Workshop - Thinking Skill

 

              This blog is based on the 2 day workshop held at our Department of English. Mr. Milan Pandya conducted this wonderful workshop on thinking skills. 

    “What? Why? How? When?”

       were some of the objectives of this workshop. As the title itself suggests this workshop was based on thinking activities that helped us in rationalizing our thoughts and seeing through the objectives of life. Our day-to-day life reflects the thinking abilities we possess and how we apply logic to our lives. Here's some major points with which Mr. Milan Pandya dealt with:

1] Critical Thinking -

       "If something is true, what else                 has to be true?"

                           - Mr. Milan Pandya 

            This statement is more of a complicated one but, to identify the truth and logic of a particular argument or subject, applying this formula makes it much easier. Whenever we want to check anything, simple application of it can list out the fakeness of the rumor. We see such spread of news on social media apps like whatsapp, facebook, instagram, twitter where people spread rumors on the name news. 

Many of the television advertisements also try to play with our mindsets in order to market their products. Famous actors and celebrities endorse brands that they might never use and portray their happiness for petty discounts aswell. To stay aware of such catchy ads is tough but at a point we all may realise that whatever is displayed is much different than the actual reality. Such things are not just limited to ads but also has it's widespread among daily soaps and movies all over the world.

   We also need to know what is 'possible' and 'plausible'. There is a very thin line between these words and also tough to differentiate. We can develop understanding about these words by simple knowing the meaning. Plausible is something that can be used to make a valid point while possible means something can be true but not reasonable enough to have proper faith. 

“Thinking about thinking in order to improve thinking" - Milan Pandya

       It's not always critical thinking but at times creative and logical thinking as well. Positive and negative thoughts are the two sides of this coin named thinking. It's upon you and your perspective how you look upon things in life and how you deal with them defines the type of person you are. The probability of your peers and your family affecting your mental health are much higher than we thought of it to be. If one lives in a happy milieu it's comparatively easy for that person to be happy and satisfied while distress can lead to negativity and bad mental health. Hence, it's very important to choose your circle carefully.

2] Thought experiment

      Thought experiment is a mental exercise given to us and it comes with it's own rules and regulations and after fitting yourself into it you have to make choices. This is a mental exercise to rationalize what and why we think and also it gives us an insight about ourselves and the choices we make reflects the value we have. These experiments are extremely essential for rationalizing and conditioning of our minds.

      

         At last I'm thankful to our HOD, Professor Dilip Barad for organizing such a knowledgeable workshop for students of -Department of English.

Life of pi

     

Movie starts with the natural scenario. It included Indian architecture animals and Indian music as well.

       Than comes and encounter with Patel family. Our narrator named Piscine molitor patel. His father named him after French swimming pool. his father was teaching him how to overcome fear of water. Later on we can see that other children's are making fun of the name Piscine patel with pissing patel, teachers were feeling trouble to pronouncing his name.once in his school he starts the day with explaining the formula of Pi and from that every next period he was explaining the formula of Pi. For a whole day in his school he was explaining formula of Pi and from that day he became famous as Pi Patel. Father was a zookeeper. 

       Narrator consider Pondicherry as the French revira of India. In a vityway he consider himself as a catholic Hindu.

     “None of us knows god until 1 introduces US” 

        He Grows up with the story of Krishna which he heard from his mother on the other hand his father tells him that “religion is darkness”. He questions God and religion. He involves himself in many religious activities and at the dinner table he is brother makes fun of him with calling him-“you going to Mecca Swami Jesus?" His father suggest him to take interest in reason rather than religion.

     Next in the story there is an encounter with the tiger of zoo named Richard Parkar. While his father was scolding him he says that he has seen soul of tiger in its eyes. Very next moment pi he sees his own emotions in reflection of tigers eyes. To Clarify the point of view his father shows cruel incident of hunting.

      When Pi grows up he meets Anandi in dancing classes like a thing. In that dance girls wear showing love to gods through the dance and expression.

there was a mudra of Lotus in the ending of dance. Which hides or reflects future's secrets. He follows Anandi and when Anandi caught him she asked him that why is he following her. Then he asked her that I did she made the pose of lotus she first made pose of pataka which means forest and then she made a pose of lotus Anandi explains that Lotus symbols purity.

This incident accidentally has shown the future. Then he is family decided to leave India. And he said goodbye to Anandi and made promise to come back and he says that he doesn't remember their moment of goodbye. And with his family he left India.

      Middle of his journey there is a storm in the ocean. A while pi enjoys the view and atmosphere of heavy rain, thunder. Within minutes there is a ship wreck in which he lost his family but he had few animals with him in a life boat. First he sees only a monkey, zebra and hyena. Hyena kills zebra and later on monkey. In the morning five find out that there is a tiger also in the life boat and tiger killed hyena. Was a struggle between Pi and tiger. Somehow pi and tiger manages to leave on a single boat. While searching in the boat pi find a booklet which was guide. There is an contradiction while reading a guide and living because there was a description of how to pass a time in a life boat there was description of a game of cards which can be played by people on the life boat but here is the irony that on the life boat by was alone with the tiger.

      There are some fights struggle between pi and tiger. because of irritation pi tries to kill tiger. Trying to kill tiger he seas he is own reflection into the tiger eyes. I was fully vegetarian boy but to survive in the middle of the sea he has to eat fish and he started eating a fish. 

He was treating tiger like a human but unconsciously he was becoming an animal and tiger started behaving like a human.

     

Tiger got a amazed by the fishes. Jumps into Ocean to catch that fish but it became hard to return on life boat. How the managers to survive and later on they reached at human Island which was having shape of human. It was so beautiful that there was a beautiful pond in which there was dream cable water and some vegetarian food. Also was having fun eating variety of animals. In the night that Island started every single alive thing. And water of that pound started becoming acidic. There was a Lotus like fruit when Pi open it there was a human tooth in it. Through this can have strike in his mind that earlier we had reference of this incident in Anjali and pi's conversation. Every mudra of Anjali was connected with the Life of Pi anonymously. But mainly the mudra of lotus expressed a lot. Hotels is symbol of purity and ocean also describe purity.

      In the ending pi Nelly reaches at the shore along with the tiger. Both were looking very weak. The end there was a good by movement of Pi and the tiger. After Reaching at shore and tiger both comes out from the boat. I was very happy and he was cheering up the tiger that they have finally reached at the shore. But tiger didn't took a moment to look after pi. Tiger keeps on walking to the Jungle he didn't turn for a moment see or to say goodbye to pi. He just walked to the Jungle. After facing so many troubles by made it to the shore and he lived a long with the tiger through his journey that troubles didn't more than him but not saying goodbye of tiger or not even looking to pi, troubled him more. 

      At the end of the movie, pi confuses the writer by telling the other story and told him to believe in whatever he likes. This is how movie (and novel as well) leave us with trouble and suspance.

      

Frankenstein thinking activity

Question -1] why victor was not to accept his a dream experiment it's results?

       As per my point of view, victor just created the creature. He was not having any 'after plans'. He was so passionate to create but he never thought about the horror of his creation. When he created the creature, the creation was totally unexpected and also un-accepted.

Question-2] what made creature a monster? 

        circumstances makes person a hero or villian. And cercumstances comes from society. These events of making a person good or bad points out to the society.in the Frankenstein also, society makes creature a monster. Before introducing society, the creature was very humble and kind but when he treated badly in society, just because he is not like the others. These events made creature a monster.

Question -3] why society has rejected victor's  Idea of the experiment and results of the experiment?

            Here Shelley contrasts God's creation of Adam to Victor's creation of the monster. Victor sees his creation as beautiful and yet repugnant, versus the creation story taken from the Bible in which God sees his creation of Adam as "good."

             society has rejected victor's idea of the experiment and the results of the experiment, because in the novel people believed in the chain of God. I'd God has created the death than one should probably die and after dying there's no possibilities to bring dead person to life. And if it happens than it must be problematic for humans. It will affect on popularity, economically, and global warming as well. 

Question-4 ] appearance overpower reality?

           As per my opinion- YES.(but not for me) generally I have seen many people who believed blindly the stranger, just because he/she looked good from their looks. In Gujrat, we can see many poor people begging on the road or else. But there are some people who begs for money in for their vows. (There is some people who takes vow that if they got a baby boy than they will beg money and from that money they do regional activities). Sometimes this type of scammer flitch money from people.

         Isabella Guzman's case is the proof that appearance can overpower the reality. In 2013, Isabella Guzman stabbed her mother, Yun Mi Hoy, to death in their Aurora, Colorado home. Seven years later, a video of Guzman in court went viral on TikTok, and she became an internet sensation. 

Question-5] who is suffering from deformity in this novel? Which kind of deformity and disability is there? Decides what deformity is? 

       I have 2 answers for this same question. here's the first answer for the questions - in this novel, in the first glance we can feel that the creature is suffering from deformity. Because he is 'not same as others'. He is different by emotions and somewhere from different by body as well. 

           Which kind of deformity and disability is there?- the creature was having stitches all over his body because his creator made him like that. It was not his fault, he didn't choose this type of body on his own.

       Who decides what deformity is?

(I am writing this answer in sarcastic way)  obviously society will decide what deformity is as if it is the only thing that will stay by person in 'no matter what' situation. Deformity is something that society doesn't like. Of society doesn't feel nice to seeing you, than you are not good enough and also don't deserve to be treated as normal human being. Society is the only beautiful thing like God that will decide whether you are beautiful or not, it won't matter if you are kind hearted, you are helping others, and more importantly- even if you are tolerating all the torture of society.  

                 Here's the 2nd ans- for me, victor was suffering from deformity, Deformity of others. And in another sense, society is also suffering from deformity as if because of that they are ignoring virtue of creature throughout the novel. 

               For me, deformity is that something which creates imbalance between person and society. And society will always imbalance Evey perfect thing. Society has always been so keen in finding mistakes of everyone. This is deformity. I believe that no one is never ever deformed, it is society which is deformed and sees Deformity and mistakes everywhere.

Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein -

               Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a combination of Gothic novel and science fiction. It unfolds the story of a scientist Victor Frankenstein who creates a hideous monster from pieces of corpses and brings it to life. But the monster eventually becomes the source of his misery and demise. 

              The plot of the novel is epistolary. The story is narrated through the first-person accounts of Captain Walton, Victor Frankenstein, and the monster himself. Moreover, Frankenstein is also a frame story. It means a story framed or surrounded by another story or a series of stories.

             The novel begins with a series of letters from Robert Walton, an English explorer, to his sister, Margaret Saville in England, telling about his voyage. Robert Walton is at sea with a group of sailors traveling to the North Pole in pursuit of glory. He is a passionate and aspiring man with high hopes for important geographical and scientific discoveries. But his voyage soon interrupts when they find themselves trapped in Arctic ice. 

             From across the frozen sea, Walton and his crew witness a strange sight: a gigantic figure rushing by the ice on a dog-sled. Soon after, they find a haggard and frozen man floating on a slice of ice who seems to be on the verge of death. Walton’s crew immediately takes the stranger aboard and rescues him. The stranger reveals himself to be Victor Frankenstein. 

            For several days, Walton nurses Frankenstein back to health. When he sees him recovering from weakness, Walton begins talking to him. Frankenstein’s wisdom and cultivation impress him and the two soon strike up a friendship. Later on, Frankenstein, after becoming more comfortable with Walton, starts telling him his long-concealed tragic story. 

       Throughout the rest of the novel, Robert Walton is telling Victor Frankenstein’s tragic story to his sister in England through a series of letters. He takes the narrative only at the very end of the novel. 

 Movie review of the 'Frankenstein' 1994 version: 

               

       As conceived and written by Shelley, Frankenstein was more of a gothic melodrama than a horror story. Considered in its most basic terms, the tale is one of actions and their consequences, and of what happens when man, in his hubris, attempts to usurp the role of God. For the most part, however, motion pictures have chosen to ignore the weightier issues of the book to concentrate instead on the "monster movie" aspects. With this latest cinematic depiction, director (and uncredited co-writer) Kenneth Branagh has taken a less-traveled path. He has chosen to view Frankenstein as a tragedy of Greek (or, given his background, Shakespearean) proportions.

           What Branagh should recognize better than anyone, though, is that tragedy is at its most effective when allowed to cook slowly, basting in its own juices. This version of Frankenstein moves so frantically that far too many subtleties get lost along the way. The result is a rousing, occasionally-chaotic (especially during the choppily-edited first half-hour) piece of work that, while undeniably entertaining, lacks a depth that might otherwise have been attained. Patrick Doyle's bombastic score helps only to underline the melodramatic elements of this production, rarely allowing a quiet or reflective moment.

        As far as its faithfulness to the source material is concerned, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein frequently differs from the book on plot points, but the two are thematically in synch. Several movie characters bear little resemblance to their book counterparts beyond having the same name (Dr. Waldeman, Frankenstein's mentor, being a chief example), and there is a significant alteration in the last act. Surprisingly enough, although it reflects nothing written by Shelley, this scene is effective in underlining the weaknesses and strengths of both Victor Frankenstein and his creature.

          Can a man create life, then abandon his creation because its appearance horrifies him? To whom are its actions then attributable: the creature or the being who brought about its existence? Shelley did not answer these questions, but she certainly posed them. Following her example, Branagh does the same.

         The greatest strength of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is that it illustrates both the good and evil qualities in each of its main characters. Of the two - Robert De Niro's creature and Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein - the former is, perhaps surprisingly, the more sympathetic. In part because of the script and in part because of the acting (De Niro gives a far stronger performance than his director/co-star),the creature seems almost the more "human" of the two. In its own words, it is capable of great love and great rage. Frankenstein, on the other hand, often comes across as petty, self-serving, and ambitious. Only towards the end, when he finally grasps the full consequences of his actions, does the scientist capture a measure of our understanding.

          Despite the presence of John Cleese - who is excellent in a straight, if somewhat limited, role - there is no comic relief in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (or at least none that is intentional - a few scenes here and there are too-obviously overacted, which can lead to a chuckle or two). However, since the screenplay is not relentlessly downbeat, the bursts of action and horror are effective enough in lessening tension that breaks of levity are not needed. In fact, given the tone of this film, humor might easily have seemed an unwelcome intrusion.

       Shelley was never concerned about the scientific realism of Frankenstein's actions. She describes neither his experiments nor the practical (as opposed to the philosophical) reasoning that leads to them. In this film, while Branagh doesn't attempt to fully remedy this lapse (something that obviously can't be done), he presents enough pseudo-scientific evidence to suggest how the creation of a life might plausibly be accomplished. Suspension of disbelief is, of course, requisite for the viewer at this point.

      One area where thisFrankenstein meets expectations is in its cast. The weakest link is Branagh, whose Victor is more than occasionally overwrought. De Niro, although buried beneath hours' worth of makeup, is less monstrous here than in films like Cape Fear and The Untouchables. The sequence where the creature befriends a family, anonymously providing them food (instead of firewood, as in the book) while observing and learning from them through a chink in a wall, is marvelously moving, and possibly the best moment offered by the film.

       Helena Bonham Carter gives a feisty and fiery interpretation of Elizabeth, who eventually becomes much more than merely Frankenstein's love interest.

 Richard Briers (as the blind patriarch of the creature's adopted "family"), Ian Holm (as Frankenstein's father), Tom Hulce (as Frankenstein's best friend and fellow student, Henry Clerval), Aidan Quinn (as the north-pole bound explorer Robert Walton), Robert Hardy (as the odious Professor Krempe), Trevyn McDowell (as Justine, the Frankensteins' housekeeper) and John Cleese (as Waldeman, Frankenstein's mentor) round out the supporting cast.

The film has a striking visual look, which owes as much to the set design and special effects as to the soaring cinematography of Roger Pratt. Although Branagh does not opt for straight horror, the gothic element of the tale is very much in evidence as a result of the carefully-crafted atmosphere of several key scenes. From the Arctic Ocean to the Swiss Alps and the plague-riddled streets of Ingolstadt, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a wonder to behold.

       Comparison's with 1992's Bram Stoker's Dracula are inevitable, especially since both came from Francis Ford Coppola's American Zoetrope production company. Considering the merits of both movies, however, there is little doubt which is more effective. Kenneth Branagh's film is stronger thematically and visually, possesses more solid characterization, and boasts Robert De Niro and Helena Bonham Carter rather than Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein may not be the definitive version of the 1817 novel, and the director likely attempted more than is practical for a two-hour film, but overambition is preferable to the alternative, especially if it results - as in this case - in something more substantial than Hollywood's typical, fitfully entertaining fluff.

History Puritan + restoration age

 

The Puritan Age

                     "God is the highest good of the reasonable creature. the enjoyment of him is our proper,and is the only happiness with which our souls can be satisfied. To go to heaven, fully to enjoy God, is infinitely better than the most pleasant accommodations here."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  -Jonathan Edwards.                                                                                                                          

                                     The period between 1625 and 1675 is known as the “Puritan Age (or John Milton’s Age)”, because, during the period, Puritan standards prevailed in England, and also because the greatest literary figure John Milton (1608-1674) was a Puritan. The Puritans struggled for righteousness and liberty.                                                                                                                                                                                                                The Literature of the Seventeenth Century may be divided into two periods—The Puritan Age or the Age of Milton (1600-1660), which is further divided into the Jacobean and Caroline periods after the names of the ruled James I and Charles I, who rules from 1603 to 1625 and 1625 to 1649 respectively; and the Restoration Period or the Age of Dryden (1660-1700).         

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   The Seventeenth Century was marked by the decline of the Renaissance spirit, and the writers either imitated the great masters of the Elizabethan period or followed new paths. We no longer find great imaginative writers of the stature of Shakespeare, Spenser, and Sidney. There is a marked change in temperament which may be called essentially modern. Though during the Elizabethan period, the new spirit of the Renaissance had broken away with the medieval times and started a new modern development it was in the seventeenth century that this task of breaking away with the past was completely accomplished, and the modern spirit, in the fullest sense of the term, came into being. This spirit may be defined as the spirit of observation and preoccupation with details, and systematic analysis of facts, feelings, and ideas. In other words, it was the spirit of science popularized by such great men as Newton, Bacon, and Descartes. In the field of literature, this spirit manifested itself in the form of criticism, which in England is the creation of the Seventeenth Century. During the Sixteenth Century England expanded in all directions; in the Seventeenth Century people took stock of what had been acquired. They also analyzed, classified, and systematized it. For the first time, writers began using the English language as a vehicle for storing and conveying facts.                                                                                                                                                                                                                      The Seventeenth Century up to 1660 was dominated by Puritanism and it may be called the Puritan Age or the Age of Milton who was the noblest representative of the Puritan spirit. Broadly speaking, the Puritan movement in literature may be considered as the second and greater Renaissance, marked by the rebirth of the moral nature of man which followed the intellectual awakening of Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Though the Renaissance brought with it culture, it was mostly sensuous and pagan, and it needed some sort of moral sobriety and profundity which were contributed by the Puritan movement. Moreover, during the Renaissance period despotism was still the order of the day, and in politics and religion unscrupulousness and fanaticism were rampant. The Puritan movement stood for the liberty of the people from the shackles of the despotic ruler as well as the introduction of morality and high ideals in politics. Thus it had two objects—personal righteousness and civil and religious liberty. In other words, it aimed at making men honest and free.                                                      

                                                                                                                                                                         Though during the Restoration period the Puritans began to be looked down upon as narrow-minded, gloomy dogmatists, who were against all sorts of recreations and amusements, in fact, they were not so. Moreover, though they were profoundly religious, they did not form a separate religious sect. It would be a grave travesty of facts if we call Milton and Cromwell, who fought for the liberty of the people against the tyrannical rule of Charles I, as narrow-minded fanatics. They were the real champions of liberty and stood for tolerance.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             The name Puritan was at first given to those who advocated certain changes in the form of worship of the reformed English Church under Elizabeth. As King Charles I and his councilors, as well as some of the clergymen with Bishop Laud as their leader, were opposed to this movement, Puritanism in course of time became a national movement against the tyrannical rule of the King, and stood for the liberty of the people. Of course, the extremists among Puritans were fanatics and stern, and the long, protracted struggle against despotism made even the milder ones hard and narrow. So when Charles I was defeated and beheaded in 1649 and Puritanism came out triumphant with the establishment of the Commonwealth under Cromwell, severe laws passed. Many simple modes of recreation and amusement were banned, and an austere standard of living was imposed on unwilling people. But when we criticize the Puritan for his restrictions on simple and innocent pleasures of life, we should not forget that it was the same very Puritan who fought for liberty and justice, and who through self-discipline and an austere way of living overthrew despotism and made the life and property of the people of England safe from the tyranny of rulers.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      In the literature of the Puritan Age, we find the same confusion as we find in religion and politics. The medieval standards of chivalry, the impossible loves, and romances which we find in Spenser and Sidney, have completely disappeared. As there were no fixed literary standards, imitations of older poets and exaggeration of the ‘metaphysical’ poets replaced the original, dignified, and highly imaginative compositions of the Elizabethan writers. The literary achievements of this so-called gloomy age are not of a high order, but it had the honor of producing one solitary master of verse whose work would shed luster on any age or people—John Milton, who was the noblest and indomitable representative of the Puritan spirit to which he gave a loftiest and enduring expression.

General Characteristics of the Age of Milton/ Puritan age:                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              (i)   Civil War: 

The entire period was dominated by the civil war, which divided the people into two factions, one loyal to the King and the other opposed to him. English people had remained one and united and loyal to the sovereign. The crisis began when James I, who had recoined the right of royalty from an Act of Parliament, gave too much premium to the Divine Right and began to ignore Parliament which had created him. The Puritans, who had become a potent force in the social life of the age, heralded the movement for constitutional reforms. The hostilities, which began in 1642, lasted till the execution of Charles I in 1649. There was little political stability during the interregnum of eleven years that followed. These turbulent years saw the establishment of the Common­wealth, the rise of Oliver Cromwell, the confusion which followed upon his death, and, finally, the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

(ii) The Puritan Movement: 

The Renaissance, which exercised immense influence on Elizabethan literature, was essentially pagan and sensuous. It did not concern the moral nature of man, and it brought little relief from the despotism of rulers. “The Puritan movement,” says W. J. Long, “may be regarded a second and greater Renaissance, a rebirth of the moral nature of man following the intellectual awakening of Europe in the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries.” In Germany and England, the Renaissance was accompanied by a moral awakening, “that greatest moral and political reform which ever swept ‘over a nation in the short space of half a century”, which is meant by the Puritan movement. Puritanism had two chief objects: the first was personal righteousness; the second was civil and personal liberty. In other words, it aimed to make men honest and to make them free.

“Though the spirit of the Puritan movement was profoundly religious, the Puritans were not a religious sect; neither was the Puritan a narrow-minded and gloomy dogmatist, as he is still pictured in the histories.” Hampden, Eliot, Milton, Hooker, and Cromwell were Puritans.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        From a religious viewpoint, Puritanism included all shades of belief. In course of time “Puritanism became a great national movement. It included English Churchmen as well as extreme Separatists, Calvinists, Covenanters, Catholic noblemen,— all bound together in resistance to despotism in Church and State, and with a passion for liberty and righteousness such as the world has never since seen,” says W. J. Long.                                                                                                                                                During the Puritan rule of Cromwell severe laws were passed, simple pleasures were forbidden, theatres were closed, and an austere standard of living was forced upon an unwilling people. So there was a rebellion against Puritanism, which ended with the Restoration of King Charles ll.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

 Literary characteristics of the Age of Milton:                                          Because of the influence of the church and puritans there are only limited works. though some major writers tried to create the best out of the worst.                                                                                            

(i) Influence of Puritanism: 

The influence of Puritanism upon English life and literature was profound. The spirit which it introduced was fine and noble but it was hard and stern. The Puritan’s integrity and uprightness are unquestionable but his fanaticism, his moroseness, and the narrowness of his outlook and sympathies were deplorable. In his over-enthusiasm to react against prevailing abuses, he denounced the good things of life, condemned science and art, and ignored the appreciation of beauty, which invigorates secular life. Puritanism destroyed human culture and sought to confine human culture within the circumscribed field of its own particular interests. It was fatal to both art and literature.

Puritanism created confusion in the literature. Sombreness and pensiveness pervaded the poetry of this period. The spirit of gaiety, youthful vigour and vitality, romance and chivalry that distinguished Elizabethan literature was conspicuous by its absence. In the words of W. J. Long: “Poetry took new and startling forms in Donne and Herbert, and prose became as somber as Burton’s The Anatomy of Melancholy. The spiritual gloom that sooner or later fastens upon all writers of this age, and which is unjustly attributed to Puritan influence, is due to the breaking up of accepted standards in religion and government. This so-called gloomy age produced some minor poems of exquisite work­manship, and one great master of verse whose work would glorify any age or people, —John Milton, in whom the indomitable Puritan spirit finds its noblest expression.”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   (ii) Want of Vitality and Concreteness: 

The literature of this period lacks concreteness and vitality. Shakespeare stands first and foremost for the concrete realities of life; his words and phrases tingle with vitality and thrill with warmth. Milton is concerned rather with theorizing about life, his lines roll over the mind with sonorous majesty, now and again thrilling us as Shakespeare did with the fine excess of creative genius, but more often impressing us with their stateliness and power, than moving us by their tenderness and passion. Puritanism began with Ben Jonson, though it found its greatest prose exponent in Bunyan. W. J. Long writes: “Elizabethan literature is generally inspiring; it throbs with youth and hope and vitality. That which follows speaks of age and sadness; even its brightest hours are followed by gloom, and by the pessimism inseparable from the passing of old standards.”

                                                                                                                                                                        (iii) Want of the Spirit of Unity: 

                                              

           Despite the diversity, Elizabethan literature was marked by the spirit of unity, which resulted from the intense patriotism and nationalism of all classes, and their devotion and loyalty to the Queen who had a single-minded mission to seek the nation’s welfare. During this period James I and Charles II were hostile to the interests of the people. The country was divided by the struggle for political and religious liberty, and the literature was as divided in spirit as the struggling parties.

                                                                                                                                                                       (iv) Dominance of Critical and Intellectual Spirit:                                                                                                                                                                                                         This period is remarkable for the decay of drama. The civil disturbances and the strong opposition of the Puritans was the main cause of the collapse of drama. The actual dramatic work of the period was small and unimportant. The closing of the theatres in 1642 gave a final jolt to the development of drama.