Major -8 assignment

NAME :         Chauhan Ami prakashbhai 

STD :               s.y.b.a sem-4

SUBJECT :       major -8 

PROFESSOR :  Shivani ma'am 

COLLEGE :      maharani Shree nandkuvarba mahila                                     arts  and commerce College bhavnagar 

                          CLASS ASSIGNMENT 

● The Natural Divisions of a dramatic Plot

In The Study of Drama (Chapter 5) by W. H. Hudson, the author

delves deeply into the natural divisions of a dramatic plot,

explaining how a well-structured plot functions and unfolds over

the course of a play or drama. Hudson outlines five key structural

elements that are found in most dramatic works, which serve to

guide the audience's emotional and intellectual journey throughout

the performance. These divisions are:

1. Exposition

• Definition and Purpose: The exposition serves as the

foundation of the dramatic plot. It is the opening section of the play

where essential background information is provided to the

audience. This includes introducing the main characters, the

setting (both time and place), and the initial situation. The

exposition may also hint at the central conflict or problem that will

unfold during the course of the drama.

Key Functions:

Character Introduction: The audience becomes familiar with the

protagonist and other important characters.

Setting the Scene: The time period, location, and atmosphere are

established.

Initial Conflict: The exposition sets the stage for the conflict or problem

that will drive the action. This might not be fully revealed, but there are

often early clues.

Example: In Romeo and Juliet, the exposition introduces the feud

between the Capulets and Montagues and sets the scene in Verona.

2. Rising Action

Definition and Purpose: This is the part of the plot that builds up

tension, leading toward the climax. The rising action consists of events

that complicate the central conflict, introduce obstacles, and develop

relationships between characters. It is marked by increasing emotional

or dramatic tension.

Key Features:

Development of Conflict: The central issue or conflict grows more

complicated, with characters taking actions that exacerbate the situation.

Introduction of Subplots: Subplots, or secondary conflicts, are

introduced, often intertwining with the main conflict to deepen the plot.

Character Development: Characters are further developed, and their

desires, motivations, and flaws become clearer.

Example: In Macbeth, the rising action includes Macbeth's growing

ambition, Lady Macbeth's manipulation, and the murder of King Duncan,

which sets in motion the ensuing chaos.

3. Climax

Definition and Purpose: The climax is the turning point of the play, the

moment of greatest tension and conflict. It is typically the most dramatic

part of the play, where the central conflict comes to a head, and the

outcome becomes inevitable. In a well-structured play, the climax marks

the point where the action shifts-either toward resolution or greater

complication.

Key Features:

Moment of Highest Tension: The protagonist faces the ultimate

challenge or decision.

Irreversibility: The climax is often a decisive moment that changes the

course of the story. Once the climax occurs, the outcome is typically set.

Shift in the Story: The conflict begins to move toward a resolution, or

the protagonist's fate becomes clear.

Example: In King Lear, the climax occurs when Lear, blinded by his own

mistakes, finally realizes the depth of his daughters' betrayal and the

tragic consequences of his actions.

4. Falling Action

Definition and Purpose: The falling action occurs after the climax,

when the immediate tension begins to subside, and the consequences of

the climactic event start to unfold. It is a period of reflection and

inevitable decline, in which the central conflict is addressed, but not yet

fully resolved.

Key Features: Unraveling of the Central Conflict: The events that follow

the climax show the repercussions of the decisions made by the

characters.

Character Reactions: Characters begin to come to terms with the

outcomes of the climax. For example, they might seek redemption or

face punishment.

Resolution of Subplots: The secondary plotlines introduced earlier are

resolved, or at least brought to closure.

Example: In Hamlet, the falling action includes Hamlet's return to

Denmark and his confrontations with the royal family, leading toward his

tragic end.

5. Denouement (or Conclusion)

Definition and Purpose: The denouement is the final section of the

drama, where the plotlines are fully resolved, and the narrative comes to

a close. It is a period of reflection and closure, where loose ends are tied

up, and the ultimate fate of the characters is revealed.

Key Features:

Resolution of the Central Conflict: The main conflict is resolved, even

if tragically or ambiguously. For example, in tragedies, the resolution

might not be happy, but it provides closure.

Restoration of Order: In some cases, especially in comedies, the

denouement may restore balance or order to the world of the play.

Fate of Characters: The final destinies of the characters are revealed.

Example: In The Tempest, the denouement shows the reconciliation

between Prospero and his enemies, and the return of order to the island,

with all conflicts resolved.

Hudson's view emphasizes that these divisions are not rigid, but they

form a basic structure that most effective plays follow. He stresses that

the primary function of the plot is to engage the audience emotionally

and intellectually. These divisions help guide the progression of tension,

character development, and thematic exploration.

Moreover, Hudson notes that while the traditional division into exposition,

rising action, climax, falling action, and denouement is widely applicable,

some modern and experimental plays may manipulate or even subvert

these structures. However, the core purpose remains to create an

emotional arc that captivates the audience, and this natural progression

of divisions helps maintain this connection.

In conclusion, W.H. Hudson provides a detailed look at how dramatic

plots are shaped by these divisions, which allow for the unfolding of

tension, the development of characters, and the eventual resolution of

the central conflict.The structure serves both as a framework for the

narrative and as a means of guiding the audience through the emotional

and intellectual journey of the play.

                                     Home assignment

The Two Functions of Criticism :

Criticism serves two main purposes: interpretation and judgment. Traditionally, critics have combined these two, using interpretation to support judgment. However, in recent years, some scholars have argued that a critic's primary role is to explain or interpret, and that it may not be their job to make judgments about taste or value.

Given this understanding of the scope and limitations of criticism, we now need to ask: what should the critic, as an interpreter, aim to achieve? The task of a critic is both large and difficult. Their goal is to understand the core of a book, uncover its key qualities, and distinguish between temporary and lasting elements. They analyze its meaning and reveal the artistic and moral principles guiding the author, whether the author was aware of them or not. 

The critic will explain and connect the parts of the work, making its deeper meaning clear. Ultimately, the critic's job is to show the true nature of the book—its content, spirit, and art—and then let the book speak for itself. Walter Pater describes this process as three steps: feeling the virtue of the work, understanding it, and expressing it. A critic can approach a book in different ways. They may focus only on the book itself, compare it to other works by the same author, or examine it in a broader historical context.

The main goal is to understand and help others understand the book, without making judgments based on personal taste or other critical opinions. In his work on Shakespeare, Professor Moulton argues that criticism should be more about understanding the book scientifically, rather than simply assessing its value like testing the quality of something. 

The passage compares two approaches to literary criticism: the traditional "judicial" method and the newer "inductive" method.

The judicial method is like that of a king-at-arms, where critics judge authors and works based on accepted standards of taste, ranking them by merit. It focuses on evaluating which works are better or worse according to general criteria of literary beauty. In contrast, the inductive method, proposed by Mr. Moulton, treats literary criticism as a branch of science. This method avoids judging works based on merit and instead examines  literature objectively, seeking to understand the principles and laws that shape literary works and how they affect readers. The inductive critic doesn't care about praise or blame but looks at literature as it is, trying to uncover patterns and systems without being influenced by personal opinions.

Three main differences between these methods are:

1. Judicial criticism focuses on ranking works by merit, while inductive criticism focuses

on understanding the nature of works without ranking them.

2. Inductive criticism is based on scientific principles, not personal judgment.

3. Inductive criticism studies the differences in kinds of literary works, not the degrees of

merit.

The text explains two different approaches to literary criticism: judicial and inductive.

1. Judicial criticism compares authors based on fixed standards, much like laws

imposed by an external authority. Critics judge works by these standards, which can

vary over time and between critics.

2. Inductive criticism does not rely on external rules but looks at what actually

happens in literature. It observes patterns in the works of authors like Shakespeare

and generalizes them into laws. These "laws" are not imposed but are derived from

the works themselves.

The key idea is that, while judicial criticism seeks to measure works against abstract

standards, inductive criticism focuses on discovering the natural rules that arise from the

works themselves.

Some standards have been assumed, but inductive criticism does not believe in fixed

standards and even argues that they are impossible. Like all things studied by science,

literature evolves over time. Its history is full of constant changes, so trying to find permanent rules or criteria will always fail because it assumes there can be an end or final answer, which does not exist in the nature of things.

In simple terms, inductive criticism looks at literature in an unbiased way, like a scientist. It seeks to understand the rules of art by studying how different artists work, seeing art as something that evolves over time. Each author or style is unique, and to understand it fully, the critic must approach it without letting personal opinions or tastes influence their analysis.

The critic focuses on investigation, not on judging whether a work is good or bad. It's like a

botanist studying plants, but instead, the critic studies literature.

This a theory of inductive criticism, which suggests that the rules or principles for

understanding an author’s work can only be found within that specific work itself. This means

those rules cannot be applied to other authors’ works or used as a standard for judgment.

The theory challenges the traditional approach to criticism but doesn't completely dismiss it.

It contrasts this view with an older idea, as seen in the Edinburgh Review, where poetry is

seen as having fixed rules set by past authors, whose authority cannot be questioned.

This passage argues that critics should not impose personal opinions when judging

literature. It highlights the principle that literature is relative and should be understood in its

historical context. French critic Edmond Scherer used the example of Paradise Lost, noting

that opposing views from critics like Voltaire and Macaulay only reflect their personal biases

and don't give an objective assessment of the work. To form an unbiased judgment, Scherer

suggests using a historical method, which focuses on understanding the work's context and

the author's genius, rather than simply praising or condemning it.

The text argues that to understand a poem, we must look at the poet's personality, time

period, and the influences that shaped them. It suggests that analyzing the poet's character

and historical context helps us understand their work better. This understanding then allows

us to judge the value and importance of the work. Scherer disagrees with critics who stop at

interpreting the poem, believing that this deeper analysis naturally leads to an evaluation of

the work's significance.

We don't plan to discuss modern theories of criticism in detail here, so we'll focus on two

writers to show the current trend of seeing interpretation as the main job of critics. Mr.

Moulton completely rejects judgment-based criticism, while M. Scherer tries to find stronger

and more reliable foundations for it than just personal opinions or set rules.

To highlight Scherer's point, we can consider the example of William Morris, who openly

disliked Milton because he thought Milton was both a Puritan and a classicist. However, for a

historian, it's important to understand that Milton's use of classic epic forms and

Renaissance learning to express his Puritan beliefs is key to understanding Paradise Lost.

This historical context helps to appreciate the work in a deeper way.

Both English and French critics agree that they want to move away from the rigid,

disorganized methods of older schools and instead use more flexible and organized

approaches, similar to those in science, when studying literature.

It's hard to overstate how important the new insights mentioned here are. They offer the

potential for real understanding of the subjects we study, whether in literature or any other

field. Lord Morley rightly criticized how scholars have long debated Aristotle's view on

tragedy instead of directly examining actual tragedies to understand them better.

For a long time, literary criticism was limited by rigid traditions and preconceived ideas.

Critics relied on established rules, judging works by comparing them to previous writers or

works, especially from ancient Greece and Rome, which were seen as the ultimate

standards. This approach often led to narrow, outdated views and discouraged original

thinking. Critics tended to follow these fixed rules and rejected any new approaches, as seen

in how Shakespeare was once criticized.

In France and even in England, some critics called his work barbaric and lacking in art

because it didn't follow the traditional rules of classic drama, which were seen as the ideal.

This criticism ignored the idea that literature should evolve and allow new ideas to emerge. It overlooked the important fact that, as Wordsworth said, every great and original author creates their own standards and taste for their work to be appreciated.

Addison and Johnson are two famous critics who used older methods of literary criticism.

Addison specifically criticized Paradise Lost. His approach was different from Scherer's, as Addison didn’t focus on understanding the author's character or his time. Instead, Addison analyzed the poem based on the rules of epic poetry and compared it to other famous epics like The Iliad and The Aeneid. He believed these rules could be learned from studying Homer, Virgil, and Aristotle. Since Milton intentionally followed classic epic structures, Addison’s approach made sense for this particular work. Therefore, Addison judged Milton's poem based on these established standards of epic poetry.

The narrow approach of judging literature based on strict classical rules, such as those set by Aristotle. For example, critics criticized Milton’s "Paradise Lost" because its ending was unhappy, which went against Aristotle’s idea that epic poems should have a happy ending.

Similarly, critics complained that Milton's style was more like Spenser or Ariosto than Homerand Virgil.

However, Addison, while analyzing Milton, acknowledges that literature evolves over time. He admits that Aristotle's rules for epic poetry might not apply perfectly to later works like the "Aeneid," written long after Aristotle's time. This suggests that rules for literature can change and adapt, and this challenges the idea that there is a final, unchanging standard for evaluating literature.

When we shift from earlier critics like Addison and Johnson, who represented Traditional english criticism, to those from the Victorian era, we see a major change. The old views on criticism are mostly altered, with many outdated methods being replaced. While critics still see themselves as judges and often express personal opinions, they are now more focused on using new, scientific approaches to criticism. For example, even Matthew Arnold, who disliked abstract ideas, still focused on concepts like the "grand style" in literature and tried to create standards for poetry.

The modern critic, including Arnold, is more focused on understanding and explaining ideas rather than simply giving praise or criticism. Today's critics have a broader view, influenced by a mix of different ideas and a focus on change and growth, which were missing in older forms of criticism.

I mostly agree with Mr. Moulton's strong views about the past criticism being ineffective andpointless. 

However, I disagree with one of his main points. I’m not addressing whether literary criticism can be turned into a science like botany or geology, but I do disagree with his complete rejection of traditional critical methods. While the inductive approach (gathering facts) is useful, it shouldn't replace all other forms of criticism because it doesn't fully satisfy the study of literature.

The scientific critic of literature, let us remember,has according to Mr Moulton's emphatic statement,"nothing to do with merit, relative or absolute." He understands differences in kind, but not in degree. He looks for the rules and principles in a work, like Shakespeare's plays, and once he finds them, he describes them. However, he doesn't judge whether these ideas are good or bad. Questions about the truth of the lessons in the plays or the quality of the artistic choices are not his focus as a scientist studying the work.

These questions are unavoidable and important. We can't ignore them because we need help understanding what we read, and we have the right to ask for answers. Unlike geology, which studies facts without emotions or opinions, literature is about human experiences and emotions. 

Literature isn't just about explaining things; it’s about understanding the deeper meaning, the artistic quality, and how it affects people. When studying geology, we only want to know what something is and how it came to be. But in literature, we also want to know what the work means and its value to us and others. Even when approaching literature scientifically, we still make judgments about its quality. For example, when someone writes a detailed study of Shakespeare, they do so because they believe Shakespeare’s work is important and worth studying.

Shakespeare's methods are not just his own, but also excellent techniques that we can appreciate. Just like a geologist focuses on the rocks themselves without worrying about their value, one could study drama without focusing only on Shakespeare. However, Mr. Moulton chooses to focus on Shakespeare because he's widely recognized as great, and his work aims to show both his methods and his greatness. 

So, we start with the understanding that Shakespeare's work has value, whether in comparison to others or absolutely. When we talk about literature, everyone judges what they read in their own way. A schoolboy might call a book "fun" or "boring," and his sister might say a story is "pretty" or not. We all form opinions about what we read. As we study literature more deeply, making judgments becomes harder, and we start to question our earlier opinions. 

Critics often disagree on fundamental points, which can be frustrating, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to understand literature. While it's important to consider facts and evidence, we also need critics who can help us decide what is truly great in literature, rather than treating all books as equally valuable.

It doesn't always matter if we focus on great works or poor ones, but the issue of what makes literature valuable is still very important. Judicial criticism, which tries to solve this problem, has made mistakes in the past and will continue to face challenges, but it still has an important role to play and a duty to fulfill.

 

 

Short story

The Library Window

Aarav Mehta never thought college would feel so lonely.

When he first entered the campus, everything looked perfect — tall buildings, crowded corridors, laughter everywhere. Students seemed confident and focused. Everyone looked like they knew exactly what they were doing with their lives.

Aarav had chosen engineering because his family believed it was the safest career option. Deep inside, however, he loved writing. Stories, poems, random thoughts — words made him feel alive. But he never told anyone.

In his first semester, he struggled. Not because he wasn’t intelligent, but because his heart wasn’t in it. His grades were average. His confidence slowly dropped. He began to sit near the window in the college library, away from the noise.

That window became his favorite place.

From there, he could see the campus garden. Students laughing, couples arguing, friends sharing secrets — life moving freely. And Aarav would write about them in his small notebook.

One day, while he was writing, someone pulled the chair next to him.

“Are you always this serious?” a cheerful voice asked.

He looked up. It was Naina, a girl from his class. She was known for her energy and confidence. Aarav felt nervous.

“I’m not serious,” he replied softly. “I’m just… thinking.”

She noticed his notebook. “You write?”

He hesitated. “Just random things.”

“Can I read?” she asked.

Aarav quickly closed the notebook. “It’s nothing special.”

Naina smiled. “You know, sometimes the things we hide are the most special.”

That sentence stayed with him.

A few weeks later, the college announced a creative writing competition. The winner would get their story published in the annual college magazine.

Naina immediately signed up. Before leaving the notice board, she turned toward Aarav.

“You should participate,” she said.

He laughed nervously. “Me? No chance.”

“Why?”

“I’m not good enough.”

“Did you try?” she asked.

He had no answer.

That evening, Aarav sat by the library window again. He opened his notebook and read his old writings. They weren’t perfect, but they were honest. They carried emotions.

For the first time, he wondered — what if fear was the only thing stopping him?

After two days of thinking, he submitted his story.

The story was about a boy who followed everyone else’s dreams until he realized he had his own.

Once submitted, Aarav felt both relief and panic. What if people laughed? What if it wasn’t good enough?

The results were to be announced during the college fest.

The auditorium was packed that day. Lights were bright. Students were excited. Aarav sat quietly in the middle row, his palms sweating.

Third prize was announced.

Not him.

Second prize.

Still not him.

Aarav felt disappointed but also strangely proud that he had at least tried.

“And the first prize for the creative writing competition goes to… Aarav Mehta.”

For a second, he thought he heard wrong.

The auditorium filled with applause. Naina screamed louder than anyone else.

His legs felt weak as he walked toward the stage. When he received the certificate, the principal said, “Your story felt real. It had courage.”

That word — courage — echoed in his mind.

Later that evening, Aarav stood again near the library window. But this time, something had changed.

He realized success wasn’t about choosing what others expect from you. It was about discovering what truly makes you feel alive.

Over the next months, he didn’t quit engineering. Instead, he balanced both. He studied sincerely, but he also wrote daily. He joined the literature club. He even started a small blog.

His grades improved — not because the subjects became easier, but because his mind was lighter.

One day, Naina asked him, “So, what changed?”

Aarav smiled.

“I stopped being afraid of what people might think.”

College was no longer lonely.

It became a place of discovery.

On the last day of the semester, Aarav packed his books and looked once more at the library window. That window had seen his doubts, fears, and transformation.

He understood something important:

Sometimes, we don’t need a new place to grow.

We just need a new belief.

And as he walked out of the campus that day, he wasn’t confused anymore.

He wasn’t just an engineering student.

He was a writer.