child, a violin, the Song of Solomon, and some lilac seeds. Even though she goes on to say that the selection of the choices is random, and not scientific, we beg to differ. What she has enclosed in the capsule can be interpreted in either of ways—a rather optimistic one, or a pessimistic one.

Optimistically speaking, the skein of yellow silk might show our evolved descendants that something so beautiful existed in our times and maybe they realize and find the art of extracting silk from silk worms. The carving of a child might help them visualize how we looked, and the violin might be a soothing addition to their music since it must be an obsolete thing by then. The Song of Solomon would be a beautiful guide to the culture and society as we have today, and the lilac seeds will make their fields a lot more beautiful when they bloom, and will multiply quickly since each stem grows into a new plant. If we see the poem from a pessimistic point of view, it sounds exquisitely ironical. Since the Modern World we live in today is degrading at a rate that is far from being comfortable, our living conditions and vegetation has been affected irreversibly. Influenced by this realization, the narrator might have enclosed the skein of silk cloth, thinking at this rate of degradation, by the time the capsule is opened, the ecology might not even be able to sustain silkworms, so the skein might serve as a relic to the evolved Man that something so beautiful existed once. With large number of children being born handicapped or deformed, the poet doubts that by the time this Inhibitor evolves whether there will be a single child born normal. The pessimistic approach is further supported by the fact that the poet emphasizes that the child has normal limbs and features, which might not be the case million years from now, so atleast they’ll have a portrait that how a normal infant born sans the deformities looked. The World has already seen two World Wars, and many more bilateral ones. With so much angst, fury, and self-superiority plaguing the people, the poet doubts whether something as music that brings tranquility to life would exist at that time; keeping this in mind she encloses the violin too. The Song of Solomon will teach them the auspiciousness of the relationship between a man and a woman which she doubts will be eroded away from the society by that time. Similarly, she doubts that the entire Earth would be degraded so much by that time, that there will be no beauty of Nature left on Earth. So she encases the lilac seeds which would give an aesthetic beauty to the fields when they bloom.

What she goes on to say further supports the pessimistic approach to the above lines. She calls these enclosed items as the “flotsam and jetsam of our civilisation” i.e. when referring to these things she is treating them as the wreckage that is left of our civilization—the few of the only good things that have survived in our civilization. She hopes that the Inhibitor likes them and says that there are lots of things in the modern day world that we could have lived without. This might be an ironical reference to the crimes, futility of wars, or anything and everything that is a burden to Modern Society. She advises the descendants not to build any Gods which hints that the poet is visibly frustrated of all the communal tensions that arise with the word “Religion”. She hopes that the Earth is nearly clean again, refueled with its natural beauty by the time this time capsule is opened, but after all that she has said above, we sincerely doubt that her hope is rather a heartless one, devoid of any substance. She further goes on to say that if at all it rains, the Inhibitor should sow the lilac seeds in damp soil, and if at all they grow and flower, and if he can, then he should smell them after rain. The repeated use of the word “if” amply shows the amount of doubt that is there in her mind, as she even doubts whether at all there will be rain, or the soil would be fertile enough, or even the Inhibitor would be able to smell or not!

“Package for a Distant Future” is filled with irony, and puns. 
Sylvia Kantaris has beautifully evaded what she actually wants to say in the poem, yet she has given ample hints for us to find it out. 

The Joy of Writing- Wislawa Szymborska

The Poem

Wislawa Szymborska

Why does this written doe bound through these written woods?
For a drink of written water from a spring
whose surface will xerox her soft muzzle?
Why does she lift her head; does she hear something?
Perched on four slim legs borrowed from the truth,
she pricks up her ears beneath my fingertips.
Silence - this word also rustles across the page
and parts the boughs
that have sprouted from the word "woods."

Lying in wait, set to pounce on the blank page,
are letters up to no good,
clutches of clauses so subordinate
they'll never let her get away.

Each drop of ink contains a fair supply
of hunters, equipped with squinting eyes behind their sights,
prepared to swarm the sloping pen at any moment,
surround the doe, and slowly aim their guns.

They forget that what's here isn't life.
Other laws, black on white, obtain.
The twinkling of an eye will take as long as I say,
and will, if I wish, divide into tiny eternities,
full of bullets stopped in mid-flight.
Not a thing will ever happen unless I say so.
Without my blessing, not a leaf will fall,
not a blade of grass will bend beneath that little hoof's full stop.

Is there then a world
where I rule absolutely on fate?
A time I bind with chains of signs?
An existence become endless at my bidding?

The joy of writing.
The power of preserving.
Revenge of a mortal hand.

Summary-
The title of “The Joy of Writing” by Wislawa Szymborska quite literally defines what the theme of the poem is. Wislawa Szymborska was a Polish Nobel Laureate and she lived through the Nazi occupation of Germany. The atrocities faced by Poland during the World War 2 had a great influence on her poems. Wislawa’s poems are generally about defiance of the illogical and immoral restrictions that were levied upon people during the wars and “The Joy of Writing” is no exception to this fact. Through the poem, the writer expresses her feelings on the restrictions on the fundamental individualistic freedom that the Polish society faced during the Nazi occupation, and all through it, the poet tries to reiterate the fact that no matter how much the people be suppressed, the moment a person picks up a pen, he comes the master of his own world—the world that he creates in his writings—and even the oppressor might be at his disposal in his World.

The poet begins by describing a doe. The doe symbolizes the subject of a poem in generic. She asks that why does this doe wander in these “written woods” for a drink of water from the surface of a spring that would show the reflection of her muzzle while she drinks it. The word written woods symbolizes that the poet is talking about the imagery that a poem brings with it. As soon as the poet writes the word “woods” and “doe”, the scene of a doe bounding through the woods appears before the eyes of the reader. She further goes on to ask why does the doe lift her head, perhaps she heard something. She then affirms the remarkability of poetic freedom as even the word “Silence” makes a sound when the pencil screeches the white paper and tears through the trees that have already appeared before us owing to the imagery of the woods, and perhaps the doe heard this sound of Silence. In other words it may refer to the fact that the word Silence when read, conjures up a very unique environment in our minds that almost shouts in our ears. The poet further goes on to say that the doe is standing on her slim four legs borrowed from the truth, which implies that poetry is strongly derived from what we see and hear in the real World. The imagery that the doe is pricking her ear right underneath the fingertips of the poet as she scribbles the word “Silence” on paper is a very strong affirmation of what the poet is trying to convey—In his writings, it is the Writer who rules absolutely on fate. The fact that the first stanza is in the form of questions further aggravate this viewpoint, since almost all the questions that she asks in the first stanza have a unanimous answer—It has happening because the writer is writing it down; because he wants it to happen; because it is at his own discretion.

In the second stanza, Wislawa becomes more critical about the subject of the poem and it is perhaps a description of what a critic can do to the subject he is writing about. The thoughts of a critic lie in wait, all set to attack the blank page in the form of words. The letters that the critic scribbles on the page are upto no good and they are looking for the smallest perceptible mistake about the subject, as if a hunter is eyeing the doe with a squinted gaze. The clutches of the clauses on the page are so subordinate, that they’ll never let the subject get away cheaply. She says that each drop of ink contains enough ink to write down ample amount of words that would surround the subject, rendering it at their mercy, much the same way that hunters would gather around the doe with squinting eyes, prepared to pounce on her with their guns.

Wislawa goes onto to say that “they” forget that this is not real world. Here “they” refers to the subject of the poem, expressed as doe in the poem, and is mainly aimed at the oppressors. They forget that this isn’t real world where it is their rule and discretion that matters. This is the Writer’s World in the poem where everything is guided by his whims and fancies. He decides all the laws of black on white i.e. ink on paper, might be an ironical deviation from Modern World as it may be referred to as the reciprocal of Apartheid. Even the twinkling of the eye on paper occurs for as long as the writer wants; and if he wishes, these twinklings can be divided into tiny eternities that go on forever. He can make the impossible happen in his poems and stop the obvious from occurring—can stop bullets in mid-air on one hand and not even a leaf in his imagery would fall until it receives the blessings of his nod. Not a single blade of grass in his creation would bend beneath the hoofs a passer-by until he says, or rather writes down the same. Through this stanza, the poet has tried to convey the message that the power of speech breaks all shackles of oppression where the entire World is spun by the hands of the Writer and everything is at his discretion. His writings can change the course of mankind, and make dynasties fall.

The poet further goes on to ask is there a World where she can rule absolutely and endlessly; is there a time she can bind in chains and order to stop? Can an existence become endless just at her nod? The answer to all these questions is unanimous. It is in her creations that she can achieve all that—where she is answerable to none and Master of All. She closes by saying that the Joy of Writing is the Power of Persevering. It is the revenge of a mortal hand. When a human, oppressed all his life and perseveres through all the atrocities decides to pick up the pen and do something about it, his writings can literally change the course of nature. History is evidence to the poet’s argument. The power of Writing is truly the Revenge of a Mortal Hand.

Shakuntala- Soubhagya Kumar Mishra

A Vintage Portrayal 
of Shakuntala

The Poem

He didn't recognise me, he couldn't;
he asked my name and address helplessly.

My pride had been hardening.
When I insisted I wouldn't go back,
perhaps he thought me mad and laughed
aloud to the assembly of ministers.
Then perhaps good sense dawned on him;
he ordered them to see me off after lunch.

The thought of distances I had I forgot.
He looked at my hand like a doe.
The assembly hall looked like Father's hermitage.
Climbing down the steps I felt 
those two doe-eyes were following me
like my friends, Anasuya and Priyambada.
I was an arrow in his quiver.
The bow having been drawn he couldn't
decide on the target --- the deer or the peacock.

So I stayed back there for long days.
The zenana was filled with the jingle of my anklets.
He would return from a hunt and wash 
his face in the stream. I flowed.
like a stream in the dark of his oblivion.
I sang to his pleasure, and never dragged him
to see how a drop of my tear
dazzled secretly, lodged in the lap of sunlight.

It was early in the morning one day.
The bedroom was filled with the smell of burnt wick.
I stole away from the embrace of his deep sleep
and reached the banks of the familiar river.
I asked the fisherman to untie the boat
and unfold the net, and I asked the fish 
to get ready, it was time to be caught.
And I said to the star in hiding
in the deep waters of my womb :
Come, let's play, call the lion and come.
Father's chant of glory came from a distance
like the echo of my hurt pride.

Right from the beginning I knew
he would come back and thus :
his face turned red in the hot sun,
sweat flowing down his brow and ears.
He would stop awed 
at a truth known to us only partially;
he would remove his crown 
and surrender himself with his bow and quiver.
And I would say I needed
only the ring and nothing else.

Summary-
Shakuntala by Soubhagya Kumar Misra is a modernized version of the Kalidasa epic, striking a remarkable comparison between the woman and her mindset then and now. The woman today is not merely the weaker sex that surrenders submissively to the norms of a patriarchal society. Misra’s Shakuntala is the story of a woman whose pride is hurt, who has been humiliated and laughed at in a court of strangers, and forgotten by her own husband. But she won’t just wait unconditionally and eternally for her Lord to realise his mistake and accept her after having made such a mockery of her and fulfilled all his indulgences. She would regain her pride, her lost honour and make the king repent what he wronged.

The poem starts off as a first person narrative in the voice of Shakuntala herself. She says that the king didn’t recognize her; he couldn’t, owing to the curse by sage Durvasas which made him forget the love of her life, Shakutala. He keeps asking for her name and address helplessly. Shakuntala’s pride was repeatedly being hurt. The unsympathetic King Duhshanta made fun of her infront of all his court members, but then perhaps good sense dawned on him and convinced by one of his courtiers, he agreed to keep her in the palace till the birth of her child to see whether or not he had the royal blood and ordered to see her off after lunch. 
But as he looked on her hand, she forgot the distances that had now come between them. His eyes followed her like a doe as she walked out of the court followed by her two friends Anasuya and Priyambada, and she felt that the court had transformed into her father’s hermitage where Shakuntala and Duhshanta had fallen for each-other. Perhaps, he hadn’t forgotten her totally. 

Shakuntala stayed at the palace for a long time, filling the zenana with the jingle of her ankle bells. Every day the king returned from game hunting, and washed his face in the stream near her palace. She too flowed, like a shallow stream faintly in the dark of his oblivion, his subconsciousness. The description is a striking analogy to the fact that the royal ring which would bring back the memory of King Duhshanta had gotten lost in the very same river while Shakuntala was crossing it when coming to the palace from her hermitage for the first time. Kalidasa’s Shakuntala depicts that Duhshanta was intrigued by the songs of Shakuntala and she sang to his pleasure. Misra makes a striking statement by saying that though Shakuntala sang to his pleasure even at his palace, she wasn’t a weak soul. She never asked the king to come to her and wipe her tears, or console her.

Soubhagya Kumar Misra has played skillfully with the climax of the Kalidasa epic by describing the chain of incidents that took place not as a mere coincidence but as if Shakuntala herself conjured up everything in the process of gaining her lost pride. She wakes up one morning while Duhshanta is still asleep and sneaks out of the palace into the nearby forest. She asks the fisherman to untie his boat and set free the net to catch the fish which had gulped down the Royal ring, and asks the fish to get ready to be caught. This is an analogy to the fact that a fisherman had found the lost ring in the stomach of a fish that he had caught and when he presented the ring back to Duhshanta, his memory came back. She also asks the star hiding in her womb, that is her Bharata who had grown up in his mother’s shadow to come and play, and asks him to call the lion, an analogy to the fact that when King Duhshanta comes to the forest searching for her love after having regained his memory, the first sight he sees is of his son holding the mouth of a lion open with his arms and counting his teeth.  She says she could hear her father’s chant for glory in the distance.

She finishes off by saying that she knew he would come back, his face turned red in the heat of the Sun, sweating. He would stop awed after realizing the truth he knew only partially, and surrender himself to her with his bow and quiver. But she wouldn’t stoop so much as to accept the person who hurt her pride so much, who made such a mockery of her infront of strangers. She would just ask him to give back the sign of their love, the ring, and nothing else.

My Mother at 66- Kamala Das

The Poem

Kamala Das

Driving from my parent's
home to Cochin last Friday
morning, I saw my mother,
beside me,
doze, open mouthed, her face
ashen like that
of a corpse and realised with
pain
that she thought away, and
looked but soon
put that thought away, and
looked out at young
trees sprinting, the merry children spilling
out of their homes, but after the airport's
security check, standing a few yards
away, I looked again at her, wan,
pale
as a late winter's moon and felt that
old familiar ache, my childhood's fear,
but all I said was, see you soon,
Amma,
all I did was smile and smile and
smile.

Summary-

"My Mother at 66" is an ironical expression of the inevitability of Death. Kamla Das very skillfully portrays this theme of ageing, death and isolation through a narration involving her mother. The poem is an intricate mixture of the two very fundamental human tendencies-- Love and the Fear of isolation-- which puts the poet on the highest pedestal of reflective poetry. These two emotions are inseparable, intertwined with one-another for eternity; the feeling of Love gives rise to the fear of isolation and loss, and the fear of isolation itself nourishes the Love as it buds in the human heart. 

As the poet is driving from her parent’s home to Cochin Airport on a ripe Friday morning, she notices her mother beside her, lying still, “open mouthed”, in a sleep that seemed to stretch till Eternity. Her face, pale like a corpse, almost ashen, and the pain visible on her face makes the poet realise the thoughts lingering far away in her mother’s mind. This realisation erupts in her the fear of isolation from her mother. It is a childhood fear of every kid that he might be isolated from her mother; an emotion that grows even more intense with Age because as a child the fear is of mere isolation but as Age starts catching up, this fear turns into the fear of losing one’s mother forever. Thus, the poet very skilfully describes the helplessness that human nature feels upon the inevitability of Death. 

In order to distract her mind, the poet tries to divert her mind by looking out of the window, only to be clasped by the memories of her childhood which get refreshed when she witnesses “young trees sprinting” and “the merry children spilling out of their homes”. These remind her probably of her own youth and life, her own younger days and her mother when she was young. Kamla realises that to the children, she is now a mother’s age. But to Kamla, her mother is still her mother, and when she looks at her, she feels like a child again.  This is an ironical expression of the fact that as animals, we grow old and die, but the relationship that we share with people never changes with time. We are always kids for our elders and we feel the same when we are around them. We have an identity as animals, this is subject to time. But our identity as persons seems timeless. 

After the airport’s security check, “standing a few yards away”, she catches the glimpse of her mother again—pale, exhausted, and as motionless as “a late winter’s moon”-- and seeing her like this, losing the battle with Death, the old childhood fear within her of losing her mother surfaces again. But suppressing this ominous feeling with all her might, she bids her mother goodbye and hopes to see her soon, again an irony to the thoughts that are going through her mind and just smiles as her mother fades out of view.

The poem instates Kamla Das as skilful portrayer of human emotions which she very innocently describes through the fear of isolation and loss and the very powerful emotion of Love, both as integral to nature as the inevitability of Death.

A Scandal in Bohemia- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Note-- One of the most famous short stories by Sir Doyle, it is actually one of the few where someone gets the better of Sherlock Holmes. You can read the complete story here-> http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/ScanBohe.shtml

1. Write a character study of Sherlock Holmes( try to avoid using the illustrative examples which are given in the story) ?
A- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle gave the world a legacy that would be passed down to generations, would become almost a folklore, and be remembered as a cult classic. He gave us Sherlock Holmes, THE detective of English Literature. Akin to all his novels, in “A Scandal in Bohemia”, Doyle has portrayed Holmes as the perfect and ideal detective whose power of reason and deduction surpasses all the norms and limits of human brain, and defies logic.

Another factor that adds to the vivid imagery of Sherlock Holmes in “A Scandal in Bohemia” is the fact that Doyle has used Dr. Watson as Narrator in the short story. In Watson’s mind, Holmes is ‘the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen’. We might say that at times, Watson’s descriptions about Holmes are biased, but in no ways are they exaggerated. There are a few features of Holmes’ character that have been particularly focussed upon in this story.

As we come across Holmes for the first time in the story, we are introduced to his unusually perfect power of deduction which is both unbelievable in the first instance yet exceedingly elementary upon closer look. As Holmes describes his process of deduction in guessing the whereabouts of Watson and what has he been indulged in over the past few days by observing things as little as the smell of iodoform and mark of nitrate on his hands, we cannot help but marvel at his wisdom. He further goes on to correctly guess where the anonymous letter that was delivered to him came from judging by its texture. Further, when the “gentleman” arrives, Holmes is able to make out the number of horses driving his carriage by the sound of their hooves. Also, further into the story, we see him making out that the gentleman was the King of Bohemia himself,with relative ease and finally he comes up with a brilliant plan to find where the photograph was hidden in Irene Adler’s home which is a brilliant display of his power of observation and knack of keeping the note of even the smallest details and changes. His power of deduction even penetrates into human emotions as he can almost conjure up in his mind how would a person react to a particular situation in a particular scenario which helps him to plan his moves accordingly.

Doyle’s Sherlock is also the master of disguise. Not only in “A Scandal in Bohemia”  but in all the other novels, disguise was a powerful weapon used by Sherlock in his exploits, and is evident when Watson says--”Accustomed as I was to my friend's amazing powers in the use of disguises, I had to look three times before I was certain that it was indeed he.” Sherlock dons the attire of a drunken looking groom, ill-kempt and side-whiskered, with an inflamed face and disreputable clothes to gather information about Irene Adler, and dresses up as a clergyman the second time to retrieve the photograph from Adler’s home. It wasn’t merely that Sherlock donned the clothes of the part he played. His expressions, his manners, his very soul imbibed the essence of the character and varied with each role he assumed. As Watson rightly remarks, the stage lost a fine actor and science lost an acute observer, both invaluable, as Holmes became what he loved i.e. a specialist in criminology.

Another interesting facet of Sherlock’s character is his undying and unshakable trust in Watson. Even though Watson lost communication with Holmes as he entered his marriage and took to the civil life, Sherlock greets him with the same warmth when they meet at his room in the Baker Street. He immediately involves Watson in the investigation, and when the King of Bohemia arrives and asks for privacy to open up the matter to Holmes, he retorts saying that its either both or none, which exemplifies the amount of trust he vests in Watson. All through the further investigation, Watson remains his right hand. Sherlock Holmes can be called the perfect friend who is nuisance to be with, but is nevertheless devoted towards his best friend Watson with all his heart and soul.
Last but not the least, we find a very unusual side to Sherlock’s character in “A Scandal in Bohemia” and that is his admiration for Irene Adler. For a person who always talked about women’s intelligence with sarcasm and revelry, Sherlock was unusually moved by Adler’s intelligence, so much that he used to call her “the woman”. In his eyes, she eclipsed and dominated the entire womankind. Even though he didn’t have any feeling akin to love for Adler, yet her intelligence and the fact that she outplayed him in the case influenced him so much that he agrees to the King of Bohemia saying that Adler is on an entirely different level. Thus Sherlock Holmes admits to and admires a woman for the first time in his life, which is both unusual and perhaps a welcome change for Doyle’s faithfuls.

“A Scandal in Bohemia” manages to catch the different moods and escapades of Sherlock Holmes and intricately describes all the aspects of Sherlock’s character.

2. Authors of detective stories often rely for their effects on a certain amount of trickery , coincidences , or implausibility . Is this true of Conan Doyle in "A Scandal in Bohemia" ?

A- Detective stories have always been a hard genre to master, but the authors who have been there and done that have a cult of their own. Be it Agatha Christie or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, every author of detective stories has his own unique style of expression. But all of them do rely on certain amount of tricks, coincidences, and implausibility for maintaining an apt atmosphere and keeping the reader involved. Doyle’s “A Scandal in Bohemia” is no exception to this fact.

As Watson passes through the Baker street, he finds Sherlock’s room lit. He finds Sherlock pacing up and down the room as suggested by his silhouette, with his head sunk and hands clasped behind. Accustomed as Watson was to his habits, he says that Sherlock had woken up from his drug-created dreams and was hot upon some new problem. The imagery provides an atmosphere of mystery and implausibility to the reader absorbing him in.
Sherlock’s powers of deduction is a very influential and powerful tool that Doyle uses in his stories to maintain the atmosphere and add unprecedented twists and turns to the story. When Watson first meets Sherlock after a long time, he is amazed to find that Sherlock knew that he has put on seven and a half pounds since last time, had got himself wet on a country walk a few days back, and had a very careless servant girl. The reader at first finds it almost magical for Sherlock to know so much  about a person whom he has not met in months. But when Holmes start describing the process of his deduction, starting from the parallel cuts on his shoes leading upto the deduction that he had gone out in the wild. His explanations make the facts look unbelievably simple yet hard to notice. He further goes on to correctly guess where the anonymous letter that was delivered to him came from judging by its texture. Further, when the “gentleman” arrives, Holmes is able to make out the number of horses driving his carriage by the sound of their hooves. Also, further into the story, we see him making out that the gentleman was the King of Bohemia himself,with relative ease.
Further, Sherlock Holmes is portrayed as the most perfect disguiser in his novels. The way he chooses his characters in accordance with the situation has a remarkability of its own and makes the subject unsuspecting. As he dons the look of a drunken looking scruffy groom so perfectly that even Watson has to triple-check to be sure its Holmes, we are introduced to his amazing power of disguise. As he laughs uncontrollably while lying back in his chair, we wonder as to what is so humorous about the situation. He finally unravels the mystery telling that he had been probing around Briony Lodge, trying to gather information about Miss Adler and his probation takes unexpected turns. He learns about a man named Godfrey Norton, who was a lawyer by profession, thus supposedly an important factor in the case. As Holmes comes across Adler right afterwards, and follows her, the story takes another tricky and unexpected turn as Norton and Adler get married in a Church with, amusingly, Holmes as their best man. Thus, Adler’s lawyer is her fiance which explains quite a few things. In order to recover the photograph from Adler’s home, Sherlock comes up with another plan. As he asks Watson to throw up the window in his hand a plumber’s smoker-rocket upon his signal with which he intends to fake a false alarm of fire. The readers wonder what a false alarm would have to do with this case and when Sherlock emerges from his room disguised as an old clergyman, it doesn’t help the reader’s imagination. Arthur Conan Doyle almost has the power to tease us with such descriptions of his, since they are not lacking in information on any part, nor do they provide substantial evidence of what must be going on in Holmes’ mind. Anyways, he does succeed in doing what detective novels should do i.e. keep the readers on the edge all the time. Soon, we learn the brilliancy of Sherlock’s mind once again as we realise what his plan was. Dressed as an old clergyman, he collapses and falls infront of Adler who then takes him inside her home. Once in, he signals Watson to raise a fake alarm of fire as he grabs the smoker rocket and fills the room with substantial smoke. The smoke and the shouting make Adler reach for the thing she held most dearly to her heart, i.e. the photograph, in order to save it from being burnt down. Sherlock carefully observes Adler and finds out where the photograph is hidden but is unable to recover it as he doesn’t have time. As he heads back home, a familiar voice wishes him good night in the dark of night. Holmes is unable to recognise whose voice it was, which is unusual, but was too tired to pay any heed to it.
But as we are still  trying to imbibe Sherlock’s implausible and flexible intelligence, the story takes a final tricky turn. As the King of Bohemia, Holmes and Watson reach the Briony Lodge the next day, they are surprised to find Irene Adler gone. Her maid looks at Sherlock and says that he must be Holmes and her mistress told her to hand him a letter that she had given her. It comes as a shock for the readers since there were no means by which Adler could have known Sherlock Holmes. He is too perfect to leave a trace. Adler sheds light on the mystery and tells that she had been warned by her well-wishers months ago that if there is any man whom the King of Bohemia would employ, it would be Holmes. She had his address, and she knew it was Holmes when she took him inside her house to keep him unsuspecting. She does admit that Sherlock did make her reveal what he wanted to know, i.e. the place where the photograph was hidden, and having realised her mistake, she found it too dangerous to stay in Briony Lodge any further. She wishes Holmes good night on her way to meet her husband, Norton, and they leave the city for a happier life. She still has the photograph with her but vows never to use it against the King since she had forgotten her past and started afresh. Moreover, it will be a safeguard for her life. She encloses a photograph of hers with the letter which Sherlock keeps with himself-- a defeated Sherlock Holmes who can’t help but admire the wit of Irene Adler.

The story is filled with numerous coincidences that are humorous to implausible. The timing of Watson meeting Holmes matches perfectly with the timing of the King’s arrival, which is unusual. Sherlock too, while probing around Briony Lodge and gathering information about Norton and Adler, comes across the man and the lady herself, and to add to it, vouches their wedding as their best man! And perhaps the biggest coincidence of the story is that the womankind, about whose wit and intelligence Sherlock talked with sarcasm and humour, catches the better of Holmes as he is humbled by a lady, Irene Adler, in something in which he was undefeatable.

3. In a society in which women's roles were subordinate to men , how does Irene Adler stand out ? 
A- Arthur Conan Doyle’s “A Scandal in Bohemia” is more of a demonstration and justification of the admiration Sherlock Holmes has for Irene Adler than anything else. As Watson says, Sherlock called Adler by the name of “the woman” which strongly suggests that how much he revered her. For him, she eclipsed and predominated the entire fairer sex. Even though he didn’t have any feeling like love for her, which is too big a distraction for his perfectly balanced mind, the very fact that Sherlock Holmes, the person who made fun of women’s intellect and intelligence innumerable times in Doyle’s works, admires Adler so much and keeps her on the highest pedestal of intelligence itself justifies Adler’s mettle.

As we are introduced to Irene Adler who is being a nuisance for the King of Bohemia, threatening him to ruin his marriage with the photograph they got clicked together during the days when he courted her, we can’t help but imagine Adler as nothing more than a woman who is bent upon taking revenge from the King at any cost. Sherlock too doesn’t expect her to be much a trouble and comes up with a simple plan. Firstly, he dons the look of a disguised groom and reaches Briony Lodge where he learns about Godfrey Norton, a lawyer, and finally bumps into Adler. He follows her only to reach a church and witness her marriage with Norton as their best man. This explains things quite a bit. Having married Norton, she had found a husband and lawyer in the same man and this would help in her being safe and the photograph too. Even till here Irene Adler has nothing exceptional to her character. She is just another woman seeking safety.

Sherlock comes up with another plan to find the location of the hidden photograph. As he asks Watson to throw up the window in his hand a plumber’s smoker-rocket upon his signal with which he intends to fake a false alarm of fire. The readers wonder what a false alarm would have to do with this case and when Sherlock emerges from his room disguised as an old clergyman, it doesn’t help the reader’s imagination. Soon, we learn the brilliancy of Sherlock’s mind once again as we realise what his plan was. Dressed as an old clergyman, he collapses and falls infront of Adler who then takes him inside her home. Once in, he signals Watson to raise a fake alarm of fire as he grabs the smoker rocket and fills the room with substantial smoke. The smoke and the shouting make Adler reach for the thing she held most dearly to her heart, i.e. the photograph, in order to save it from being burnt down. Sherlock carefully observes Adler and finds out where the photograph is hidden but is unable to recover it as he doesn’t have time. As he heads back home, a familiar voice wishes him good night in the dark of night. Holmes is unable to recognise whose voice it was, which is unusual, but was too tired to pay any heed to it. It is really unusual of Adler to fall so easily in such a trap but having seen Adler and judging by her character all through the story, it rather acceptable.

But as we are still trying to imbibe Sherlock’s implausible and flexible intelligence, the story takes a final tricky turn. As the King of Bohemia, Holmes and Watson reach the Briony Lodge the next day, they are surprised to find Irene Adler gone. Her maid looks at Sherlock and says that he must be Holmes and her mistress told her to hand him a letter that she had given her. It comes as a shock for the readers since there were no means by which Adler could have known Sherlock Holmes. He is too perfect to leave a trace. Adler sheds light on the mystery and tells that she had been warned by her well-wishers months ago that if there is any man whom the King of Bohemia would employ, it would be Holmes. She had his address, and she knew it was Holmes when she took him inside her house to keep him unsuspecting. She does admit that Sherlock did make her reveal what he wanted to know, i.e. the place where the photograph was hidden, and having realised her mistake, she found it too dangerous to stay in Briony Lodge any further. She wishes Holmes good night on her way to meet her husband, Norton, and they leave the city for a happier life. She still has the photograph with her but vows never to use it against the King since she had forgotten her past and started afresh. Moreover, it will be a safeguard for her life. She encloses a photograph of hers with the letter which Sherlock keeps with himself-- a defeated Sherlock Holmes who can’t help but admire the wit of Irene Adler. After the letter has been read aloud, even the King exclaims at her wit and tells that she was always quick and resolute. Sherlock responds by saying that she was on a very different level, much higher than any of them.

Irene Adler always knew Sherlock Holmes would be the one who would spy on her, if anyone would be employed to spy by the King of Bohemia at all. She knew it was Sherlock when he appeared infront of her as an old clergyman. And she played brilliantly with Sherlock Holmes, taking herself totally in and leaving him unsuspecting. The story was written in late 1800s when the women had roles much more subordinate to men. In such a scenario, Irene Adler was a class apart and she did outplay the entire fairer sex in intelligence and wit. After all, earning the admiration of Sherlock Holmes was not a trivial thing.

4. Obviously Conan Doyle is the author of  'A Scandal in Bohemia' but who relates the events of the story to us ? What are the possible disadvantages of using Watson as the narrator ?
A- “A Scandal in Bohemia” has a rather unusual aspect to it. It uses Watson as the narrator to describe the escapades of Sherlock Holmes. Even though Watson was Sherlock’s right hand and best friend and could explain Sherlock and the faculties running through his mind better than anyone else, there are however some disadvantages of having used Watson as the narrator.

As it is clearly evident,”A Scandal in Bohemia” is more of Adler’s story than it is Sherlock’s story. It is one of the few incidences, actually might be the only one, in which another character catches the better of Sherlock Holmes and puts him to silence. “A Scandal in Bohemia” is almost a celebration of Adler’s wit and intelligence. But as we know, in the eyes of Watson, Sherlock Holmes was THE perfect detective. He had perfect powers of deduction and was the perfect disguiser. We come across his undying admiration for Holmes when he says that even though Sherlock admired Adler, still he didn’t have any feeling akin to love for her. He justifies this by saying that emotions like love were something that were not meant for this most perfect reasoning and observing machine.
Although such devotion of Watson towards Holmes gives a new facet to the descriptions of the novel, yet it undermines the fact that Sherlock Holmes did lose to a woman in the story. Watson’s views on Holmes are strongly biased due to the fact of him being his best friend.

As we come across Holmes for the first time in the story, we are introduced to his unusually perfect power of deduction which is both unbelievable in the first instance yet exceedingly elementary upon closer look. As Holmes describes his process of deduction in guessing the whereabouts of Watson and what has he been indulged in over the past few days by observing things as little as the smell of iodoform and mark of nitrate on his hands, we cannot help but marvel at his wisdom. He further goes on to correctly guess where the anonymous letter that was delivered to him came from judging by its texture. Further, when the “gentleman” arrives, Holmes is able to make out the number of horses driving his carriage by the sound of their hooves. Also, further into the story, we see him making out that the gentleman was the King of Bohemia himself,with relative ease and finally he comes up with a brilliant plan to find where the photograph was hidden in Irene Adler’s home which is a brilliant display of his power of observation and knack of keeping the note of even the smallest details and changes. His power of deduction even penetrates into human emotions as he can almost conjure up in his mind how would a person react to a particular situation in a particular scenario which helps him to plan his moves accordingly.

Doyle’s Sherlock is also the master of disguise. Not only in “A Scandal in Bohemia”  but in all the other novels, disguise was a powerful weapon used by Sherlock in his exploits, and is evident when Watson says--”Accustomed as I was to my friend's amazing powers in the use of disguises, I had to look three times before I was certain that it was indeed he.” Sherlock dons the attire of a drunken looking groom, ill-kempt and side-whiskered, with an inflamed face and disreputable clothes to gather information about Irene Adler, and dresses up as a clergyman the second time to retrieve the photograph from Adler’s home. It wasn’t merely that Sherlock donned the clothes of the part he played. His expressions, his manners, his very soul imbibed the essence of the character and varied with each role he assumed. As Watson rightly remarks, the stage lost a fine actor and science lost an acute observer, both invaluable, as Holmes became what he loved i.e. a specialist in criminology.

As we can clearly see above, Watson is so absorbed in the aura of Holmes that he almost forgets the fact that Holmes did commit a mistake in undermining Irene Adler’s abilities since she was a woman. To retrieve the photograph, he comes up with a simple plan. Dressed as an old clergyman, he collapses and falls infront of Adler who then takes him inside her home. Once in, he signals Watson to raise a fake alarm of fire as he grabs the smoker rocket and fills the room with substantial smoke. The smoke and the shouting make Adler reach for the thing she held most dearly to her heart, i.e. the photograph, in order to save it from being burnt down. Sherlock carefully observes Adler and finds out where the photograph is hidden but is unable to recover it as he doesn’t have time. As he heads back home, a familiar voice wishes him good night in the dark of night. Holmes is unable to recognise whose voice it was, which is unusual, but was too tired to pay any heed to it. Watson describes the above scene in a tone that depicts the perfection with which Sherlock Holmes executed the plan, so much that the reader almost forgets that Holmes did make a mistake in his plan. Also, he does not stress upon the anonymous “Good Night” which has a tricky little part in the end of the story. As the King of Bohemia, Holmes and Watson reach the Briony Lodge the next day, they are surprised to find Irene Adler gone. Her maid looks at Sherlock and says that he must be Holmes and her mistress told her to hand him a letter that she had given her. It comes as a shock for the readers since there were no means by which Adler could have known Sherlock Holmes. He is too perfect to leave a trace. Adler sheds light on the mystery and tells that she had been warned by her well-wishers months ago that if there is any man whom the King of Bohemia would employ, it would be Holmes. She had his address, and she knew it was Holmes when she took him inside her house to keep him unsuspecting. She does admit that Sherlock did make her reveal what he wanted to know, i.e. the place where the photograph was hidden, and having realised her mistake, she found it too dangerous to stay in Briony Lodge any further. She wishes Holmes good night on her way to meet her husband, Norton, and they leave the city for a happier life. She still has the photograph with her but vows never to use it against the King since she had forgotten her past and started afresh. Moreover, it will be a safeguard for her life. She encloses a photograph of hers with the letter which Sherlock keeps with himself-- a defeated Sherlock Holmes who can’t help but admire the wit of Irene Adler.

Thus we can see clearly that it was Irene Adler and not Sherlock Holmes who played buff in the entire story. Even as the story concludes, the King suddenly starts lauding Adler whom he had been trying to get rid off a few days back, which suggests that it might be the King, and not Adler who was at fault in their relationship. But Watson does not care stressing upon this fact and due to his undying allegiance towards Holmes, she remains more of an Unsung Hero during the entire story.

5. Discuss the manner in which Conan Doyle uses surprise , mystery , and suspense in the story ?
Note-- There is no need to prepare this question separately. It is totally like question no. 2.

6. Discuss subversion of women in the story.
A- Doyle's "A Scandal in Bohemia" follows the story of the famous detective Sherlock Holmes on his adventures to retrieve a damaging photograph. In the society Watson describes, the apparent role of women is miniscule for emphasis focuses on one woman who is the object of Holmes' detective inquiries. In "A Scandal in Bohemia," society places women at a subordinate level pushing them to the background therefore never allowing us, the reader, to know them.

Watson describes women as second-class citizens at the start of the story without directly saying so. When Watson says, "My own complete happiness, and home-centered interests which rise up around the man who first finds himself master of his own establishment were sufficient enough to absorb all my attention," he declares that his wife makes no important family decisions. Since Watson is the "master" or ruler of his own "establishment," he insinuates that the members of his family are not his equals. Watson's wife is a trivial character, clearly evident because we never hear from her and never learn her name. On one occasion, Watson spends the night at Sherlock's home on Baker Street without once thinking to inform his wife. Watson's behaviour shows what little respect he has for his wife. This blatant disregard for his wife's feelings illustrates the insignificance of this woman.

The King of Bohemia displays another example of the lack of respect given to women. His concerns do not center on his future wife becoming aware of this affair but rather tarnishing his own image. The King fears the revelation of this scandalous photograph for it lies on the hands of a woman. His interests to dominate this woman are evident in the callous actions the King directs towards Irene Adler. The King states, "Five attempts have been made. Twice burglars in my pay ransacked her house. Once we diverted her luggage when she travelled. Twice she has been waylaid. There has been no result". This disregard for Adler's privacy questions the King's overall motives. Does he really want the photograph or do his actions focus on hurting Irene Adler? The King wants the upper hand on this beautiful, yet intelligent woman. The King's attitude towards his future wife and his former lover, Irene Adler fits into society's narrowly defined roles of women.

In this society, women were the nurtures and the protectors of the children and what some deem as only monetarily valuable items. The female instinct to nurture reflects in the personality of Irene Adler. Watson acknowledges this nurturing instinct when he says, "but I know that I never felt more heartily ashamed of myself when I saw the beautiful creature against which I was conspiring, or the grace and kindliness with which she waited upon the injured man". This willingness to help is a quality Watson, as well as other men in society, felt should be a quality all women possessed.

Women also serve as protectors of those people or things, which cannot help themselves. Holmes explains to Watson a woman's natural behavior upon encountering an obstacle by saying, "A married woman grabs at her baby; an unmarried one reaches for her jewel box".This line implies that marriage and babies go hand in hand. Was a woman only married to procreate? It seems Sherlock Holmes thought so. He did not say an unmarried woman reaches for her child but she would reach for a jewellery box, a material thing. The unmarried woman reaches for a baby and not a jewellery box. In a society in which women's roles were subordinate to men, Irene Adler is the only woman in this story who actually has a personality. Her character unfolds throughout the story. She serves as a significant part because most of the plot centres on her. The King fears this woman scorned will seek revenge and as a result tarnish his image. His apprehension towards his marriage announcement is solely because of a woman, whose independence scares him. Throughout the story, Sherlock Holmes tremendously underestimates the intelligence of this woman. He automatically assumes she will lead his directly to the photograph.

Rather than succumbing to the deceit of Sherlock Holmes, Irene Adler outsmarts the clever detective using his own tricks. The narrowly defined roles of women were evident for the only means to discuss women in this story is through their relations with men. No woman, not even Irene Adler, has her own story. After all in the end, even Irene Adler runs away with a man. Out of the five female characters mentioned or alluded to in this story, only one is given a name and personality. This lack of female representation shows how dominant males were in the society of the story and in the society of the real world. “A Scandal in Bohemia” was written during the late 1800s when concerns over Women’s Rights have started being voiced in the United Kingdom. It is historically believed that Doyle was not a great supporter of this movement which more or less may be the reason behind the subversion of women in his stories.

A Dream Within A Dream- Edgar Allan Poe

Edgar Allan Poe

The Poem

Take this kiss upon the brow!
And, in parting from you now,
Thus much let me avow-
You are not wrong, who deem
That my days have been a dream;
Yet if hope has flown away
In a night, or in a day,
In a vision, or in none,
Is it therefore the less gone?
All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.

I stand amid the roar
Of a surf-tormented shore,
And I hold within my hand
Grains of the golden sand-
How few! yet how they creep
Through my fingers to the deep,
While I weep- while I weep!
O God! can I not grasp
Them with a tighter clasp?
O God! can I not save
One from the pitiless wave?
Is all that we see or seem

But a dream within a dream? 

Questions and Answers-

1. How are the two stanzas in the poem linked to one-another?

    A- “A Dream within A Dream” was written by Edgar Allen Poe in the same year that he died. Poe had a very tormentful life, having lost his parents, his wife, seen much of his literary career dismissed to the margins by his colleagues; so much that by the time he reached the twilight of his life, he was reduced to the state of an impoverished drunk. His life was filled with more tragedies than his writings could ever express. This poem consisting of two stanzas is a remarkable expression of his mental state.

The first stanza is the narrator’s description of him parting from his lover while the second stanza is in a more self-reflective tone. Despite the apparent differences between the two stanzas, they are linked through the ironic similarity of their transient natures.

The first imagery is that of the narrator kissing his beloved on her brow as he parts with her. The parting has an eerie sense of finality to it, as if the couple has just decided to end the relationship. While parting, the narrator accepts the fact that the time he spent with his better half was like a dream come true. He agrees with her in saying that they spent the most cherished moments together. But now his sorrows have overpowered him, and he asks that does it matter for how long they were together, since how long they dreamt of being together, or in other rather pessimistic words, how long did it take for the hope to fly away, the hope that they might pull it back together? When a man reaches a point in which his past desires,  dreams, and ambitions are no longer feasible goals for him to pursue, should it matter by what means or length these hopes have left, since they are presently nothing more but mere memories anyway?  Is it not true that this will eventually be the fate of all our current pursuits, expectations and hopes?  And if so, is there any use in pursuing one’s hopes to begin with?

               
                “All that we see or seem

                 Is but a dream within a dream.”

Every matter, work, or relationship we dedicate ourselves to will eventually end one day, irrespective of success or failure, will eventually fade out of our thoughts with time, and will become a distant, faint memory in our minds. And eventually as time passes and age takes its toll, our mind will not be able to comprehend whether the incident actually happened or it was just a mere dream. This life is unreal. We are living in a dream. And what we see or what seems to be-- all the hopes, expectations, and fantasies a man thinks of – is “but a dream within a dream”.  The first stanza is the sort of a message or self-reflection a dying man might present to ease the misfortunes that have haunted his life.

The imagery of the second stanza is that of the poet standing at the shore of an unruly sea. The shore represents his life which is has been tormented by the unforgiving tormenting waves that symbolize the troubles and pangs that his life has been scarred with. The use of “roar” and “surf-tormented” brings up images of anguish that the poet has gone through. He is approaching his death and having lost everything in life all that he has to comfort him are his memories. The poet says that he holds within his hand “grains of golden sand” which, even though he has very few of them, not even a handful, creep through his fingers and slip away from him to the ground while he weeps in futility not able to hold back even a single golden grain. The handful golden grains of sand represent the handful memories which are the only comfort he has to cherish him in the final years of his life. Yet he is unable to recall them and the memories seem to be fading away in the distant as he ages, until they seem to be nothing more than a dream. He weeps and cries and exclaims rhetorically that isn’t there a single golden grain, a single memory that he can hold on to, that would comfort him when he is on his death bed? Can he not save a single memory from the tests of the pitiless Time and the phantoms of his past? For someone like Edgar Allen Poe, who at this point in his life had nothing more to hold onto but his dreams–his fading memories–nothing would have been more desirable than the reassurance that this sole valuable of his was more than a mere intangible thought. He finishes off with the same reflection that the Life we live is unreal. It might even be a dream; and what we see or seems to be, be nothing more than “A Dream within A Dream”.

Both the stanzas show the anguish and troubles that Poe has gone through in his life. Though the context of the stanzas may differ, both of them demonstrate a desperate Poe trying his best to hold on to the last bits of comfort he has in his life which in the first stanza is his relationship with his beloved, while in the second stanza it is the golden memories of his life. Both the stanzas are allusions to the basic theme of the poem of what we see in Life being a dream within a dream, the former being rather individualistic and centered on a single incident, while the latter being rather self-reflective and depicting the narrator’s life and state of mind in a general and broader way.

2. “Is all that we see But a dream within a dream.” Elaborate.
A- “A Dream within A Dream” by Edgar Allan Poe is a self-reflective poem written by him at the twilight of his life. The poem has the tone of a man who has lost everything in life and fittingly so since Poe had a very troubled life. He passed away merely at the age of 49 but even in that span of time his life saw more tragedies than his poems can ever express.

The main theme of poem is Poe’s rhetorical expression of the question that whether if whatever we see or seems to be, is nothing more than a dream within a dream? What if this life itself is a dream? The poet having lost everything in life expresses the blatant futility of one’s hopes and expectations. He says that whatever we expect, hope or pursuit in our life, once over becomes nothing more than a distinct memory in our lives, so faint ultimately that we are not able to distinguish them from our dreams.

       
The first stanza is the narrator’s description of him parting from his lover while the second stanza is in a more self-reflective tone. Despite the apparent differences between the two stanzas, they are linked through the ironic similarity of their transient natures.

The first imagery is that of the narrator kissing his beloved on her brow as he parts with her. The parting has an eerie sense of finality to it, as if the couple has just decided to end the relationship. While parting, the narrator accepts the fact that the time he spent with his better half was like a dream come true. He agrees with her in saying that they spent the most cherished moments together. But now his sorrows have overpowered him, and he asks that does it matter for how long they were together, since how long they dreamt of being together, or in other rather pessimistic words, how long did it take for the hope to fly away, the hope that they might pull it back together? When a man reaches a point in which his past desires,  dreams, and ambitions are no longer feasible goals for him to pursue, should it matter by what means or length these hopes have left, since they are presently nothing more but mere memories anyway?  Is it not true that this will eventually be the fate of all our current pursuits, expectations and hopes?  And if so, is there any use in pursuing one’s hopes to begin with?

              
                “All that we see or seem

                 Is but a dream within a dream.”

Every matter, work, or relationship we dedicate ourselves to will eventually end one day, irrespective of success or failure, will eventually fade out of our thoughts with time, and will become a distant, faint memory in our minds. And eventually as time passes and age takes its toll, our mind will not be able to comprehend whether the incident actually happened or it was just a mere dream. This life is unreal. We are living in a dream. And what we see or what seems to be-- all the hopes, expectations, and fantasies a man thinks of – is “but a dream within a dream”.  The first stanza is the sort of a message or self-reflection a dying man might present to ease the misfortunes that have haunted his life.

The imagery of the second stanza is that of the poet standing at the shore of an unruly sea. The shore represents his life which is has been tormented by the unforgiving tormenting waves that symbolize the troubles and pangs that his life has been scarred with. The use of “roar” and “surf-tormented” brings up images of anguish that the poet has gone through. He is approaching his death and having lost everything in life all that he has to comfort him are his memories. The poet says that he holds within his hand “grains of golden sand” which, even though he has very few of them, not even a handful, creep through his fingers and slip away from him to the ground while he weeps in futility not able to hold back even a single golden grain. The handful golden grains of sand represent the handful memories which are the only comfort he has to cherish him in the final years of his life. Yet he is unable to recall them and the memories seem to be fading away in the distant as he ages, until they seem to be nothing more than a dream. He weeps and cries and exclaims rhetorically that isn’t there a single golden grain, a single memory that he can hold on to, that would comfort him when he is on his death bed? Can he not save a single memory from the tests of the pitiless Time and the phantoms of his past? For someone like Edgar Allen Poe, who at this point in his life had nothing more to hold onto but his dreams–his fading memories–nothing would have been more desirable than the reassurance that this sole valuable of his was more than a mere intangible thought. He finishes off with the same reflection that the Life we live is unreal. It might even be a dream; and what we see or seems to be, be nothing more than “A Dream within A Dream”.

Short Answers-

3. What do the falling grains of sand represent?

A- The poet is approaching his death and having lost everything in life all that he has to comfort him are his memories. He says that he holds within his hand “grains of golden sand” which, even though he has very few of them, not even a handful, creep through his fingers and slip away from him to the ground while he weeps in futility not able to hold back even a single golden grain. The handful golden grains of sand represent the handful memories which are the only comfort he has to cherish him in the final years of his life. Yet he is unable to recall them and the memories seem to be fading away in the distant as he ages, until they seem to be nothing more than a dream. He weeps and cries and exclaims rhetorically that isn’t there a single golden grain, a single memory that he can hold on to, that would comfort him when he is on his death bed? Can he not save a single memory from the tests of the pitiless Time and the phantoms of his past? For someone like Edgar Allen Poe, who at this point in his life had nothing more to hold onto but his dreams–his fading memories–nothing would have been more desirable than the reassurance that this sole valuable of his was more than a mere intangible thought. He finishes off with the same reflection that the Life we live is unreal. It might even be a dream; and what we see or seems to be, be nothing more than “A Dream within A Dream”.

4. Sea as setting for discussion of Death and Decay. Comment.
A- The poet is at the twilight of his life and slowly moving towards his death. He has lost everything in his life and is in a state of self-pity. He looks back upon his life and reflects upon what he has gone through and how he tries in vain to remember any of the sweet moments he spent in the past and take these golden memories with him when he is on his death bed.

The poet is standing at the shore of an unruly sea. The shore represents his life which is has been tormented by the unforgiving tormenting waves that symbolize the troubles and pangs that his life has been scarred with. The use of “roar” and “surf-tormented” brings up images of anguish that the poet has gone through. He is approaching his death and having lost everything in life all that he has to comfort him are his memories. The poet says that he holds within his hand “grains of golden sand” which, even though he has very few of them, not even a handful, creep through his fingers and slip away from him to the ground while he weeps in futility not able to hold back even a single golden grain. The handful golden grains of sand represent the handful memories which are the only comfort he has to cherish him in the final years of his life. Yet he is unable to recall them and the memories seem to be fading away in the distant as he ages, until they seem to be nothing more than a dream. He weeps and cries and exclaims rhetorically that isn’t there a single golden grain, a single memory that he can hold on to, that would comfort him when he is on his death bed? Can he not save a single memory from the tests of the pitiless Time and the phantoms of his past? For someone like Edgar Allen Poe, who at this point in his life had nothing more to hold onto but his dreams–his fading memories–nothing would have been more desirable than the reassurance that this sole valuable of his was more than a mere intangible thought. He finishes off with the same reflection that the Life we live is unreal. It might even be a dream; and what we see or seems to be, be nothing more than “A Dream within A Dream”.