Wednesday, 29 October 2014

Hosts and Guests by Max Beerbohm



Difference Between Hosts and Guests
     Offering or accepting hospitality is a quality found in every human being. On the basis of it, Max Beerbohm in his essay "Hosts and Guests" has divided the whole mankind into two distinct classes; hosts and guests like Gelett Burgess has divided it into Bromides and Sulphites. Although this classification is only on the theoratical level, he has clearly drawn the general, temperamental and circumstantial differences between these two classes. 
     Firstly, the writer tells the general difference between these two classes. A person gets the label of a host if he invites someone to dine with him at a restaurant, orders the meal and bears the expenses. On the other hand a person gets the label of a guest if he accepts the invitation with delight, praises the food while eating, does not pay the bill and feels a pleasant sensation of not paying for it. 
     Secondly, the writer gives the temperamental dissimilarity between these two groups. Every human being is either a host or a guest by instinct. He is a born-host or a born-guest. His instinct dominates his personality. A person is a host if he possesses an active or positive instinct to offer hospitality. On the other hand a person is a guest if he has a passive or negative instinct to accept the hopitality. 
     Thirdly, there are circumstantial differences between hosts and guests. Circumstances react on the character. Conventionally, the rich give and the poor receive. Riches often nurture the instincts of a host and poverty usually fosters the instincts of a guest. The rich and the poor is an undisputed division, however, the rich as hosts and the poor as guests is a poor one. Some poor persons also love to entertain others. 

Sunday, 19 October 2014

Whistling of Birds by D.H. Lawrence

Writer's Love for Nature
    D.H. Lawrence  is a platonic lover of nature so he loves nature from both sides of the coin. His essay "Whistling of Birds" shows his absorbing love for nature. His faithful description of objects of nature, beautiful presentation of phenomena of nature and acknowledgement of nature's merciless potential, are evidence of his love for nature. 
     Firstly, his faithful description of objects of nature shows his strong affinity with nature. The presence of lambs, turtles and doves etc, in this essay, symbolizes his love for animals  whereas daphne, crocus and celandine denote his love for plants. Both animals and plants are the living objects of nature and the writer is a lover of them. 
     Secondly, his beautiful presentation of the spectacular phenomena of nature demonstrates his love for nature. He describes frost, wind, sunset and twilight as a lover describes the features of his beloved. He has presented these divine acts to portray two other great natural phenomena; winter and spring. However, the writer's love for nature is  the greatest natural phenomena. 
     Thirdly, the writer's love for nature has recognized nature's merciless potential. That is why he has given the dismal details of lacerated cadavers of lapwings, starlings, thrushes, red-wings and numerous other creatures. In short, the writer is an avid lover of nature's duality. 
No spring nor summer beauty hath such grace
As I have seen in one autumnal face
(John Donne)

Tuesday, 14 October 2014

Circumstance for the Creation of Pakistan

Circumstances for the Creation of Pakistan


     Irreconcilable differences eventually lead to inevitable separation. In his speech "Pakistan and the Modern World" delivered at Kansas University America in 1950, Quaid-e-Millat, Liaquat Ali Khan brought to light the circumstances which led to the creation of Pakistan. These circumstances were, in fact, the deep-rooted differences between the Muslims and the Hindus. The Muslims and the Hindus were poles apart demographically, religiously, socially and economically. Thus Hindu-Muslim unity and amity were impossible in the sub-continent.
     Demographically, the Muslims were a minority as compared with the Hindus. Religiously, the Muslims were monotheists while the Hindus were polytheists. Socially, the Muslims believed in the equality of all men whereas the Hindus adhered to a caste system. Economically, the Muslims advocated private ownership and the Hindus attached weight to the concentration of wealth. Thus the Muslims and the Hindus were different in everything and must need different territories. Their co-existence was incongruous. Moreover, the sub-continent was vast enough for two large countries. 
    The demand of the Muslims for divorce was very genuine and reasonable as it was in the interest of both the Muslims and the Hindus. It was also in the interest of the world peace. The bogus peace enforced by the British would have ended after the departure of the British from the sub-continent. In short, a separate homeland was inevitable for the Muslims to live peacefully and according to their own political, religious, social and economical life style. 
There is no place like home
All must have a home of their own
                                      (J.H. Payne)

Friday, 10 October 2014

"The Bear" by Anton Chekhov

"The Bear" As a Farce
     Farce is a kind of low comedy that raises roars of laughter rather than smile. "The Bear" by Anton Chekhov is an outstanding archetype of this genre. The exaggerative characters, ludicrous situations and improbable plot are the major farcical elements in the play that produce belly laughs, slapstick humour and rumbustious entertainment.
     Firstly, the play has exaggerative characters. They are alazons. They inflate themselves to be more than they actually are. Smirnov exposes himself a misogynist. However, the way he exploits flattery to win Popova's love makes us giggle. Popova claims that she is inconsolably bereaved but her powdered face and passionate embrace with Smirnov give us a hearty cachinnation.
     Secondly, the play is pregnant with ludicrous situations. Popova's refusal to pay back Smirnov the loan, Popova's accepting Smirnov's challenge to fight a duel with pistol and Smirnov's teaching Popova how to fire a pistol are the most ludicrous and ridiculous situations in the play. These situations breed a great hee-haw and guffaw. 
     Thirdly, the plot of the play is improbable. It is full of suspense but the suspense, curiously enough, is titillating, rather than grim. The twist at the end of the plot is quite humorous. In masquerades the expected tragedy into comedy. Thus the end, obviously makes the readers or the spectators laugh a great deal. Ha! Ha! Ha! ............!