Essay-03 - Patterns of Creativity

Class Notes - English - XI - Electictive - Woven Words - Essay:03

UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT

1. How does Shelley’s attitude to science differ from that of Wordsworth and Keats?
   
   
   
   Wordsworth in his poem 'A Poet's Epitaph' looks at science with a critical mind. Even in the poem 'Tables Turned' he praises nature and appreciates the beauty it gives to the humanity: 
   
   "Up! up! my Friend, and quit your books;"
   "Enough of Science and of Art;
   Close up those barren leaves;
   Come forth, and bring with you a heart
   That watches and receives."
   
   

   Wordsworth requests us to be more inclined towards Nature because there is more wisdom in it. Keats in his poem 'Lamia' talks of two facets of human nature: one is sensual and other emotional. Keats calls philosophy destructive and pleasure unreal and calls them inseparable. However, it is not that one must take Wordsworth's and Keat's take as absolute. Shelley, for instance, is of a different opinion. For scientists it is best if they consider Shelley. A. N. Whitehead's testimony called Shelley's attitude to Science, an opposite pole to that of Wordsworth. He loved science, and was never tired of expressing in poetry the thoughts, which it suggests. Science symbolised to him joy, and peace, and illumination.
2. ‘It is not an accident that the most discriminating literary criticism of Shelley’s thought and work is by a distinguished scientist, Desmond King-Hele.’ How does this statement bring out the meeting point of poetry and science? 
   
   
   A Desmond King-Hele, a British physicist, is the author of Shelley: His Thought and Work. He said that Shelley's attitude to science emphasises the surprising modern climate of thoughts in which he chose to live. Shelley describes the mechanisms of nature with a precision and wealth of detail. It is a perfect fusion of poetry and science. A scientist critically reviewing a poet's work on science. S. Chandrasekhar points out two examples from Shelley's poetry in support of what is said about him. He points out that in his poem Cloud, a creative myth, a scientific monograph, and a gay picaresque tale of cloud adventure are fused together. Then he cites an example from Prometheus Unbound, which has been described by Herbert Read as the greatest expression ever given to humanity's desire for intellectual light and spiritual liberty.
3. What do you infer from Darwin’s comment on his indifference to literature as he advanced in years? 
   
   
   Darwin, a great scientist, known for his work On the Origin of Species, enjoyed literature only until he was 30, as he said. He enjoyed poetic works of Byron, Coleridge, Shelley, etc. immensely. Shakespeare's historical plays gave him much pleasure. However, as he advanced in his age to reach the benchmark of 30, the charm faded and he began losing interest in pictures and music that once gave him great delight. He tried reading poetry and Shakespeare; however, he found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated him. It is surprising that the answer to this change is in Darwin's own statement. His mind had become some kind of a  grinding machine to process laws out of facts. It caused atrophy of that part of the brain on which higher tastes depended. It was hard for Darwin to infer it as well and, thus, his romance with literature died away.
4. How do the patterns of creativity displayed by scientists differ from those displayed by poets? 
   
   
   Poets are the bards celebrating the nature surrounding them. While, scientists are the ones to harvest nature and its mechanism and mark inventions. Poets such as Wordsworth and Keats criticise humans of exploiting nature. Whereas, scientists on the other hand utilize the given resources of nature to create and invent. However, it is not that there is an enmity between poets and scientists. Shelley said, undoubtedly the promoters of utility, in this limited sense, have their appointed office in society They make space and give time.Here we have Darwin, who enjoyed literature immensely, however, until he was thirty. He said later,' My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone on which the higher tastes depend.Thus, it can be understood, while the poets celebrate the present and arrest it making it all immortal, the scientists create and invent leading us to a tomorrow, thus, marking a difference.
5. What is the central argument of the speaker?
   
   
   In the essay patterns of creativity, S. Chandrasekhar tries to figure out the reason for the difference in the patterns of creativity among the practitioners in the arts and practitioners in the sciences. He did not answer it, rather, he made an assortment of remarks that bore the answer. He cites examples explaining how poets and scientists view each other defining the difference in their views. There are poets such as Wordsworth and Keats who are worshippers of nature, who believe that humans sabotage nature by the technological advancement. However, there are poets like Shelley, who do poetry on science. It is difficult to segregate the views and put them into water tight compartments. Darwin, for instance enjoyed literature immensely as it gave him utmost joy, but only till the age of 30. W. B. Yeats, in praise of Shelley's A Defence of Poetry, called it the profoundest essay on the foundation of poetry in the English language The author of the essay, Chandrasekhar wonders in the end that why is there no such A Defence of Science written by a scientist of equal endowment. Perhaps the answer to the question he knew already.

TALKING ABOUT THE TEXT

1. ‘Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world’.
   
   
   Shelley in his famous essay, A Defence of Poetry, made the given statement. In his work, Shelley expressed his view on poetry and poets. The power of poetry and the beauty of it. It is true that poetry makes every thing immortal by arresting its enchanting beauty. It not just reflects, it has the power to ignite minds and bring change. Poetry inspires humanity. Like Shelley said, ? oets are...the mirrors or the gigantic shadows which futurity casts upon the present; the words which express what they understand not; the trumpets which sing to battle and feel not what they inspire; the influence which is moved not, but moves.It is poetry that bears the future and inspire minds. It beholds the past and mirrors the present as well. Poets are the subtle revolutionaries of our society. In fact, not just poets but all the great authors as well. They are the force that drive the society to newness and are moral critics. They participate in the society not just as viewers, but they keep a watch and express their criticism or appreciation through their work.
2. Poetry and science are incompatible.
   
   
   There are two perspectives to every issue. While poets like Wordsworth and Keats condemn man of exploiting nature and moving towards science, Shelley is a scientific poet, who even in his poems like his Cloud. Shelley loved science and expressed it in his poetry.? It symbolised to him joy, and peace, and illumination. Charles Darwin, being such a great scientist was immensely fond of literature, especially in his youth. However, another scientist, Faraday, who was absolutely engrossed in his scientific experiments about electricity and made great invention. It is always difficult to conclude whether poets and scientists are compatible or not. There will be many such poets and scientists fond of science and poetry. While there will be many who are only concerned about their subject.
3. ‘On reading Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry, the question insistently occurs why there is no similar A Defence of  Science written by a scientist of equal endowment.’
   
   
   A person who is passionate about her/his subject is bound to praise it profoundly. The only difference might be in the medium of expression. While a poet chooses words to praise his subject, a scientist may choose an invention to express his passion. This is natural. Thus, it is so that Shelley came up with a writing piece and Faraday discovering the laws of electromagnetic induction and his discoveries led him to formulate concepts such as 'lines of force' and 'fields of force'. It is not that scientists do not defend their subject, Faraday did defend his discoveries by answering Gladstone that there was every probability of the government taxing the electricity soon. Just the medium one chooses to defend their subject matters.

APPRECIATION

1. How does the ‘assortment of remarks’ compiled by the author give us an understanding of the ways of science and poetry? 
   
   [answer same as that of Q.5. Modify the answer accordingly]
2. Considering that this is an excerpt from a lecture, how does the commentary provided by the speaker string the arguments together? 
3. The Cloud ‘fuses together a creative myth, a scientific monograph, and a gay picaresque tale of cloud adventure’— explain.

Chapter 04-The Adventure of the Three Garridebs - Arthur Conan Doyle

Class Notes - English - XI - Elective - Woven Words - Chapter:04

UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT

1. What clues did Sherlock Holmes work upon to get at the fact that the story of the three Garridebs was a ruse?
   
   
   Sherlock Holmes noticed that the gentleman who was paying visit to him and his friend Watson under the name of John Garrideb was not what he purported to be because there were discrepancies in his statements as well as appearance. John Garrideb’s claim that he was new to London was not true because the dress that he was wearing was British and that too a worn out one. John’s accent also hinted that he was staying in London for quite some time. Moreover John’s story about Alexander Hamilton Garrideb of Chicago fell flat when he claimed that he knew Dr. Lysander Starr of Topeka very well, a bait cleverly placed by Holmes. Sherlock Holmes also noticed that the advertisement shown to him by John Garrideb apparently placed by Howard Garrideb contained words which were mainly used in USA, proving that it was none other than John Garrideb himself who placed the advertisement. 
   
   All the above mentioned discrepancies proved that the story of three Garridebs was a ruse.
2. What was John Garrideb’s objective in inventing the story of Alexander Hamilton Garrideb and his legacy?
   
   
   John Garrideb's objective was to gain entry into the house of Nathan Garrideb. He wanted to enter the house because before Nathan Garrideb the house was rented to Presbury, the American criminal, who was running a racket of counterfeit British notes and currencies in a secret  basement in the house of Nathan Garrideb. John and Presbury being friends back then worked in tandem and knew about each others' secrets. When John shot Presbury dead he wanted to lay his hands on the counterfeit notes printing machine and currencies lying hidden in the basement of the house where Nathan Garrideb lived. But Nathan Garrideb proved a hindrance in his planning for he hardly left his dwellings. This led John Garrideb to invent the story of Hamilton Garrideb and his legacy. Nathan Garrideb almost fell in the trap except the fact that he got over enthusiastic and involved Holmes in the hunt of the third Garrideb.
3. Why didn't John Garrideb like the idea of including Holmes in the hunt for the third Garrideb?
   
   
   John Garrideb didn't like the idea of including Holmes in the hunt for the third Garrideb because he feared that his fictitious story of three Garridebs might get busted. His worst fears came true at the end, because Holmes noticed all the discrepancies in his statements and pinned down John Garrideb while he was entering the basement of Nathan Garrideb's house to take away the counterfeit currencies.
4. Who was Roger Presbury and how was John Garrideb connected with him?
   
   
   Roger Presbury was an American criminal who was living in Britain and was involved in counterfeit currency business. He was shot by John Garrideb over cards in a night club on the Waterloo Road in January, 1895. Sherlock found out that his appearance matched with the appearance of Waldron, the previous tenant of the lodging in which now Nathan Garrideb lived. Presbury aka Waldron had hidden a note printing press in his basement and John Garrideb knew about it. It was this printing press that John Garrideb was after and carved out the whole plan to acquire it.
5. How did Holmes guess that John Garrideb would go to 136, Little Ryder Street? Did he expect to find what he ultimately did before he went there?
   
   
   
   Once it became clear to Holmes that John Garrideb wants to send Nathan Garrideb away for a while, he sensed that there must be something at 136, Little Ryder Street that was of immense importance to John, Holmes expected John Garrideb to show up.Meanwhile Holmes and his friend Watson ensured that John did not suspect that they have any inkling of his plans of sending Nathan Garrideb away. Holmes and Watson did put the man at ease by clearing it to him that they were least interested in any matter and won his confidence by showing that they were just to help him in discovering another Garrideb. Expecting John they arrived and hid themselves in the house at 136, Little Ryder Street and did catch John Garrideb..

APPRECIATION

1. Examine the structure of the short story ‘Adventure of the Three Garridebs’ with the help of this framework

• The narrator of the story
• Introduction of the topic of the story
• Introduction of the main characters in the plot
• Development of the plot
• Climax
• Resolution of the mystery.

The introduction of the story: The story opens with a faint reflection of the climax. Watson, the narrator, does not give the climax entirely. However, he does tell the reader how the experience will be in the end.

Introduction of the topic of the story: The narrator does not hit the nail on the head, he rather lets the reader explore the story as the situation unfolds itself. However, Watson does not make the reader wait for too long.

Introduction of the main characters in the plot: Watson, the narrator takes the hold of the narration in the very beginning introducing the reader to the story. However we get to know him only once he introduces the reader to him. And it is when Holmes addresses Watson, we come to know the name of the narrator. For it is a first person narrative, we have to wait and move as the narrator describes all the events.

Development of the plot: In the beginning, Holmes is talking about a person with a particular surname and that there is a need to find a person with the surname. Then he tells Watson to wait for the person who has assigned the task to the detective as Holmes wants the person in question himself to explain the situation to his friend. Then arrives, John Garrideb of Kansas, who explains the reason for why is there a need of another surname. And it is made clear for why Nathan approached Holmes for the task as it was John who approached Nathan for the same reason. And then further the story unfolds and with it is the truth explored.

Climax: The climax is built as the series of events are described. There are clues laid for the reader to guess, yet the narrator does not give away the resolution. The reader guesses the possibilities. Ultimately a stage comes where the story reaches its height when Holmes is sure of the identity of the suspect and is sure of evil intentions and yet his motives are not clear. It is all to be discovered by the reader as he/she advances to the final tragedy.

Resolution of the mystery: The resolution unleashes a comical tragedy. The reader is surprised and feels funny as well, thanks to the witty detective that leads the case. A faint reflection of the emotions that the reader might go in the ending were already given in the beginning, yet the resolution was unknown. It is not just the tragedy revealed but along with it is revealed the other side of the main character Sherlock Holmes and his friendship with Dr. Watson. There is more than expected revealed. The digressions of Holmes are justified in the end as well. It was a mystery resolved in the end.

2. Examine the subtle humour in the narration of the story that lightens the gravity of the subject matter.
   
   
   The story's wittiest character is the detective Sherlock Holmes whose digressions are most funny. How in the middle of a sensitive interrogation he points out to the suspect that he appears to be a English, though the suspect exclaims that he is an American. In the beginning when Holmes is explaining the case to Watson, he remarks that there is a chance to make money with this case as if it is they and not the Garridebs who will be given the inheritance of Alexander Garrideb. The most interesting part is the style with which Holmes talks or discusses any information. Even while explaining a serious matter he adapts a casual style. For example, again while in the beginning Holmes is explaining the case to Watson, he did not give away the people already involved in the case. However, he tells that Nathan is already taken in as Watson comes across his name in the directory. He did not even tell the name of the mastermind John Garrideb until Mrs. Hudson approached with the card signed by Garrideb. There are many such instances that make the mystery light-hearted and the reader is not burned by it.