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.

Sindhi Woman- Jon Stallworthy

The Poem-
Barefoot through the bazaar,

Jon Stallworthy

and with the same undulant grace
as the cloth blown back from her face,
she glides with a stone jar
high on her head
and not a ripple in her tread.

Watching her cross erect
stones, garbage, excrement, and crumbs
of glass in the Karachi slums,
I, with my stoop, reflect
they stand most straight
who learn to walk beneath a weight.

Summary-

“Sindhi Woman” by Jon Stallworthy is the poet’s description of a Sindhi woman and his appreciation for the way she endures the hardships and boundations of the conservative societies such as the Middle-East, and India. The poet has described the scene in the populous city of Karachi whose slums house people on rather magnanimous levels.

The poet describes a Sindhi woman walking barefoot through the Bazaar. The term bazaar immediately places the reader in a third-world, Middle Eastern market. She walks through the streets with an undulant grace, much like the wave-like motion of the cloth wrapped around her face as the breeze sets it into gentle motion. The women from regions like Sind, were strongly traditional and pertained to orthodox beliefs such as covering their faces when they move out of the house. She glides through the market gracefully with stone jar held high over her head without even a slight ripple in her walk, which amazes the poet. The poet cannot expect her to be well-off since she doesn’t even have slippers in her feet, and still after bearing such compromising situations in her life, that grace on her face fills the poet with utter admiration for the lady.

As he watches the lady cross erect stones, garbage, excrement, and crumbs of glass in the Karachi slums, the poet notices that he has started to stoop, perhaps to get a better view, or because he is tired and unaccustomed to the climate of the country, but the Sindhi woman walks past perfectly straight bearing the load over her head. Amazed by the fact, he reflects that “they stand most straight, who learn to walk beneath a weight”. The poet here means that people who suffer unimaginable hardships in their life, and are crushed by the circumstances and the society, learn to walk straight in the most negative of situations. They have an endurance far more powerful than normal people like us who have lived a far more comfortable life and are truly worth admiring.

Mort Aux Chats- Peter Porter

The Poem-

There will be no more cats.

Peter Porter

Cats spread infection,

Cats pollute the air,

Cats consume seven times

their own weight in food a week,

Cats were worshipped in

decadent societies (Egypt

and Ancient Rome); the Greeks

had no use for cats. Cats

sit down to pee (our scientists

have proved it). The copulation

of cats is harrowing; they

are unbearably fond of the moon.

Perhaps they are all right in

their own country but their

traditions are alien to ours.

Cats smell, they can't help it,

you notice it going upstairs.

Cats watch too much television,

they can sleep through storms,

they stabbed us in the back

last time. There have never been

any great artists who were cats.

They don't deserve a capital C

except at the beginning of a sentence.

I blame my headaches and my

plants dying on cats.

Our district is full of them,

property values are falling.

When I dream of God I see

a Massacre of Cats. Why

should they insist on their own

language and religion, who

needs to purr to make his point?

Death to all cats! The Rule

of Dogs shall last a thousand years!

Summary-

“Mort Aux Chats” by Peter Porter is a rhetorical monologue where the poet tries to persuade the authors that “cats” are undesirable creatures. It is a political poem and uses a persuasive tone and when considered in depth, the term “cats” actually refers to a human race that a poet detests or dislikes. “Mort Aux Chats” meaning “Death to All Cats” is actually a prejudice poem and the word cat might refer to a number of denominations, all of which are interestingly those races which the Whites considered inferior to their own and uncivilised. Peter Porter has very cleverly kept his point in a very passive tone and thus the reader is never sure if the views of the writer are actually racist or is it just the tone of the poem.

The poem begins with a line saying-- Death to All Cats-- perhaps hinting the strongly negative views that the poet has for that particular race of men. He considers them so useless and irritating that he says that all of them must die at once. The poet goes on to exemplify his point saying that cats spread infections, pollute the air with their stink, eat seven times their weight in a day, and were worshiped in morally and culturally declined societies like Egypt and Rome. Societies whose foundations were based on Science like Greeks had no use for cats. While the points presented here by the author are factual and scientific, they have a hidden meaning of their own. The poet tells us the reason why he hates that race saying they are uncilvilised and spread infections, pollute the environment, eat in an unhygienic way, and are only considered important in societies that are backward and unscientific. Though the hidden meaning might clearly refer to an allusion to the Blacks or the Jews, we have no means of predicting the same. The poet goes on to say that cats sit down to pee, which if at all referred to a race shows a gross level of uncivilised behaviour. He says that mating of cats is a distressful sight, and they are unbearably fond of moon, another gross and idiotic behaviour.

The poet when saying that they might be right in their own country, but their tradition is alien to ours, perhaps hints, that he is writing for a race of humans that his race, the Whites, finds alien to theirs in terms of tradition and civilisation, more clearly than anywhere else in the entire poem. He says that though they might be important and justified in their activities in their own country, they have no use in his country. He further says that cats smell and they themselves can’t help it. They watch too much television and can sleep through storms. Again, through factual behaviour of cats, the poet tries to point the inferiority of the other race by terming them as lazy and lackadaisical, generally laid back in everything they do. They continue this behaviour even in times of turmoil.

The next line that the poet says--“they stabbed us in the back last time”-- is a very clear allusion to the Jews and the views presented here by the poet are strongly Nazi that it was because of the treachery of the Jews that they lost World War II. The poet even goes on to say that there have never been any great artist belonging to this race and that their contribution to the civilization of today have been so nominal and unproductive that they don’t deserve a even a capital letter at the beginning of the name of their race (here referred to as C for Cats) except at the beginning of sentences which makes it as common a word as anything else. The poet says that these cats are the reason behind his headache and the death of his plants, perhaps referring to the social decay of the Modern World. They are nothing more than a headache to the World. The poet even goes on to say that when he dreams of God, he sees a massacre of cats. These are the words of Adolf Hitler himself referred to the Jews wherein he justified the extermination of six million Jews during the Holocaust. The poet then says that they have no right to claim for their own religion and language been given a status parallel to his own, because their language is as insignificant as the purr of a cat. He concludes by proclaiming Death to All Cats yet again and saying that the rule of dogs, a race far more superior and intelligent than cats, perhaps referring to his own race, shall rule for a thousand years.

The poem has a strongly racist inner meaning wrapped around in light-hearted and sarcastic humour, therefore rendering the actual meaning of the poem rather invisible and saves the poet from explicitly proclaiming himself as a racist.

An Introduction- Kamala Das

Edit:  An equally beautiful summary of the poem can be found in the following two links below, written by a very talented Ms. Rukhaya MK who is much more accomplished in the field than I am, and apparently has many more well-wishers, for they have stormed my life and also the comments section below with allegations of plagiarism.
http://rukhaya.com/poetry-analysis-kamala-das-an-introduction/
http://www.galaxyimrj.com/V1/n2/Rukhaya.pdf
Writing is about inspiration. And whatever we write is inspired by someone or the other. That being said, whatever we write as a result of this inspiration we have all the right to claim it as our own. I happily say that I was inspired by Ms Rukhaya MK, but certain lines from my summary might have looked more similar to hers than she would have liked them to (I still can't figure out which ones!). Nevertheless, this entire summary is the product of my long, tiring, and dedicated efforts spanning hours, and I have every right to call my original creation. Thank You; Enjoy Reading (whichever you choose to)!
The Poem--

Kamala Das

I don't know politics but I know the names
Of those in power, and can repeat them like
Days of week, or names of months, beginning with Nehru.
I am Indian, very brown, born in Malabar,
I speak three languages, write in
Two, dream in one.
Don't write in English, they said, English is
Not your mother-tongue. Why not leave
Me alone, critics, friends, visiting cousins,
Every one of you? Why not let me speak in
Any language I like? The language I speak,
Becomes mine, its distortions, its queernesses
All mine, mine alone.
It is half English, half Indian, funny perhaps, but it is honest,
It is as human as I am human, don't
You see? It voices my joys, my longings, my
Hopes, and it is useful to me as cawing
Is to crows or roaring to the lions, it
Is human speech, the speech of the mind that is
Here and not there, a mind that sees and hears and
Is aware. Not the deaf, blind speech
Of trees in storm or of monsoon clouds or of rain or the
Incoherent mutterings of the blazing
Funeral pyre. I was child, and later they
Told me I grew, for I became tall, my limbs
Swelled and one or two places sprouted hair.
When I asked for love, not knowing what else to ask
For, he drew a youth of sixteen into the
Bedroom and closed the door, He did not beat me
But my sad woman-body felt so beaten.
The weight of my breasts and womb crushed me.
I shrank Pitifully.
Then … I wore a shirt and my
Brother's trousers, cut my hair short and ignored
My womanliness. Dress in sarees, be girl
Be wife, they said. Be embroiderer, be cook,
Be a quarreller with servants. Fit in. Oh,
Belong, cried the categorizers. Don't sit
On walls or peep in through our lace-draped windows.
Be Amy, or be Kamala. Or, better
Still, be Madhavikutty. It is time to
Choose a name, a role. Don't play pretending games.
Don't play at schizophrenia or be a
Nympho. Don't cry embarrassingly loud when
Jilted in love … I met a man, loved him. Call
Him not by any name, he is every man
Who wants. a woman, just as I am every
Woman who seeks love. In him . . . the hungry haste
Of rivers, in me . . . the oceans' tireless
Waiting. Who are you, I ask each and everyone,
The answer is, it is I. Anywhere and,
Everywhere, I see the one who calls himself I
In this world, he is tightly packed like the
Sword in its sheath. It is I who drink lonely
Drinks at twelve, midnight, in hotels of strange towns,
It is I who laugh, it is I who make love
And then, feel shame, it is I who lie dying
With a rattle in my throat. I am sinner,
I am saint. I am the beloved and the
Betrayed. I have no joys that are not yours, no
Aches which are not yours. I too call myself I.

Summary-

“An Introduction” is perhaps the most famous of the poems written by Kamala Das in a self-reflective and confessional tone from her maiden publication Summer in Calcutta(1965). The poem is a strong remark on Patriarchal Society prevalent today and brings to light the miseries, bondage, pain suffered by the fairer sex in such times.

The poet says that she is not interested in politics but claims that she can name all the people who have been in power right from the time of Nehru. By saying that she can repeat them as fluently as days of week, or names of the month, she indirectly states the fact that politics in the country is a game of few chosen elite who ironically rule a democracy. The fact that she remembers them so well depicts that the same people have been in power time and again.

Next, she describes herself saying that she is an Indian, born in Malabar and very brown in colour. She speaks in three languages, writes in two and dreams in one, articulating the thought that Dreams have their own universal language. Kamala Das echoes that the medium of writing is not as significant as is the comfort level that one requires. People asked her not to write in English since isn’t her mother tongue. Moreover, the fact that English was a colonial language prevalent as medium of communication during British times drew even more criticism every time she had an encounter with a critic, friends, or visiting cousins. She emphasizes that the language she speaks becomes her own, all its imperfections and queerness become her own. It is half-English, half-Hindi, which seems rather amusing but the point is that it is honest. Its imperfections only make it more human, rendering it close to what we call Natural. It is the language of her expression and emotion as it voices her joys, sorrows and hopes. It is as integral to her as cawing is to the crows and roaring to the lions. Though imperfect, It is not a deaf, blind speech like that of trees in storm or the clouds of rain. Neither does it echo the "incoherent mutterings of the funeral pyre." Instead, it has an inherent natural coherence of its own.

She moves on telling her own story. She was a child, and later people told her that she had grown up for her body had started showing signs of puberty. But she didn’t seem to understand this interpretation because at the heart she was still but a child. When she asked for love from her soulmate not knowing what else to ask, he took the sixteen-year-old to his bedroom. The expression is a strong criticism of child marriage which pushes children into such a predicament while they are still very childish at heart. Though he didn’t beat her, she felt beaten and her body seemed crushed under her own weight. This is a very emphatic expression of how unprepared the body of a sixteen-year-old is for the assault it gets subjected to. She shrank pitifully, ashamed of her femininity.

She tries to overcome such humiliation by being tomboyish. And thereafter when she opts for male clothing to hide her femininity, the guardians enforce typical female attire, with warnings to fit into the socially determined attributes of a woman, to become a wife and a mother and get confined to the domestic routine. She is threatened to remain within the four walls of her female space lest she should make herself a psychic or a maniac. They even ask her to hold her tears when rejected in love. She calls them categorizers since they tend to categorise every person on the basis of points that are purely whimsical.

Towards the end of the poem, the poet describes her encounters with a man. She doesn't take names, for it is the symbolism in her relationship that she seeks to convey. He is every other man who wants a woman, like an embodiment of the hungry haste of river, while she is every other woman, an embodiment of patience like the ocean's tireless waiting. When she asks every such man who he is, he replies saying he is I. The poet herein through symbolism presents to the readers the inherent male ego of a patriarchal society. He is rigid in his mindset like a "the sword in its sheath", and his views are not open to discussion. It is this "I" i.e. male ego that justifies lying drunk at 12 in the night in a hotel in some strange town, that justifies the condescending laughs, that makes love to woman and then feels ashamed about being so easily carried away, and yet dies with a rattle in the throat, like everyone else. Death exposes the futility of male ego, showing that the "he" is no greater than "she". Thus the poet concludes by saying that this "I" should be no different from "her", and thus I is both the sinner and the saint, both the betrayer and the betrayed, and both the man and the woman. There are no joys to "I" that she doesn't get to experience, nor any pains to him that she hasn't gone through. Thus "She" is "I" too.

At The Lahore Karhai- Imtiaz Dharker

Imtiaz Dharker

The Poem-

It's a great day, Sunday,
when we pile into the car
and set off with a purpose –
a pilgrimage across the city,
to Wembley, the Lahore Karhai.
Lunch service has begun –
'No beer, we're Muslim' –
but the morning sun
squeezed into juice,
and 'Yaad na jaye'
on the two-in-one.                    

On the Grand Trunk Road
thundering across Punjab to Amritsar,
this would be a dhaba
where the truck-drivers pull in,
swearing and sweating,
full of lust for real food,
just like home.

Hauling our overloaded lives
the extra mile,
we're truckers of another kind,
looking hopefully (years away
from Sialkot and Chandigarh)
for the taste of our mothers'
hand in the cooking.

So we've arrived at this table:
the Lahore runaway;
the Sindhi refugee
with his beautiful wife
who prays each day to Krishna,
keeper of her kitchen and her life;
the Englishman too young
to be flavoured by the Raj;
the girls with silky hair,
wearing the confident air
of Bombay.

This winter we have learnt
to wear our past
like summer clothes.
Yes, a great day.
A feast! We swoop
on a whole family of dishes.
The tarka dal is Auntie Hameeda
the karhai ghosht is Khala Ameena
the gajjar halva is Appa Rasheeda.

The warm naan is you.

My hand stops half-way to my mouth.
The Sunday light has locked
on all of us:
the owner's smiling son,
the cook at the hot kebabs,
Kartar, Rohini, Robert,
Ayesha, Sangam, I,
bound together by the bread we break,
sharing out our continent.

These
are ways of remembering.
Other days, we may prefer
Chinese.

Summary-

“At the Lahore Karhai” by Imtiaz Dharker portrays the nostalgia experienced by Indians living outside their home land. The poet herself is of Indian origin but has been brought up in Wembley, a county in England with comparatively larger population of residents from Indian origin. The poet’s cultural background helps her to do justice to the emotions and feelings she has tried to express through her poem.

The poet narrates the old memories surfacing from within her heart as she travels down to the Lahore Karhai, Wembley, an Indian restaurant in the area, and she feels a powerful nostalgia erupting from within her. The fact that she calls it a pilgrimage itself expresses how meaningful this journey went down to be for her. She compares her journey to that of truck drivers back in India, driving their trucks on The Grand Trunk road, across Punjab to Amritsar, and then, drenched in sweat, swearing, getting down at a dhaba with an expectation to get food that tastes like home. She is also a trucker, only of a different kind. Instead of trucks, people like her, the Non-resident Indians, years away from their home in Sialkot and Chandigarh, bear the weight of the rush and chaos in their lives for some extra miles, and then at moments like these, they too stop, at restaurants and places which promise them the feeling of home, with a hope of getting a break, and giving a chance to the memories reverberating in their heart to come to life and fill their environment with nostalgia. With such a feeling does the poet enter the doors of Lahore Karhai, expecting the taste of her mother’s hands in the bread she is about to break.

She describes the company that she has got around her on the lunch table—a Sindhi migrant, who left her home back in Lahore, sitting with his wife who prays to Krishna everyday, “the keeper of her kitchen and her life”; an Englishman too young to be influenced by his domicile and instill that feeling of superiority, and two girls representing the typical Bombay culture with their confidence. She further goes on to say that that winter taught them to wear their past like summer clothes.

As they swoop on the divine meal on a great day, memories from past rejuvenate in the poet’s mind. Every dish she tastes reminds her of someone back home. The tarka dal reminds her of Auntie Hameeda, ever bite of karhai ghosht brings to life memories of Khala Ameena, and the gajjar halva synonymously reminds her of Appa Rasheeda. The warm naan reminds her of a second person singular “You”, perhaps referring to her soulmate. As she brings another bite near her mouth, her hand stops halfway to witness the divinity and nostalgia of the moment. The smiling face of the owner’s son, the look of the cook preparing the kebabs, and the fact that all people on the table feasting together--Kartar, Rohini, Robert, Ayesha, Sangam, and she herself—sharing their past, bounded together by the bread they break—the nostalgic meal. She wraps up by saying that activities such as these, such traditional feasts, are rather excuses for remembering our long-forgotten past. On a normal day, they would have preferred Chinese, but the tradition and nostalgia such a feast encompasses within itself is unparalleled and is perhaps more important a reason than the food itself why people such as her, Truckers of different kind, go for such a pilgrimage once in a while.