Purpose -T.P. Kailasam

Purpose, by T.P. Kailasam, is a short play dramatizing events that occurred in the Mahabharata involving Drona, Arjuna, and Eklavya. Drona is a skilled teacher, renown throughout the land for his wisdom and skill. Arjuna is a prince of a great kingdom. Eklavya is a tribal boy from a relatively far-away area.

For those of you who haven't yet read the play, please do, it's actually quite cool:

http://tpkailasam.blogspot.in/2011/11/purpose.html

Summary:

One day, as Drona is training Arjuna, Eklavya comes out of the forest and observes them from a distance. When Drona looks less busy Eklavya approaches him and asks for permission to learn archery. Drona does not refuse the boy nor scorn him. Drona, in fact, as the play would suggest, wholeheartedly wishes to help Eklavya fulfil his goal.

Eklavya lives in a hut in the centre of a great forest. Near his house there are many fawns that him and his mother care for and occasionally feed. However, there are an abundance of wolves in that region of the forest and they continuously hunt down and eat his fawns. It is for this purpose that he wishes to mastery the skill of archery.

Drona is utterly wooed by the boy's selflessness. Of course he is. Who doesn't love fauns. They're so cute. Look at this guy!!

At this point in the play, you genuinely think that Drona will take Eklavya on as his pupil. Unfortunately, Drona's other pupil, Arjuna, is not the nicest guy. He gets into a small fight with Eklavya and insults his caste, telling him that he is low-born and hence, is unable to ever compete with somebody of his own level.

Eklavya's response to this is seen by many as the author's attempt to slip in his opinions on the moral foundations of caste. Upon being insulted by Arjuna, Eklavya responds with the following dialogue:
_________________________________________________________________________________

Arjuna:	(Stung to the quick) What do you mean by my "Silly pride" in my caste?
Ekalavya:	(Calm and smiling) "What do I mean"? Why, just what I said! When I spoke of your pride in your caste as being silly, I meant that you are proud of your caste without knowing what there is in your caste to be really proud of!
Arjuna:	(Sneeringly) How do you know that I do not know it?
Ekalavya:	Well then, if you really do know what there is to be proud of in being an Arya that there is not in being a nishaada... tell me!...I am a nishaada and you are an Arya; And yet I am as strong as you; I can become as great an archer as you ever can – if your Guru wills it; and I have all that I want in my beautiful forest as you have all you want in this big city of yours!...Tell me how you are any better than I for being an Arya ?
Arjuna:	(Cogitates for a minute; a confused and unequal to a coherent and cogent reply, snaps back sardonically) You may be all this and even perhaps become as good as I in archery – if Gurujee takes you on as his pupil! And yet, after all is said and done... AN ARYA is AN ARYA! And a NISHAADA is only a LOW-BORN NISHAADA!
Ekalavya:	(Bursts out laughing) You make me laugh!
Arjuna:	(Curtly) What is there to laugh at?
Ekalavya:	I am laughing because it seems to me that according to you the only thing that one has to be proud of in being an Arya is THAT ONE IS NOT A NISHAADA! If then, there were no nishaadas at all in this world... you poor Aryans would have nothing to be proud of in being born as Aryas?
Arjuna:	Is that what you really think?
Ekalavya:	Of course not! I know what there is to be proud of in being an Arya! It is you that do not! If you care to hear me and learn I shall tell you! In the forest I live in, cruel wolves maul and kill harmless deer and fawns; and THE ONLY WAY THAT I CAN SAVE THE DEER AND FAWNS IS BY KILLING THE WOLVES! In the forest next to mine lives an Aryan Rishi and HE PROTECTS HIS DEER AND FAWNS BY THE POWER OF HIS "TAPAS" WITHOUT KILLING THE WOLVES! Now MY way of guarding my deer and fawns spells not only the death of the wolves, but also makes little wolf-cubs who have as yet done no harm, become fatherless and motherless!! And I who know both the loss of a father and love of a mother can feel for the poor little cubs! Thus, you see, that the power an Arya has, of doing the same thing as a nishaada BUT WITHOUT HARM OR HURT TO ANYONE, is a thing to be really proud of! YOUR silly pride in your caste ONLY BECAUSE YOU WERE BORN AN ARYA is but a sure sign of your WEAK HEAD! _______________________________________________________________________________________

Drona is thoroughly impressed with this volley of ideas and is even more willing to take on Eklavya than before. Arjuna, however, remembers something that he can twist to his advantage. Drona had promised Arjuna that he would make him the greatest archer in the world. Yet still Arjuna and Eklavya continue to bicker and fight. Eklavya reminds Arjuna that, according to the guru there are only 5 requirements to become a good archer:

1. A perfect mastery of the groundwork of archery
2. A power to concentrate
3. A deep and fervent love for one's guru
4. The guru's whole hearted agreement to teach
5. Assiduous practice

Eklavya states that nowhere in these criteria is caste mentioned, and hence he should have an equal opportunity. Through the course of the argument we see that Eklavya genuinely believes that the guru will side with him. 

Unfortunately, after Arjuna invoking his promise, the honor-bound guru has no choice but to turn Eklavya away. Eklavya is heartbroken. Before he leaves however, he asks the guru one thing:

________________________________________________________________________________

Ekalavya:	("Serving out” his words slowly and deliberately in a tone of utmost apprehension) IF you HAD HAD the time, Sir, and WERE FREE to teach me, Sir, WOULD YOU HAVE LIKED, the least bit, LIKED to teach me?
Drona:	(With his hands resting on Ekalavya's shoulders; bends down and speaks in a tone of utmost love and admiration) "Liked"? "The least bit liked"? Why, my little man, if only I had the least chance, I should LOVE to teach you! ________________________________________________________________

Eklavya cunningly manipulates the guru into saying this. What Eklavya takes this to mean is that he has now satisfied the 4th criteria required to become a proficient bowman. As he possesses all the others, there is nothing that can stop him. He thanks the guru and leaves as Act I ends.

Act II begins six years later with Drona and Arjuna wandering through the forest and talking. Suddenly, they see a wolf run out from a nearby bush screaming with at least 30 arrows through its skull. Drona and Arjuna stand spellbound by this insanely awesome feat of archery. As the archer comes running in pursuit, they recognize him as Eklavya.

Arjuna gets pissed as, after witnessing Eklavya's mad archery, there's no way that he's the greatest archer alive. Hence he calls Drona a liar and Eklavya gets angry. This repeats itself several times and eventually they start talking things out.

Eklavya reveals that his guru is the great Drona. Drona denies this vehemently, saying that he had not trained anyone other than Arjuna. Eklavya beckons them to follow him to his shrine nearby. Upon reaching, they see a life sized clay statue of Drona sitting cross-legged on a shrine under the shade of a tree. Eklavya says that he has learnt from this statue.

Arjuna is unable to understand this and takes out his anger on Drona. Drona helplessly responds that he too had no idea of these happenings, but Arjuna won't quit. He mocks Drona, telling him that the world will know him as a liar who did not abide by his promise to the king.

Eklavya is crestfallen. He cannot believe that his training may be the downfall of the great Dronacharya. Drona is equally perplexed as to how his pupil (Eklavya) could have learnt more than he himself knows. To this Eklavya responds:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Eklavya:

A PUPIL CAN LEARN MORE FROM HIS GURU THAN WHAT THE GURU HIMSELF KNOWS  IF THE PURPOSE OF THE PUPIL FOR LEARNING IS NOBLER THAN WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE GURU'S WAS WHEN HE LEARNT FROM HIS GURU!!
_________________________________________________________________________________

Drona is now feeling confused and guilty. He couldn't deny that he'd failed to deliver on his promise to Arjuna but at the same time he'd had no idea that Eklavya had been, in a way, training under him.

Drona knows that he's trapped. He knows that there is no way that Arjuna can ever become a greater bowman than Eklavya. Drona says that it is not just the effort given by the teacher that counts, it is equally the effort given by the pupil to learn. In this respect, he feels that Arjuna can never become greater. Eklavya continues to insist that with the proper training, Arjuna could still easily become the best archer. Drona shakes his head and gives the following important dialogue which reflects the significance of the title:

_________________________________________________________________________________
Drona:

You do not know all, Little Man! It is not only Love and respect for the Guru that counts... but the PURPOSE... the MAIN PURPOSE with which the pupil learns, DECIDES HOW MUCH HE learns! You have said it yourself a while ago. With his [Arjuna's] purpose for learning... far beneath yours,... all his efforts and mine to help him even to EQUAL you, will not avail!!

(Looking away) His purpose from the very outset has been to acquire personal fame as an archer! To be acclaimed the greatest archer of all times! And with you working body and soul, heart and mind... to free harmless creatures from fear of marauding beasts... the hardest of his efforts will not land him within yojanaas of your archery!! And I shall never keep the promise I rashly made!

_______________________________________________________________________________

Eklavya is overwhelmed with guilt. He feels terrible about the fact that he was the cause of all of this. He offers to never draw his bow again but Arjuna is not satisfied. Arjuna continues to infuriate Eklavya by taunting him and insulting Drona. Caught up in a fit of rage, Eklavya walks over to the image of Drona and cuts of his right thumb as blood gushes from the severed finger.

Drona is aghast and deeply shocked. He had never expected this, much less wanted it. Eklavya tells him that this is his Guru's dakshina as Arjuna looks on shocked.

As Eklavya's rage dies down, he is sudd,enly overcome with a sense of grief. He remembers his fauns, the purpose of his entire endeavour. He had just destroyed his purpose. Covered in blood and tears, Eklavya weeps, surrounded by his fauns. In a fit of rage at Drona's allowal of him to do this, he rushes towards the statue and abuses it. He is about to smash it when he is suddenly overwhelmed with a sense of remorse. He mutters, "What have I almost done", and sinks back to the floor. The play ends with him whimpering the following lines hopelessly to himself:

_________________________________________________________________________________
Eklavya:

FORGIVE ME, GURUJEE! I DID NOT KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING! BUT YET, HOW COULD YOU! HOW COULD YOU I HOW COULD YOU!

_________________________________________________________________________________


Analysis:

As you can see from the last lines, Eklavya is still torn, confused and uncertain. He was caught between a loyalty to his Guru (who had made his purpose possible) and a loyalty to his purpose (for which he needed the Guru). Caught in this paradox and a fit of rage, he made an impetuous decision. The fact that he is still undecided after having sacrificed his thumb reflects the agonizing pain that he must be feeling. He is caught between two sides, both favoured equally, but he's already committed wholeheartedly to one. This can be seen as being reflective of the pain of indecision.

Another important point worth mentioning is that things go slightly differently in the original story in the Mahabharata. In the original story Drona is portrayed as being vengeful. Unhappy that Eklavya 'disobeyed' his instructions, he demands the Guru Dakshina. The fact that this is quite different in the two tellings helps us extract a little information about the significance of the text. Drona is caught between his promises and what he knows is right. He is torn by his loyalty towards his promise (which he swore he would not break) and his loyalty to his sense of justice (which tells him that Eklavya's purpose is noble and pure).

Despite the fact that all the outwardly conflicts are catalysed by Arjuna, the larger predominant conflicts are the internal ones of Eklavya and Drona. Both suffer tremendous turmoil and indecision. While Drona suppresses his and keeps thinking of possible solution, Eklavya makes an impetuous decision which further catalyses the internal clashing of resolves.

In the end however, Eklavya is still unsure as to whether what he did was right or wrong. His confusion and pain makes a lasting impact on the viewer.

The play also implicitly comments on the concepts of loyalty and heroism. Is the idea of loyalty an worthwhile one? Can it really be chosen over common sense? What does one really get out of being loyal? These are a few of the questions evoked in the mind of the viewer throughout the play. Eklavya's heroism can also be read into. In a fit of rage he made a sacrifice he was unwilling to make. In a desperate attempt to maintain his loyalty to the Guru, he gave away what was not his to give: his purpose. 

The aforementioned purpose is a reflection of the title and the overall significance of the piece. What is the purpose?

The initial reference to purpose comes in the beginning of the piece with these lines spoken by Bheeshma, Arjuna's father.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Bheeshma:


! This, Aachaarya, is the "haze" I spoke of...The haze of UNCERTAINTY in which is shrouded the PURPOSE of all this training, the USE of which alone, we know! (In a tone of summing up) We are play-acting in scenes, Aachaarya, whose every line we KNOW without knowing the PURPORT of THE PLAY! We are walking on paths, Aachaarya, every step of which we KNOW without knowing the PURPOSE of THE JOURNEY!

_________________________________________________________________________________

To which Drona responds
_________________________________________________________________________________
Drona:


And yet, Gaangeya, it is not for ME to remind YOU that before all (raising his eyes aloft)—HE knows the Purpose of it all, not we! We may, at very best, but labour...no more...and leave the rest to HIM!
________________________________________________________________________________

Finally at the end of the play, Drona revives the idea of purpose once again:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Drona:

You do not know all, Little Man! It is not only Love and respect for the Guru that counts... but the PURPOSE... the MAIN PURPOSE with which the pupil learns, DECIDES HOW MUCH HE learns! You have said it yourself a while ago. With his [Arjuna's] purpose for learning... far beneath yours,... all his efforts and mine to help him even to EQUAL you, will not avail!!

(Looking away) His purpose from the very outset has been to acquire personal fame as an archer! To be acclaimed the greatest archer of all times! And with you working body and soul, heart and mind... to free harmless creatures from fear of marauding beasts... the hardest of his efforts will not land him within yojanaas of your archery!! And I shall never keep the promise I rashly made!

_________________________________________________________________________________

So from these three extracts, what conclusion do we come to regarding the purpose?

I feel that the purpose is representative of some kind of cosmic role that we live to play. As hinted at by both Bheeshma and Drona in the first two extracts, the purpose is unknown to all but him (God).

The decision that was taken by Eklavya interfered with his overall purpose. This image of an impetuous decision destroying one's entire purpose in life, evokes a sense of folly, hopelessness, and emptiness. It truly is the worst fate that can befall someone.

Now is we take a step back, and look at it from a wider perspective, Eklavya really was caught in a situation from which there was no easy way out. He could not back out as that would mean desecrating the reputation (and hence the honour) of his Guru. He was just really unlucky. To add to the luck factor, it was a sheer coincidence that Arjuna and Drona were walking through the forest just as Eklavya was chasing a wolf. Fluke. 

The fact that these crucial pivots of the story operate on luck truly provides some symbolism. If it weren't for these events, Arjuna would not have encountered Eklavya (at least not in this manner) and the subsequent events would never have happened. The interference with God's premeditated 'Purpose', would never have happened. So, is luck really the work of God? Is it beyond his control? If not, what was the reason behind him coordinating the events that exploded in the finale?

In conclusion, some of the crucial themes that I thought the play dealt with were:

1. How valuable loyalty really is.
2. Does it mean more to be loyal to your word, or your cause?
3. The folly of making long-term non-retractable decisions (Interference with purpose)
4. Is 'luck' God's way of intervening or is it a separate entity entirely?
5. The pain of indecision. 
6. The de-polarisation of roles. This theme is brought out through the differences between this adaptation and the original telling. The fact that Drona has been portrayed in an entirely different light allows us to inspect each of the characters more closely and try to see them for what they really are. Arjuna plays the role of  a protagonist alongside Krishna in the Mahabharata yet in this piece he's the chief antagonist. This 'reversal' of ideals and bias is very thought-provoking to say the least.
7. Contrasting moral conclusions.The original story is normally told with the moral of how good it is to put loyalty to one's word and one's elder above all else. Eklavya is respected for keeping his Guru's word and honour intact. In this version however, we see the turmoil and despair that this decision causes him. In conflict of the original set of morals, this version makes the viewer question the usefulness of loyalty. Is it worth abandoning your purpose for loyalty? To what extend must common sense and the heart prevail over loyalty? All of the aforementioned themes come together to frame this final and most prominent theme. The stories contrast. By exploring the motives of the characters and looking at the same story from a different angle, we are able to extract much more from text. T.P. Kailasam's retelling is a fresh take on an old story.

Professions for Women (A paper read to The Women's Service League) - Virginia Woolf

Virginia Woolf was a famous British modernist writer who lived in Britain in the early 1900's. This essay is actually a speech given by her to the The Women's Service League. In it, Virginia Woolf talks about the difficulties and obstacles that stand in the way of women writers.

Woolf begins the piece with talking about the path that she took to become a professional writer. She bought paper, a pen, and some ink, wrote a couple pages and, upon mailing it to a newspaper became a paid journalist. She bought a cat with the money. A Persian cat. A big fat Persian cat.

This is where Virginia Woolf is quick to say that she is not that professional a writer as she didn't spend the money on bread, food, or rent. But a cat. A big fat Persian cat.

It's at this point that the first and most prominent of Woolf's personifications comes into play. She describes  the presence of 'The Angel in the House'. This angel, she says, is an embodiment of all that is good, sweet, sacrificial, womanly and pure. This personification is, in fact, a satirical appropriation of a poem by Coventry Patmore about his wife. That poem  was also titled 'The Angel in the House'. In it, Patmore describes his wife as being incredibly feminine pure and self-sacrificing. Virginia Woolf takes this character and personifies it in her speech.

The personification of such 'feminine graces' begin to haunt Woolf, seeping into her writing and her reviews, continuously telling her to retain her femininity. So Woolf kills her. Woolf kills this personification of what a woman should be. Woolf insists that the killing was in self defence - had she not killed the angel, the angel would have killed her [writing]. Virginia Woolf claims that 'killing the angel of the house' is an experience that every woman writer must have to become a professional writer.

Now Virginia Woolf comes to the second obstacle that she faced as a woman writer. Writers who are penning novels normally enjoy staying indoors or in a quiet environment, so as not to disturb them from the fantasy world they are weaving. This helps their imagination wander as far and as deep as possible. Woolf describes her second obstacle by likening her imagining to the following scenario:

A fisherman in deep slumber and dreams, holding his fishing line out over a large lake. The line raced through the fisherman's fingers, down to the darkest deepest abyss where the largest fish dwell. The fisherman was thrown from his slumber and dragged into the lake and dashed upon a rock.

What this extended metaphor is trying to say is that a woman is unable to speak (or write) about her passions as freely as men can. This slight imposition on their creative freedom can be disastrous for a writer who needs unadulterated and unregulated freedom to dream. In conclusion, Woolf says that there are many difficulties and obstacles that a woman must persevere through if she hopes to become a professional writer. 

That's it.

Good luck.

Of Wisdom for a Man's Self - Francis Bacon

'Of Wisdom for a Man's Self' is a essay by the English philosopher and essayist Sir Francis Bacon. His uniquely convoluted style of writing is displayed throughout the essay.

-Sir Francis Bacon

Though this essay may seem incredibly long and complicated, don't worry, it's really not! We're going to go through this paragraph by paragraph. This'll take a while.

An ant is a wise creature for itself, but it is a shrewd thing in an orchard or garden. And certainly men that are great lovers of themselves waste the public. Divide with reason between self-love and society; and be so true to thyself, as thou be not false to others; specially to thy king and country.

So what does this mean? The reference to 'the ant' is a reference to the extremely well-knitted and intelligent community that they are members of, hence their wisdom. This community and its subsequent benefits are made possible solely because of the hard-working and relentless nature of the ants. But despite all of these achievements, an ant's overall contribution to the orchard or garden is very little. Even though it has the power and capability to do so much, it is not, as it is too busy obsessing over itself. Humans too exhibit these traits. There are many people who will slave away at their jobs to better their own standing or to buy a better house but who put little effort into the society they live in. Francis Bacon appears to be criticizing such people, stating that one must also work for the good of others, especially the king and country.

It is a poor centre of a man’s actions, himself. It is right earth. For that only stands fast upon his own centre; whereas all things that have affinity with the heavens move upon the centre of another, which they benefit. The referring of all to a man’s self is more tolerable in a sovereign prince; because themselves are not only themselves but their good and evil is at the peril of the public fortune.

Bacon continues his criticism of overly self-indulgent people. It is not  a good thing to be so enthralled with yourself that you forget those around you. This self-obsession however, is okay in a prince or a ruler. Why? Because that ruler is not just himself. He is a representative of the people, of the kingdom. If he is unhappy, it will affect the masses.

But it is a desperate evil in a servant to a prince, or a citizen in a republic. For whatsoever affairs pass such a man’s hands, he crooketh them to his own ends; which must needs be often eccentric to the ends of his master or state. Therefore let princes, or states, choose such servants as have not this mark; except they mean their service should be made but the accessory. 

It is a terrible crime for a public servant, or a government employee, to take a cut of the prince's money illegally. It's a terrible crime when a the government's money is siphoned off by fat corrupt politicians who do nothing benefiting the people. Sounds familiar? So what's Bacon's solution? Simple. He suggests that people who are corrupt should not be public servants. 

That which maketh the effect more pernicious is that all proportion is lost. It were disproportion enough for the servant’s good to be preferred before the master’s; but yet it is a greater extreme, when a little good of the servant shall carry things against a great good of the master’s.

When you, a public servant, steal government-given funds, you're throwing the whole system out of balance, out of proportion. You become a slave to your greed. You may think that you really need the money, that you need to buy a car or a house or something, but what you're really doing is thwarting a larger good. If the money that you've stolen had reached the people, it would have done much more good than it has done in your hands. This is what is worsening the entire situation, as the theft is not only hurting the benefactor, it's hurting the would-have-been receivers more.

And yet that is the case of bad officers, treasurers, ambassadors, generals, and other false and corrupt servants; which set a bias upon their bowl, of their own petty ends and envies, to the overthrow of their master’s great and important affairs. And for the most part, the good such servants receive is after the model of their own fortune; but the hurt they sell for that good is after the model of their master’s fortune. 

Corrupt public servants are like that. They steal money from the government for their own gain, increasing their power. The more power that they get, the more money they get, through both illegal and legal means. They benefit from crashing the system while the governments plans go to waste.

And certainly it is the nature of extreme self-lovers, as they will set an house on fire, and it were but to roast their eggs; and yet these men many times hold credit with their masters, because their study is but to please them and profit themselves; and for either respect they will abandon the good of their affairs.

Corrupt and self-obsessed politicians don't really care about the welfare of the country. Like the metaphor of a man burning down a house to roast his eggs implies, these corrupt public servants put their own interests far above the collective interests of the state. So why are these corrupt self-indulgent people still holding such powerful positions?? Well, Francis Bacon believes that it's because these corrupt people are very good at two things : pleasing those more powerful than them and profiting themselves. For either of these two, they will gladly forget the good of the people.

Wisdom for a man’s self is, in many branches thereof, a depraved thing. It is the wisdom of rats, that will be sure to leave a house somewhat before it fall. It is the wisdom of the fox, that thrusts out the badger, who digged and made room for him. It is the wisdom of crocodiles, that shed tears when they could devour.

We're now in the last paragraph of the essay, and Bacon is coming to his conclusion. For the first time in the essay so far he mentions the phrase 'Wisdom for a Man's Self'. Thus the relevance of the title is that the wisdom of a human being is not necessarily a good thing. It can drive people to do horrible unforgivable things. Examples are given through animals using betrayal and deceit to further their own means.

But that which is specially to be noted is, that those which (as Cicero says of Pompey) are sui amantes, sine rivali [lovers of themselves without a rival] are many times unfortunate. And whereas they have all their times sacrificed to themselves, they become in the end themselves sacrifices to the inconstancy of fortune, whose wings they sought by their self-wisdom to have pinioned.

Francis Bacon winds up his emotional essay with this stirring conclusion. Despite the fact that corrupt embezzlers have spent their entire lives manipulating and scheming for wealth,power, and riches, it is no guarantee for the continuity of such. The majority of the people who've cheated their way into money and power are often seen squandering it and ending up penniless. Wealth never stays with it's possessor permanently and they, more often than not, suffer ignominy and deprivation.    

The author uses a brilliant implied metaphor in the closing sentence of the essay. The inconsistency of fortune (the manner in which money and power come and go) cannot be thoroughly predicted by anyone. It is metaphorized as a bird-type entity. The dark irony is made ever visible in the sentence. Though the corrupt have sacrificed for themselves all of their lives (owing to their self-indulgent nature), they ironically end up sacrificed to the inconsistency of fortune, who's wings they thought they had bound by their wisdom. 

Nobody can tell what's going to happen. 

Karma always comes around. 

Yes Your Honesty

 Yes Your Honesty is an extract from the book, "Anything can Happen", written by both George Papashvily and Helen Waite Papashvily. George and Helen were married writers who had immigrated to America in the 1920's.  The book is mainly based on George's experiences as an immigrant. The language, broken and in Georgian style, adds a lot to the authenticity of the text.

The story focuses on George and his friends. One day, they're chilling in the park. One of his friends gets brilliant idea to steal a bouquet of flowers from a tree. He plucks it and a cop promptly comes and writes them a summons, demanding they either plead guilty and pay a fine or appear in court. All of George's friends take the easy way out and pay the fine, but not George. He is very stubborn.

George feels that it would be lying to say he did something that he didn't do. He finds a lawyer, learns what to say and appears in court. When the judge addresses him he makes the mistake of referring to the judge as, 'Your Honesty', hence the title. The judge silences the laughing courtroom and listens to George's argument. George explains himself and defends his case.

Throughout the court case we learn some important information about George. He was in the army and killed hundreds of people. He beat up a guy who gave poisoned meat to his dog. The judge is impressed by this and acquits him of all charges. The story ends with  the judge shaking George's hand and everyone being happy.

There's 0^0 symbolism in this story. There's nothing deep about anything, so don't worry! The moral of the story is that honesty will always triumph in the end. The author gives a very idealistic and Utopian idea of justice : a system that acquits the innocent and punishes the guilty.

The Coffee House of Surat

      The Coffee House of Surat is a short story written in the 19th century by the acclaimed Russian thinker Leo Tolstoy. It deals with the idea of religious assurity. This is done both directly and through an elaborate metaphor involving the sun that makes an appearance in the second half of the story. I'll explain this in more detail below.

      An angry banished Persian theologian strikes up a heated debate in a local coffee house in Surat (hence the name) as to whether or not there is a god. Everyone presents opposing and vehemently clashing ideas. For example, the African slave worships a small idol made of wood from the fetish tree (that's actually a tree, I googled it ) whereas the Brahmin, the Catholic, and the Jew all have their distinctly conflicting theories on God and the religion through which to communicate with him. They argue.

      Everyone is shouting and arguing intensely in this heated argument, everyone except for a Chinaman, a student of Confucius who sat silently in the bar drinking his opium. When people asked him for his opinion, he delivered a long and convoluted metaphor involving the sun through which he shows all of them to be wrong. The metaphor is a story in itself and takes up the second half of the story. It goes something like this:

      There's a blind guy on an island called Sumatra. He's become blind from incessantly looking at the sun in a foolish attempt to discover what it is. Eventually, he's come to the conclusion that as the sun s neither solid, liquid or gas, it must not exist at all! As he's blind and cannot see its light he becomes further convinced of his own theory.

      His slave lights a small coconut lamp in the darkness of the hut and begins to move about. This sparks a conversation on the sun, which the blind man vehemently protests does not exist. A fisherman, an Indian, an Egyptian, and an Englishman all joined in the argument, providing their own theories behind the sun. You can already see the similarity between this metaphor and the real-ife instance in the coffee house.

     Eventually the pilot of a ship begins to speak, dropping enlightenment bombs on everyone. He's like, "You're all wrong! The sun shines everywhere, it's nothing to do with where you're from. The sun doesn't shine for you!".  With this the Chinaman snaps out of his metaphor and concludes his argument.

     The Chinaman believes that, when it comes to faith, it is pride which causes emnities between people. Every nation or religion attempts to confine God to the walls of their temples. They all want a 'special' God for themselves.

     The Chinaman then puts forward the idea that the world is a temple, an undying tribute to the diversity and complexity of our creator. He says that, "The higher a man's conception of God ,the better he will know him and will emulate or imitate his goodness. Thus, don't judge anyone, don't criticize anyone's beliefs. If you're a true man of God you won't try to convert people, you'll accept them the way they are"

      There is not much symbolism or material for deconstruction in the piece ; the message is quite simple and straightforward. The predominant themes are unity through diversity, and a sadly unusual open-mindedness when it comes to religion. The metaphor can be seen as Tolstoy's attempt to analyse the problem by stepping back and looking at the larger picture, one free from sentiments and other personal bias.

The Story of an Hour

“The Story of an Hour” is a famous story by the 19^th century American author Kate Chopin.  Kate Chopin was prominently known for using her stories to express her feminist ideology as you will see in this story. I will provide a brief summary below.

The story is told in third person and narrates an hour in the life of a married woman by the name of Mrs. Mallard who has a kind of heart disease wherein a heart attack can be triggered through any sudden shock . It begins with Mrs. Mallard discovering that her husband had died in a disastrous train crash. The story follows the thoughts and emotions felt by the protagonist. She cries at first, no doubt deeply saddened by the death of her husband, who,  as mentioned by her in the story, she had loved .

This is where the story deviates significantly from the norm. Despite her genuine grief, she recognizes something incredulously alluring. The prospect of her freedom, from this point in time up until her death, dawns on her. Sure, she had loved her husband, but, to quote a line from the story:

“What could love, the unsolved mystery, count for in face of this possession of self-assertion which she suddenly recognized as the strongest impulse of her being”

In the course of narrating this one hour, Kate Chopin’s feminist ideas come into play. Through usage of expressions of jubilance and overwhelming joy, she frames an alluring picture of the freedom that the protagonist has discovered. The freedom of living for herself. The very existence of this joy contrasts the institution of marriage; it shows that while marriage may be beneficial, its absence can be equally beneficial, albeit for different reasons.

                At this point there is something I feel compelled to add. I find this piece unique as compared to other feminist literature and poetry. While many of the latter consistently employ a male figure to personify the injustices perpetrated by men, this story does not. The woman recognizes her freedom, her opportunities, and her empowerment, all without any ‘man-bashing’.

The responses of her family are very interesting. Mrs. Mallard has locked herself into her room and her family members are knocking on the door, worried that she is traumatised or sick when in fact, she’s revelling in her new-found freedom.

Mrs. Mallard emerges from her room with a victorious sense of freedom, an independence she could never have imagined. As she descends the stairs however, her husband enters the house door. It would appear that he had been far from the scene of the accident and had no clue that there had, in fact, been an accident. Mrs. Mallard let out a piercing cry and fell to the round, her hand clutching her throbbing chest. By the time she reached the hospital, the doctors declared her dead.

The cause of death – joy that kills.

The writer finishes the story by declaring that the doctors have attributed her death to ‘joy that kills’. The very idea, that the woman would have been overjoyed to see her husband, contrasts bleakly with the overpowering joy that the female protagonist experienced prior to her death.

The above irony is Kate Chopin’s testament to a male-dominated society, a society in which the suppression of a woman’s identity through marriage is celebrated, and her liberation is mourned. 

The False Gems - Guy de Maupassant

The false gems is a simple and straightforward story albeit with a couple of convoluted morals. Before I begin with the interpretation, I’ll provide the summary.

The story is about a man whose yearly income is just about average. Though they lead a happy married life, he abhors her habit of wearing fake jewellery. One day she gets a cold and dies. Sad and pennyless, the man finds himself broke and homeless. Desperate for a meal, he gets the idea to sell his dead wife’s fake jewellery. The jeweller however, tells him that the necklace is real and is worth 4 years of his salary. Overjoyed, the man ecstatically sells all of the jewellery and becomes rich again. The story ends on an ironic note. The last lines are as follows:

Six months after, he married again. His second wife was a very virtuous woman;

but had a terrible temper. She made his life very miserable.

The moral of the story is that honesty is not always that important.  He was happier with a woman who was unfaithful and dishonest, although he didn't know it, just as he didn't know that her false gemstones were actually the real thing. Finding what he thought would make him happy, he actually had a worse life.