Showing posts with label Literature in English. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Literature in English. Show all posts

Tuesday, 24 July 2018

How To Read A LIterature Text: Strategies for Reading a Literature text for better understanding

In WAEC or UTME exams, students' are required to read some texts in literature so as to be acquainted with the details of the text before the exam. this particular blog is going to expose students to the strategies they must apply in order to get the best out of any literary text.
Like order types of reading assignments in secondary school, Reading literature text in an effort to respond to it requires more than just a quick read through. In order words, reading literature for a course or for the purpose of responding to it is much different than reading for relaxation purpose. Just as in WAEC, NECO and UTME exams. Reading with the intent of writing about the work requires multiple readings of the text.

STRATEGIES FOR READING A LITERATURE TEXT
The following strategies offer proven ways of reading a story(prose), a play(drama) and a poem(poetry) in order to get in-depth understanding.

1. when reading through the work of literature for the first time, read as you would at the beach or when relaxing on the bed at home: get the 'gist' of the plot (yes, poem often have plot too), the characters and a general idea of the meaning of the piece. enjoy the work and don't be stressed out about any upcoming written test or assignments.

2. During the second read, pay particular attention to words that you do not know and look up those words in the dictionary. if a word has multiple meaning listed, consider each of the meanings. Often writers will use antiquated or secondary meanings of words. You may find it useful to write the meanings of the words in the margin of the text or on a separate notebook, so that you can easily refer to them when reading, writing and thinking about the text. Paying attention to word choice is especially important when reading poetry. Because poems are often short and every word counts, which means words may have dual meanings each of which makes sense within the poem but offers differing interpretations. For instance, in the poem THE PULLEY   by George Herbert, the word 'PULLEY' has a dual sense of which both senses make sense within the poem. The word has both literary and figurative senses.

3. Think about the setting of the work and its culture. Is the work set in the 20th century or at another time? Is it set in America, Nigeria, Britain or any other place in the world? What are the customs, traditions, and lifestyles like in that particular region? What is the socioeconomic status of the characters- are they rich, middle class, poor? What is the ethnicity of the characters? Considering these issues gives you valuable insights into the meaning of the work and its perspective.

4. During subsequent readings, methodically begin to pay attention to how characters interact with one another, how they speak, who is telling or narrating the story, the kinds of images the writer uses, or any other aspect of the text that seems important to you. Ask yourself along as you think that way. Many students find it helpful to keep a reading not as well when they read through a text. In your reading note, you can also record your thinking about the work. As you continue analyzing the text, add to your notes.

5. Annotating the text by underlining or circling passages and writing in the margin is helpful because your annotation can refer you to particular sections of the work later. Since, you will need to draw the evidence for your interpretations from the work itself, having already marked sections of the work will aid you in generating your evidence in writing about the text. whether as test, summary or exams

Saturday, 20 February 2016

Analysis Of Native Son...For WAEC




Overview Summary


Summary of the Novel
Native Son takes place in Chicago. All the action is confined to a few weeks in the winter of an unspecified year in the late 1930s. Twenty-year-old Bigger Thomas is living in a tenement room in the South Side ghetto with his mother and younger sister and brother.
Book One: Fear
As the novel begins, Bigger’s mother urges him to accept a job that is being offered by Henry Dalton, a wealthy white man who owns much of the property in the ghetto. She tells Bigger that if he refuses, the family will be denied relief (welfare), and be unable to pay rent or buy food. Bigger agrees to see Mr. Dalton, but first visits his friends at a poolroom, where they plan out their latest and most daring robbery. Although the plan to rob a white-owned delicatessen is Bigger’s own, he becomes frightened and ruins the plan.
Bigger goes to see Mr. Dalton at his mansion, and accepts the job of chauffeur. He is to be paid $25 per week, which is a good salary for those times. He is also given a room to live in. Nevertheless, he is extremely nervous, because he will now have to live his life amongst white people, whom he knows from experience are racists. He has even brought his gun to the interview. Bigger’s nervousness turns to near panic when Mary Dalton, Mr. Dalton’s beautiful, 23-year-old daughter, appears. Mary has begun to question her father’s wealth, and she is sympathetic to communism. She tries to speak to Bigger as an equal, rather than as a servant, but Bigger is worried that such talk might cause him to lose his job.
Bigger’s first task on his new job turns into an unparalleled nightmare. He drives Mary to see Jan Erlone, her communist boyfriend. The three then drive to the South Side, and eat in one of Bigger’s favorite restaurants. Jan and Mary ask Bigger to eat with them, and Bigger does so reluctantly. Jan buys a bottle of rum, and when the three leave the restaurant, they all drink from it. Bigger drops Jan off near his home, and then drives Mary home. Mary is quite intoxicated at this point, and Bigger helps her to her room, ever fearful that he might be caught with a drunken white girl in his arms. Suddenly, Mary’s blind mother appears at the door of the bedroom, just as Bigger is putting Mary to bed. Wild with fear, Bigger puts a pillow over Mary’s head to stifle her moans, so that Mrs. Dalton will come no closer and discover him. When Mrs. Dalton leaves, Bigger takes the pillow away, and Mary is dead. Bigger brings her body to the basement, and shoves her into the furnace. He has to hack off her head to make the body fit.
Book Two: Flight
In this section of the novel, Bigger first tries to deceive the Daltons about their missing daughter by implicating Jan in her disappearance. He enlists his girlfriend Bessie in a plan to extort ransom money from the family, and sends a note to Mr. Dalton asking for $10,000, which he signs “Red,” to make everyone think the communists have Mary. Newspaper reporters are allowed into the Dalton’s basement, and one of them discovers unburned pieces of human bone, and Mary’s earring. Bigger witnesses the discovery and flees. He goes to Bessie’s house to call off the ransom plan, and the two hide out in an abandoned building. There Bigger rapes Bessie, and then murders her, so that she cannot be interrogated by the authorities. Five thousand police officers conduct a brutal house-to-house search of the ghetto, and Bigger is soon caught.
Book Three: Fate
As the Chicago newspapers fill their pages with horrifying racist imagery, much of the city’s white population is whipped into a frenzy of hate, and the call for Bigger’s death grows louder and louder. Jan, who has forgiven Bigger for murdering his girlfriend and then trying to implicate him in the crime, helps Bigger get a lawyer. He is Boris Max, a Jewish Communist. In the course of preparing Bigger’s case, lawyer and client actually become close, and their relationship enables Bigger to begin to understand his own actions. At the end of Bigger’s trial, Max makes an electrifying appeal for his life—much of which was cut out of the first edition of the novel. The appeal fails, and Bigger is condemned to die. In their last meeting, Bigger tells Max that his crimes must have had a good purpose, or else he would not have risked his life committing them. Max is clearly shaken by Bigger’s reasoning, and the two men part, still in separate worlds.

The Life and Work of Richard Wright
Richard Nathaniel Wright was born on September 4, 1908, in Roxie, Mississippi. He was a grandson of slaves. His father was an illiterate sharecropper, and his mother was a schoolteacher. When he was five, Wright’s family moved to Tennessee, but his father soon deserted them, and from the age of ten, Wright had to interrupt his schooling to earn money. The family was not only faced with extreme poverty, but also with terrifying racial violence. When Richard was living with his aunt and uncle in Arkansas, his uncle was murdered by a white mob. Despite all the hardships he faced as a child, however, Richard managed to excel in school. By the time he completed the ninth grade, books were his constant companions.
Although Wright would leave the South forever when he was only nineteen, it is not surprising that his early life there made the deepest impressions on his personality, and supplied him with much of the subject matter for his later writings. What is remarkable, however, is that Wright accomplished his own transformation into a literary person there, while yet a teenager, and against almost impossible odds. He was poor, black and only semi-educated, and, most forbiddingly, he was subject to constant and often potentially deadly racist harassment. Readers can learn about the depth of his transformation, and the obstacles he faced while achieving it, from Wright’s own compelling testimony in Black Boy, his autobiography. Wright described one defining moment of his self-education in especially vivid terms. When he was eighteen and working for an eyeglass company in Memphis, Tennessee, he read a story in a newspaper which attacked the writer H.L. Mencken. He became curious about why a white-owned newspaper would attack a prominent white writer, and decided that he must read Mencken’s own writings. He had no money to buy books, and as an African American, he was forbidden to borrow books from the library. Wright took a risk and asked a fellow white employee—an Irish Catholic who was therefore also subject to the prejudices of other whites—if he could use his library card, and pretend he was borrowing books for him. The man agreed, and Richard Wright at last had his encounter with H.L. Mencken’s A Book of Prefaces:
That night in my rented room…I opened A Book of Prefaces and began to read. I was jarred and shocked by the style, the clear, clean, sweeping sentences. Why did he write like that? And how did one write like that? I pictured the man as a raging demon, slashing with his pen, consumed with hate, denouncing everything American, extolling everything European or German, laughing at the weaknesses of people, mocking God, authority. What was this? I stood up, trying to realize what reality lay behind the meaning of the words…Yes, this man was fighting, fighting with words. He was using words as a weapon, using them as one would use a club. Could words be weapons? Well, yes, for here they were. Then, maybe, perhaps, I could use them as a weapon? No. It frightened me. I read on and what amazed me was not what he said, but how on earth anybody had the courage to say it.
Occasionally I glanced up to reassure myself that I was alone in the room. Who were these men about whom Mencken was talking so passionately? Who was Anatole France? Joseph Conrad? Sinclair Lewis, Sherwood Anderson, Dostoevski, George Moore, Gustave Flaubert, Maupassant, Tolstoy, Frank Harris, Mark Twain, Thomas Hardy, Arnold Bennett, Stephen Crane, Zola, Norris, Gorky, Bergson, Ibsen, Balzac, Bernard Shaw, Dumas, Poe, Thomas Mann, O. Henry, Dreiser, H. G. Wells, Gogol, T. S. Eliot, Gide, Baudelaire, Edgar Lee Masters, Stendahl, Turgenev, Huneker, Nietzsche, and scores of others? Were these men real? Did they exist or had they existed? And how did one pronounce their names? (Black Boy, p. 293)
Before too long, and with the help of his borrowed library card, Richard Wright filled in as many of the blank spaces in his learning as he could, absorbing book after book, like a starving man put before a Thanksgiving table.
In 1927, when he was nineteen, he and his aunt joined the great African-American migration to the North, settling in Chicago’s vast South Side ghetto. Initially, Wright was in awe of his new surroundings, but he was already watchful, and concerned about the plight of African Americans, and poor people generally. Although he found racism everywhere in segregated Chicago, it was neither as profound nor as potentially deadly as it was in the South. Blacks and whites mingled in railway stations, streetcars, and downtown restaurants. The poor neighborhoods, black and white, seethed with subversive political activism, something Wright had never seen in the South. At first he was attracted to the black nationalist movement led by Marcus Garvey, but he eventually rejected Garvey’s political philosophy as too narrow. Instead, Wright began his long involvement with communism, both because he felt the communists were more active than the nationalists in the day-to-day struggles of African Americans, and because the stated aim of communism was to break down the walls between black and white workers and build a new society free of all forms of oppression. In 1932, while working in the Chicago post office, some of his white co-workers invited Wright to a meeting of the John Reed Club. John Reed was an American writer who participated in the 1917 socialist revolution in Russia, and the American Communist Party set up literary clubs in his name across the country. Wright sooned joined both the John Reed Club and the Communist Party, and he began to contribute political poems and essays to such left-wing periodicals as Anvil, Left Front, and The New Masses. He also honed his skills by participating in the Federal Writers’ Project of the Works Project Administration (WPA), a depression-era government program designed to provide work for the nation’s millions of unemployed.
Wright thus simultaneously launched a literary and a political life in Chicago at the dawn of the 1930s—the decade of the Great Depression. By 1937, he was encouraged enough by his own writing talent to risk relocation to New York, the nation’s literary capital. There he soon became the Harlem correspondent for the Daily Worker, the Communist Party newspaper, and he also resumed publishing a series of five powerful stories about the South, which he had mainly written in Chicago. One of these stories, “Fire and Cloud,” won an important prize as the best fiction written by a WPA writer. The prestigious award brought Wright to the attention of the New York literary establishment. In 1938—less than one year after he had left Chicago—Harper & Brothers published his entire series of stories in a book entitled Uncle Tom’s Children. Its artistic genius and its penetrating awareness of the painful truths of racism and poverty in America were undeniable. The book achieved immediate and nearly universal acclaim, and Wright soon received a Guggenheim Fellowship, a cash prize to help finance the writing of his next work.
In fact, by the time he had been awarded the fellowship, Wright had nearly completed that book, an ambitious novel that combined elements of subtle psychological analysis with powerful Marxian social criticism. Wright published this work in 1940; it is called Native Son. It is Wright’s greatest book, and also one of the most important American novels of the Twentieth Century. As Wright himself explains in “How ‘Bigger’ Was Born”—a brilliant essay that is now published with the novel—he wanted Native Son to shock his white liberal admirers. He set his stark tale in the frozen Chicago ghetto, and is thereby able to reveal just how deeply divided all of America was, not only in the backward, faraway South—the setting of the stories in Uncle Tom’s Children—but in the great modern cities of the North as well.
Wright’s uncompromising book made him a famous writer, and readers were hungry to hear his own story. He responded with another masterwork, Black Boy, the first part of his autobiography, in which he included a powerful essay about segregation, “The Ethics of Living Jim Crow.” (The second part of the autobiography, titled American Hunger, was not fully published until after Wright’s death.) Black Boy appeared in 1945, and was even more successful than Native Son. Richard Wright was now looked upon as a spokesman for an entire generation of African Americans.
With his words and with his actions, Richard Wright continued to struggle throughout his life against injustice. However, he left the Communist Party during the Second World War. He was repelled not by the idea of socialism, but by the narrow dogmatism of Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, and his adherents who controlled the Party in America. Within a few years of Wright’s break from the Communist Party, the Cold War against the Soviet Union began. The domestic implications of this cold war affected Wright directly, because Congress began investigating American Communists in a campaign of intimidation that would come to be known as “McCarthyism,” after Senator Joseph McCarthy, one of the most ruthless anti-communists. Wright himself had for a long time been under F.B.I. surveillance, and even though he was no longer a Communist, he was still regarded by the government as a potentially dangerous subversive. He knew that he would soon be called to testify before the “House Un-American Activities Committee,” a Congressional body, where he would be asked to denounce his former Communist friends. He also knew that if he refused, he could be jailed.
The very real threat of government repression, combined with his increasing weariness of racism in American society, led Richard Wright to seek exile in France. In 1947, he moved to Paris, and he would spend almost all of the rest of his life in Europe. He associated there with French philosophers Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, and tried for a time to build with them a new revolutionary movement. He was also interested in their existentialist philosophy, and he explored themes of freedom and alienation in The Outsider, a novel published in 1953.
Toward the end of his life, Wright became involved, along with his friends George Padmore and Frantz Fanon, in the struggles of African countries to be rid of colonial rule. These men injected new life into Pan-Africanism, a movement which sought a revolutionary third path for African peoples, independent of capitalism and communism.
Richard Wright died suddenly in Paris on November 28, 1960, at the age of fifty-two. He left behind an enduring literary legacy which yet challenges readers to delve deeply into questions of racism, poverty, and human freedom. His ashes now rest in Père Lachaise cemetery, in Paris, far from his race-divided native shore. Yet that place is appropriate. Near his remains lie the graves of Victor Hugo and Honoré de Balzac, France’s greatest authors. Richard Wright may have been of a different age than those nineteenth century giants, but he was of the same race, the human race, and his vision of humanity was equally as vast.
Estimated Reading Time
The average silent reading rate for a secondary student is 250 to 300 words per minute. Since each page of the 1993 HarperPerennial edition has up to 350 words, an average student might take two minutes to read one page. At that rate, the total reading time for the 500-page novel is between 16 and 17 hours. There are no chapters, but the author has broken his novel into three “books”: “Fear” (108 pages), “Flight” (206 pages), and “Fate” (188 pages). Try reading the first book in two or three sittings, and the second and third in four or five sittings each.

Native Son was the first novel by an American writer to deeply explore the black struggle for identity and the anger blacks have felt...

Bigger Thomas lives in a one-room apartment with his brother, sister, and mother. Always penniless, haunted by a pathological hatred of white people, driven by an indescribable urge to make others cringe before him, Bigger has retreated into an imaginary world of fantasy.
Through the aid of a relief agency, he obtains employment as a chauffeur for a wealthy family. His first assignment is to drive Mary Dalton, his employer’s daughter, to the university. Mary, however, is on her way to meet Jan Erlone, her sweetheart. The three of them, Mary and Jan—white people who are crusading with the Communist Party to help African Americans—and Bigger—a reluctant ally—spend the evening driving and drinking. Bigger brings Mary home, but Mary is too drunk to take herself to bed. With a confused medley of hatred, fear, disgust, and revenge playing within his mind, Bigger helps her to her bedroom. When Mary’s blind mother enters the room, Bigger covers the girl’s face with a pillow to keep her from making any sound that might arouse Mrs. Dalton’s suspicions. The reek of whiskey convinces Mrs. Dalton that Mary is drunk, and she leaves the room. Then Bigger discovers that he had smothered Mary to death. To delay discovery of his crime, he takes the body to the basement and stuffs it into the furnace.
Bigger then begins a weird kind of rationalization. The next morning, in his mother’s home, he begins thinking that he is separated from his family because he had killed a white girl. His plan is to involve Jan in connection with Mary’s death.
When Bigger returns to the Dalton home, the family is worrying over Mary’s absence. Bigger feels secure from incrimination because he had covered his activities by lying. He decides to send ransom notes to her parents, allowing them to think Mary had been kidnapped. There are too many facts to remember, however, and too many lies to tell. Britten, the detective whom Mr. Dalton had hired, tries to intimidate Bigger, but his methods only make Bigger more determined to frame Jan, who, in his desire to protect Mary, lies just enough to help Bigger’s cause. When Britten brings Bigger face to face with Jan for questioning, Bigger’s fear mounts. He goes to Bessie, his mistress, who gets from him a confession of murder. Bigger forces her to go with him to hide in an empty building in the slum section of the city. There he instructs her to pick up the ransom money he hopes to receive from Mr. Dalton.
Bigger is eating in the Dalton kitchen when the ransom note arrives. Jan had already been arrested. Bigger clings tenaciously to his lies. It is a cold day. Attempting to build up the fire, Bigger accidentally draws attention to the furnace. When reporters discover Mary’s bones, Bigger flees. Hiding with Bessie in the deserted building, he realizes that he cannot take her with him. Afraid to leave her behind to be found and questioned by the police, he kills her and throws her body down an air shaft.
When Bigger ventures from his hideout to steal a newspaper, he learns that the city is being combed to find him. He flees from one empty building to another, constantly buying or stealing newspapers to judge his chances for escape. Finally, he is trapped on the roof of a penthouse by a searching police officer. Bigger knocks him out. The police finally capture Bigger after a chase across the rooftops.
In jail, Bigger refuses to eat or speak. His mind turns inward, hating the world, but he is satisfied with himself for what he had done. Three days later, Jan Erlone comes to see Bigger and promises to help him. Jan introduces Boris A. Max, a lawyer for the Communist front organization for which Jan works. Buckley, the prosecuting attorney, tries to persuade Bigger not to become involved with the Communists. Bigger says nothing even after the lawyer tells him that Bessie’s body had been found. When Buckley begins listing the crimes of rape, murder, and burglary charged against him, Bigger protests, vigorously denying rape and Jan’s part in Mary’s death. Under a steady fire of questions from Buckley, Bigger breaks down and signs a confession.
The opening session of the grand jury begins. First, Mrs. Dalton appears as a witness to identify one of her daughter’s earrings, which had been found in the furnace. Next, Jan testifies, and, under the slanderous anti-Communist questioning, Max rises in protest against the racial bigotry of the coroner. Max questions Mr. Dalton about his ownership of the high-rent, rat-infested tenements where Bigger’s family lives. Generally, the grand jury session becomes a trial of the race relations that had led to Bigger’s crime rather than a trial of the crime itself. As a climax to the session, the coroner brings Bessie’s body into the courtroom to produce evidence that Bigger had raped and murdered his sweetheart. Bigger is returned to jail after Max promises to visit him. Under the quiet questioning of Max, Bigger at last talks about his crime, his feelings, his reasons. He had been thwarted by white people all of his life, he says, until he killed Mary Dalton; that act had released him.
At the opening session of the trial, Buckley presents witnesses who attest Bigger’s sanity and his ruthless character. The murder is dramatized even to the courtroom reconstruction of the furnace in which Mary’s body had been burned. Max refuses to call any of his own witnesses or to cross-examine, promising to act in Bigger’s behalf as sole witness for the defense. The next day, in a long speech, Max outlines an entire social structure, its effect on an individual such as Bigger, and Bigger’s inner compulsions when he killed Mary Dalton. Pleading for mitigation on the grounds that Bigger is not totally responsible for his crime, he argues that society, too, is to blame.
After another race-prejudiced attack by Buckley, the court adjourns for one hour. It reopens to sentence Bigger to death. Max’s attempts to delay death by appealing to the governor are unsuccessful.
In the last hours before death, Bigger realizes his one hope is to communicate his feelings to Max, to try to have Max explain to him the meaning of his life and his death. Max helps him see that the people who persecute African Americans, poor people or others, are themselves filled with fear. Bigger forgives them because they are suffering the same urge that he suffers. He forgives his enemies because they do not know the guilt of their own social crimes.


  • Native Son Summary
Native Son triggered Wright’s emergence into the foreground of American literature; the book became a best seller and was selected as the first Book of the Month Club offering by an African American. It immediately initiated controversy: Many within the black bourgeoisie condemned its depiction of a violent, white-hating black youth as the embodiment of white racist fantasies about the Negro “threat.” Wright’s fellow Communists disliked its racial preoccupations and reactionary emphasis upon the misdirected rebellion of a lone individual.
The novel also garnered high praise, however, often from those same audiences: The NAACP awarded Wright the Spingarn Medal, and critic Irving Howe suggested that Wright had transcended strictly aesthetic evaluations, saying, “The day Native Son appeared, American culture was changed forever.” Wright’s avowed intention was to force readers to confront the full “moral horror” of American racism.
In the essay “How Bigger Was Born,” Wright explains that Native Son’s protagonist, Bigger Thomas, is the composite of innumerable young black men Wright had encountered throughout his life; their outrage at being denied the American Dream explodes into unfocused violence that is as much a consequence of modern America’s urban industrial rootlessness as it is their racial grievances. Wright’s perspective rests on the Marxist tenet that the race question is intimately linked to the class exploitation at the heart of capitalism. Chicago’s notorious 1938 Nixon case, in which a black teenager was tried for the robbery and murder of a white mother of two and which influenced Wright in some of his fictional choices, provided topical validity for a story whose larger truths Wright had been pondering for years.
The novel rests upon elaborate philosophical and aesthetic underpinnings. Wright composed Native Son in three “acts,” titled “Fear,” “Flight,” and “Fate,” each of which blends naturalism, symbolism, and ideology. “Fear” deals with Bigger’s circumstances as the eldest son in a fatherless household dependent on government assistance. It also depicts the emotional volatility with which he responds to the grinding poverty of his family members’ lives, his mother’s expectations of rescue through accommodation to the system, and the repeated evidence of the futility of his ambitions in a racist culture. Among Wright’s influences was Theodore Dreiser’s An American Tragedy (1925), with which Native Son shares a bleak naturalism: The biological and environmental factors propelling Bigger’s actions as a human“organism” subject him to the machinery of impersonal cosmic and societal forces poised to crush those who misstep.
Bigger’s automatic impulse is a chilling propensity for violence. The opening scene functions both as naturalistic parable and symbolic forecast. While trying to rescue his terrified family from a rat, his fear energizes him to an instinctual assault on the animal, which responds with equal fierceness until it is killed with a frying pan. The boy gloats over his kill, enjoying an efficacy denied him in daily life: To kill, he intuits, is paradoxically to live.
To placate his desperate mother, Bigger grudgingly takes a chauffeur’s job with the wealthy Dalton family and is immediately thrown into a setting that arouses his deepest fears by putting him into constant, unpredictable contact with white people. When he is befriended by the Daltons’ daughter Mary, whose political sensibility reflects that of her Communist boyfriend Jan Erlone, Bigger is both attracted and repelled. He hates the danger in which she so unthinkingly puts him, for he knows the cultural taboos their contact violates, yet he is imaginatively and erotically fascinated by her for the same reason.
He has no illusions concerning Mary and Jan’s idealistic but implausible claims of solidarity with his race; they know nothing of his life and only compound his anxiety by their naïve efforts at egalitarianism. They tragically place Bigger in the most compromising position possible to a black man: He finds himself alone with a drunken white woman, responding tentatively to her vague sexual invitation. When he hears someone outside her bedroom door, his terror prompts him to suffocate her, after which he disposes of her body by decapitating and burning her in the basement furnace; such lurid details transform the realistic facade of the narrative into something surreal.
In “Flight,” Bigger’s efforts to deflect his guilt serve only to ensure his entrapment. He concocts a scheme to disguise the crime as a kidnapping and ransom committed by Communists, but the black idiom of the ransom note betrays the killer’s race. Media attention leads to his exposure when a reporter camped out at the house discovers Mary’s bones as he stokes the furnace. Bigger’s decision to seek the help of his girlfriend Bessie backfires when she reveals her inability to handle such pressure, and Bigger decides—this time quite cold-bloodedly—to kill her as well.
With this second act, which Wright included despite friends’ urgings to omit it, Bigger moves beyond the naturalism defining the first section of the novel and into the existential realm of moral experimentation reminiscent of another of Wright’s literary influences, Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevski’s Prestupleniye i nakazaniye (1866; Crime and Punishment, 1886).
Ironically, while Bigger is far more responsible for Bessie’s murder than for Mary’s arguably accidental death, it is of virtually no importance to the white society which will eventually put him on trial. It becomes a footnote in his prosecution, the real target of which is his presumed violation of white womanhood. Bigger’s killing of Bessie contributes to the chain of events springing his trap: It not only costs him the ransom money but also moves him steadily toward capture as the police dragnet confines him to the ghetto and finally isolates him on a rooftop water tower, in a scene recalling the rat episode.
“Fate” deals with Bigger’s trial and his yearning to know what his life has meant before he dies. Wright uses verbatim Chicago newspaper accounts of the Nixon trial to demonstrate the inflammatory racist lens through which a crime such as Bigger’s is projected before the public. This effort at verisimilitude gives way to competing ideological analyses of Bigger’s situation, the tensions between them indicative of the struggle within Wright between Communist Party doctrine and existentialist individualism.
The speech of Bigger’s eloquent lawyer, Max, argues that the jury recognize the moral culpability of a society that produces boys filled with such hate and violence. Max also follows Marxist doctrine in pointing out the inevitable collision between classes in an exploitive capitalist system that pits haves against have-nots. Max’s defense, while unheeded by the jury which sentences Bigger to death, has a profoundly liberating effect on Bigger, who is stunned into recognizing that his humanity is confirmed, not denied, by his acts, which alone can define him: He declares, “What I killed for, I am!”
Bigger refuses to subordinate his identity to ideological symbolism and instead embraces his outlaw behavior as evidence of his vitality, not victimization. One might also argue that he is severing meaningful connection to collective societal values when he celebrates his act of murder as life-affirming. As the jail door swings shut on the doomed youth, Wright transforms Bigger from racial icon to representative existential man, responsible for determining the meaning of his own life in a cosmic void where death is the only absolute.

                                                                                     Native Son narrates the life and impending death of Bigger Thomas. The novel opens with the jarring sound of an alarm clock. The family’s morning ritual is interrupted by a rat, which Bigger hysterically kills. This act marks the first instance of the fear and rage that pervade the novel.

The planned robbery of Blum’s store also elicits fear and rage. Blum is white, and Bigger and his gang are used to preying on other African Americans. He fights with Gus, a member of his gang, and calls the robbery off.
Bigger gets a job as the Daltons’ chauffeur. His first assignment is to take Mary Dalton to the university. She, however, wants to meet her boyfriend, Jan. All three end up at Ernie’s Kitchen Shack on the South Side of Chicago, and they get drunk. Mary is so drunk that Bigger has to carry her to her room. As he places her in bed, the ghostlike Mrs. Dalton enters. Panicstricken, Bigger suffocates Mary with her pillow. He decapitates her so that her body will fit into the blazing furnace and returns home to sleep.
As the investigation into Mary’s disappearance begins, Bigger implicates both Bessie and Jan. Mary’s bones are eventually found in the furnace, and Bigger must murder Bessie, to whom he has confessed, for his own protection. He kills her with a brick while she is asleep after he has raped her. Bigger flees through abandoned buildings on the South Side of Chicago. He is finally captured atop a water tank and imprisoned.
The third part of the novel—the inquest and trial—is set in the Cook County Jail and its environs. Bigger faints at the inquest and is taken back to his cell, where he reads newspaper reports of himself as the quintessential “nigger.” While in his cell, he is also visited by all those who have influenced his life, including the Reverend Hammond, his mother’s minister, who gives Bigger a wooden cross. Back at the inquest, Bigger is represented by Max, his communist lawyer.
Mary’s bones and Bigger’s signed confession are on display at the inquest. The deputy coroner elicits testimony from Mrs. Dalton and Jan; Max, for his part, questions Mr. Dalton. He points out that Mr. Dalton, as landlord of the rat-infested, one-room tenement in which Bigger and his family live, must bear a great deal of the responsibility for his daughter’s death. As testimony continues, Bessie’s mutilated corpse is brought in. The jury at the inquest decides that Bigger suffocated and strangled Mary while raping her. He must now be returned to jail to await trial.
Instead of being taken directly to Cook County Jail, Bigger is brought to Mary’s room at the Daltons’. He is then told to show how he raped and murdered Mary. He insists that he did not rape her and refuses to do anything. As he is being returned to jail, he sees the burning cross of the Ku Klux Klan. On his return, he throws away the wooden cross given him by the Reverend Hammond and is visited by Max. Bigger tells him about his meaningless existence.
Bigger’s trial begins. Max focuses on the causes of Bigger’s behavior in his defense. Despite Max’s eloquence, Bigger is convicted and sentenced to die in the electric chair. An appeal to the governor fails.

Friday, 19 February 2016

Analysis of The Proud King...WAEC

THE PROUD KING

[1] THERE was once a king who ruled over many lands; he went to war, and added one country after another to his kingdom. At last he came to be emperor, and that is as much as any man can be. One night, after he was crowned emperor, he lay awake and thought about himself.
"Surely," he said, "no one can be greater than I am, on earth or in heaven."
The proud king fell asleep with these thoughts. When he awoke, the day was fair, and he looked out on the pleasant world.
"Come," he said to the men about him; "to-day we will go a-hunting."
The horses were brought, the dogs came leaping, the horns sounded, and the proud king with his courtiers rode off to the sport. They had hunted all the morning, and were now in a deep wood. In the fields the sun had beat upon [2] their heads, and they were glad of the shade of the trees; but the proud king wished for something more. He saw a lake not far off, and he said to his men:—
"Bide ye here, while I bathe in the lake and cool myself."
Then he rode apart till he came to the shore of the lake. There he got down from his horse, laid aside his clothes, and plunged into the cool water. He swam about, and sometimes dived beneath the surface, and so was once more cool and fresh.
Now while the proud king was swimming away from the shore and diving to the bottom, there came one who had the same face and form as the king. He drew near the shore, dressed himself in the king's clothes, mounted the king's horse and rode away. So when the proud king was once more cool and fresh, and came to the place where he had left his clothes and his horse, there were no clothes to be seen, and no horse.
The proud king looked about, but saw no man. He called, but no one heard him. The air was mild, but the wood was dark, and no sunshine came through to warm him after his cool bath. He walked by the shore of the lake and cast about in his mind what he should do.
[3] "I have it," he cried at last. "Not far from here lives a knight. It was but a few days ago that I made him a knight and gave him a castle. I will go to him, and he will be glad enough to clothe his king."
The proud king wove some reeds into a mat and bound the mat about him, and then he walked to the castle of the knight. He beat loudly at the gate of the castle and called for the porter. The porter came and stood behind the gate. He did not draw the bolt at once, but asked:—
"Who is there?"
"Open the gate," said the proud king, "and you will see who I am."
The porter opened the gate, and was amazed at what he saw.
"Who are you?" he asked.
"Wretch!" said the proud king; "I am the emperor. Go to your master. Bid him come to me with clothes. I have lost both clothes and horse."
"A pretty emperor!" the porter laughed. "The great emperor was here not an hour ago. He came with his court from a hunt. My master was with him and sat at meat with him. But stay you here. I will call my master. Oh, [4] yes! I will show him the emperor," and the porter wagged his beard and laughed, and went within.
He came forth again with the knight and pointed at the proud king.
"There is the emperor!" he said. "Look at him! look at the great emperor!"
"Draw near," said the proud king to the knight, "and kneel to me. I gave thee this castle. I made thee knight. I give thee now a greater gift. I give thee the chance to clothe thy emperor with clothes of thine own."
"You dog!" cried the knight. "You fool! I have just ridden with the emperor, and have come back to my castle. Here!" he shouted to his servants, "beat this fellow and drive him away from the gate."
The porter looked on and laughed.
"Lay on well," he said to the other servants. "It is not every day that you can flog an emperor."
Then they beat the proud king, and drove him from the gate of the castle.
"Base knight!" said the proud king. "I gave him all he has, and this is how he repays me. I will punish him when I sit on my throne again. I will go to the duke who lives not far [5] away. Him I have known all my days. He will know me. He will know his emperor."
So he came to the gate of the duke's great hall, and knocked three times. At the third knock the porter opened the gate, and saw before him a man clad only in a mat of reeds, and stained and bleeding.
"Go, I pray you, to the duke," said the proud king, "and bid him come to me. Say to him that the emperor stands at the gate. He has been robbed of his clothes and of his horse. Go quickly to your master."
The porter closed the gate between them, and went within to the duke.
"Your Grace," said he, "there is a madman at the gate. He is unclad and wild. He bade me come to you and tell you that he was the emperor."
"Here is a strange thing indeed," said the duke; "I will see it for myself."
So he went to the gate, followed by his servants, and when the porter opened it there stood the proud king. The proud king knew the duke, but the duke saw only a bruised and beaten madman.
"Do you not know me?" cried the proud king. "I am your emperor. Only this morn- [6] ing you were on the hunt with me. I left you that I might bathe in the lake. While I was in the water, some wretch took both my clothes and my horse, and I—I have been beaten by a base knight."
"Put him in chains," said the duke to his servants. "It is not safe to have such a man free. Give him some straw to lie on, and some bread and water."
The duke turned away and went back to his hall, where his friends sat at table.
"That was a strange thing," he said. "There was a madman at the gate, he must have been in the wood this morning, for he told me that I was on the hunt with the emperor, and so I was; and he told me that the emperor went apart to bathe in the lake, and so he did. But he said that some one stole the clothes and the horse of the emperor, yet the emperor rode back to us cool and fresh, and clothed and on his horse. And he said"—And the duke looked around on his guests.
"What did he say?"
"He said that he was the emperor."
Then the guests fell to talking and laughing, and soon forgot the strange thing. But the proud king lay in a dark prison, far even from [7] the servants of the duke. He lay on straw, and chains bound his feet.
"What is this that has come upon me?" he said. "Am I brought so low? Am I so changed that even the duke does not know me? At least there is one who will know me, let me wear what I may."
Then, by much labor, he loosed the chains that bound him, and fled in the night from the duke's prison. When the morning came, he stood at the door of his own palace. He stood there awhile; perhaps some one would open the door and let him in. But no one came, and the proud king lifted his hand and knocked; he knocked at the door of his own palace. The porter came at last and looked at him.
"Who are you?" he asked, "and what do you want?"
"Do you not know me?" cried the proud king. "I am your master. I am the king. I am the emperor. Let me pass;" and he would have thrust him aside. But the porter was a strong man; he stood in the doorway, and would not let the proud king enter.
"You my master! you the emperor! poor fool, look here!" and he held the proud king by the arm while he pointed to a hall beyond. [8] There sat the emperor on his throne, and by his side was the queen.
"Let me go to her! she will know me," cried the proud king, and he tried to break away from the porter. The noise without was heard in the hall. The nobles came out, and last of all came the emperor and the queen. When the proud king saw these two, he could not speak. He was choked with rage and fear, and he knew not what.
"You know me!" at last he cried. "I am your lord and husband."
The queen shrank back.
"Friends," said the man who stood by her, "what shall be done to this wretch?"
"Kill him," said one.
"Put out his eyes," said another.
"Beat him," said a third.
Then they all hustled the proud king out of the palace court. Each one gave him a blow, and so he was thrust out, and the door was shut behind him.
The proud king fled, he knew not whither. He wished he were dead. By and by he came to the lake where he had bathed. He sat down on the shore. It was like a dream, but he knew he was awake, for he was cold and hungry and [9] faint. Then he knelt on the ground and beat his breast, and said:—
"I am no emperor. I am no king. I am a poor, sinful man. Once I thought there was no one greater than I, on earth or in heaven. Now I know that I am nothing, and there is no one so poor and so mean. God forgive me for my pride."
As he said this, tears stood in his eyes. He wiped them away and rose to his feet. Close by him he saw the clothes which he had once laid aside. Near at hand was his horse, eating the soft grass. The king put on his clothes; he mounted his horse and rode to his palace. As he drew near, the door opened and servants came forth. One held his horse; another helped him dismount. The porter bowed low.
"I marvel I did not see thee pass out, my lord," he said.
The king entered, and again saw the nobles in the great hall. There stood the queen also, and by her side was the man who called himself emperor. But the queen and the nobles did not look at him; they looked at the king, and came forward to meet him.
This man also came forward, but he was clad in shining white, and not in the robes of the [10] emperor. The king bowed his head before him.
"I am thy angel," said the man. "Thou wert proud, and made thyself to be set on high. Therefore thou hast been brought low. I have watched over thy kingdom. Now I give it back to thee, for thou art once again humble, and the humble only are fit to rule."

Then the angel disappeared. No one else heard his voice, and the nobles thought the king had bowed to them. So the king once more sat on the throne, and ruled wisely and humbly ever after.

Analysis Of The Pulley....WAEC
















THE PULLEY


George Herbert's "The Pulley" means that man is always restless and striving for more, and that this is necessary to force mankind to seek God and be good. The first stanza talks about how God wanted to bless mankind as much as possible. The second is one of the keys of the poem, and it states that God blessed man with everything except rest.
The first part reads, "When God at first made man, / Having a glass of blessings standing by; / Let us (said he) pour on him all we can." God pours wisdom, pleasure, honor and other blessings on man in the second stanza. The last line of the second stanza, "Rest in the bottome lay," means that the only blessing God did not give to man was rest. In the third stanza, God becomes concerned that man "would adore my gifts in stead of me." As a result, in the fourth stanza, God decides to "keep them with repining restlessness." He concludes, "If goodness lead him not, yet weariness / May toss him to my breast." So, essentially, God wants to keep man restless and weary in order to force him to turn to God for peace, since man cannot find it anywhere else.


Brief Analysis

In the poem, the central idea posited by Herbert is that when God made man, he poured all his blessings on him, including strength, beauty, wisdom, honor and pleasure. However, as in Pandora's box, one element remained. We are told that God "made a stay," that is, He kept "Rest in the bottome." We might, in modern parlance, call this God's ace. God is aware that if He were to bestow this "jewel" (i.e. rest) on Man as well then Man would adore God's gifts instead of God Himself. God has withheld the gift of rest from man knowing fully well that His other treasures would one day result in a spiritual restlessness and fatigue in man who, having tired of His material gifts, would necessarily turn to God in his exhaustion. God, being omniscient and prescient, knows that there is the possibility that even the wicked might not turn to Him, but He knows that eventually mortal man is prone to lethargy; his lassitude, then, would be the leverage He needed to toss man to His breast. In the context of the mechanical operation of a pulley, the kind of leverage and force applied makes the difference for the weight being lifted. Applied to man in this poem, we can say that the withholding of Rest by God is the leverage that will hoist or draw mankind towards God when other means would make that task difficult. However, in the first line of the last stanza, Herbert puns on the word "rest" suggesting that perhaps God will, after all, let man "keep the rest," but such a reading would seem to diminish the force behind the poem's conceit. The importance of rest -and, by association, sleep- is an idea that was certainly uppermost in the minds of Renaissance writers. Many of Shakespeare's plays include references to sleep or the lack of it as a punishment for sins committed. In Macbeth, for example, the central protagonist is said to "lack the season of all natures, sleep" and both Lady Macbeth and Macbeth are tormented by the lack of sleep. Even Othello is most disconcerted by the fact that he is unable to sleep peacefully once Iago has poisoned him with the possibility of his wife's infidelity with Cassio. Herbert's Pulley, then, does not present a new concept. In fact, the ideas in the poem are quite commonplace for seventeenth-century religious verse. What is distinctly metaphysical about the poem is that a religious notion is conveyed through a secular, scientific image that requires the reader's acquaintance with, and understanding of, some basic laws of physics.
Pulleys and hoists are mechanical devices aimed at assisting us with moving heavy loads through a system of ropes and wheels (pulleys) to gain advantage. We should not be surprised at the use of a pulley as a central concept since the domain of physics and imagery from that discipline would have felt quite comfortable to most of the metaphysical poets.    

Waec..Summary of The school Boy..by William Blake


William Blake’s ‘The School Boy’


‘The School Boy’ is a typical example of Blake’s Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience in it’s themes and imagery. Like many of the other poems in this work it deals with childhood and the subjugation of it’s spirit and uses imagery from the natural world. While first published in 1789 as one of the Songs of Innocence there are strong reasons why Blake moved it to the Experience1 section of the 1794 edition. If we compare it to other poems in the collection it sits better with others in Experience than those in Innocence.
On first reading ‘The School Boy’ is the voice of a young boy complaining of being shut inside at his schoolwork instead of playing outside in the sun. When we look at the poem further we can see that the poet is returning to the theme of childhood subjugated and its natural joy destroyed that can be seen in other poems in the collection such as ‘The Chimney Sweeper’ in Experience with its comparison of the child who was ‘happy on the heath’ to now “Crying ”weep! ‘weep!’ in notes of woe!” .
The poem begins in Stanza I with the poet giving us a pastoral image of the innocence of nature reminiscent of that in ‘The Introduction’ from Innocence, some critics have pointed out the similarity of ‘The distant huntsman winds his horn’ in this poem with ‘Piping down the valleys wild’ in ‘The Introduction’ of Innocence2 . The poem gives us an image of rising with the company of many natural joys, not just the huntsman but ‘birds sing on every tree’ and ‘the sky-lark sings with me.’ It is in Stanza II that we see the oppression of the natural by authority typical of Experience and continued through the rest of the poem. This stanza compares the pastoral imagery of Stanza I with that of the ‘cruel eye outworn,’ and the ‘sighing and dismay’ of the children in the school room. The contrast is heightened by the similarity of the opening lines, both ending ‘in a summer morn’ and the way this forces a similar rhyme across the two, and the similar metre and beginning of ‘O! what sweet company.’ ending Stanza I and ‘O! it drives all joy away;’ in the second line of Stanza II. The similarities enhance the differences in the two images and show childhood in the two states of pastoral innocence and the experience in restrictive school days leaving the reader with a feeling for the loss of youth.
The poet emphasises the oppression of the school room by offering the image ‘Nor in my book can I take delight, nor sit in learning’s bower’ in Stanza III reminding the reader that books and learning can be natural. In the illumination for the 1794 edition this is underscored by an image of a child enjoying a book atop a tree than can be seen at top right3.
The domination of the natural and free is further enhanced by the analogy with a caged bird in Stanza IV. The poet uses the image of ‘droop his tender wing’, an echo of ‘at times I drooping sit’ in the previous stanza which strengthens the image of children under a weight. We now have a distinct picture of crushed and destroyed life in the school room, the poet has successfully conveyed to the reader the loss and lassitude of the school boy.
Stanzas V and VI are appeals to the alternate authority of the parents to realise the predicament of the child and the dangers in this suppression of natural learning. Stanza V gives us a strong image of nature destroyed with :-
… if bud’s are nip’d,
And blossoms blown away,
And if the tender plants are strip’d
Stanza VI continues the question of Stanza V asking if this damaged nature can bear fruit – ‘the summer fruits appear’. It continues by asking if a harvest is possible – ‘how shall we gather’ and finishes the poem by asking if the plants so destroyed can survive into old age4 – ‘Or bless the mellowing year, when the blasts of winter appear’. These questions, rhetorical and already answered by the tone of the poem, give a final note to the reader of the impossible condition of the school boy.
It might be useful to place ‘The Schoolboy’ in the context of the whole work of Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience. It was one of the four poems first published in Songs of Innocence that were moved to the Experience section of the 1794 edition. This raises the question, why?. It is one of the poems in Experience on the theme of childhood and is lighter in tone than either ‘The Little Vagabond’ or ‘Infant Sorrow’; two other poems on the same theme in Experience. However, examine it against ‘The Chimney Sweeper’ from Innocence as another example of this theme and we can see that it ends on a harsher note with it’s final stanza beginning ‘How shall the summer arise in joy?’, compared to the final couplet in ‘The Chimney Sweeper’ of ‘Tho’ the morning was cold, Tom was happy and warm; So if all do their duty they need not fear harm’. We can also see that ‘The Chimney Sweeper’ offers hope with the dream of release by the angels while ‘The School Boy’ has no similar optimism. In ‘The Chimney Sweeper’ the poet is giving us a message about the brightness and hope of childhood while ‘The School Boy’ is more a tale of melancholy.
A close comparison of ‘The School Boy’ can be made to ‘The Ecchoing Green’ in Innocence. Both poems talk of children but ‘The Ecchoing Green’ gives us a picture of them at idyllic play in a natural setting :-
The birds of the bush
Sing louder around
To the bells’ chearful sound,
While our sports shall be seen
On the Ecchoing Green.
Even the shorter lines and sharper metre of this poem give a happier tone than ‘The School Boy’, they make the poem feel faster and echo the simple rhymes of childhood. Instead of ‘a cruel eye outworn’ from ‘The School Boy’ we have the image of ‘Old John, with white hair, Does laugh away care,’ &endash;a much more pleasant one. Both poems contain an image of parenthood; in ‘The School Boy’ parents are being begged for relief with ‘O! father & mother’ while ‘The Ecchoing Green’ sees a much more nurturing parental figure with :-
Round the laps of their mothers
Many sisters and brothers,
Like birds in their nest,
Are ready for rest,
‘The Ecchoing Green’ is full of images of children in the pastoral and nurturing typical of Innocence while ‘The School Boy’ shows childhood taken from these images and subdued making it more typical of the poems in Experience.
If it was ever doubted that the poet intended to show a contrast between innocence and experience the number of poems with identical names in each of the two sections dispel them and give us an ideal look at the way the poet characterises each state. One pair is that of ‘Nurse’s Song’ and an examination shows us that ‘The School Boy’ is better placed with the poems in Experience rather than Innocence.
The ‘Nurse’s Song’ in Innocence has a similar light and playful tone to ‘The Ecchoing Green’&endash;examine the final stanza :-
“Well, well, go & play till the light fades away,
And then go home to bed.”
The little ones leaped & shouted & laugh’d
And all the hills ecchoed.
This stanza leaves us with another idyllic image of children freely playing, a strong contrast to the final stanza of the verse in Experience:-
Then come home, my children, the sun is gone down,
And the dews of night arise;
Your spring & your day are wasted in play,
And your winter and night in disguise.
This has a much bleaker tone than the previous example and emphasises authority with an order to the playing children, ‘Then come home, my children,’ leaving the reader with a sense of sadness and loss. Once again we can see stronger metre in the verse from Innocence, particularly the repetition of ‘leaped & shouted & laugh’d’ giving the reader a feeling for the happiness of the playing children. Darker images can be seen in the verse from Experience emphasising the joyless feeling of this verse.
Looking back now at ‘The School Boy’ we can see that the slower and looser metre, dark tone and bleaker images of this poem are closer to those in Experience than Innocence. When the nurse in ‘Nurse’s Song’ from Experience tells the child that ‘Your spring & your day are wasted in play’ she may well be thinking that the time would be better spent with ‘a cruel eye outworn’ while her sister in Innocence sends them off with her ‘Well, well, go & play’.
If the two halves of the volume are indeed “Showing the Two Contrary States of the Human Soul”, as Blake puts it in the sub title of the 1794 edition, then ‘The Schoolboy’ shows us a state of control and oppression of the natural spirit more at home in Experie

Wednesday, 17 February 2016

Brief Summary Of She Stoops To Conquer

THE AUTHOR


Oliver Goldsmith (c.1728-1774) was born in Ireland, the son and grandson of Church of England
rectors much like the central figure of his only novel.   His family was poor but did manage to
obtain an education for their son at Trinity College in Dublin, where he almost flunked out because
he gave far too much attention to drinking and gambling, and at the University of Edinburgh, where
he studied medicine.  In early adulthood he wandered aimlessly from one job to another, including
tutoring and practicing medicine, both of which he found largely unprofitable.  Finally he found
his true love, writing, beginning as an editor of the Monthly Review.  Most of his editing and
numerous translations of the works of others left little mark on his own time, let alone on future
generations.   He wrote on whatever subject would bring in money, whether he knew anything about it
or not, and some of his largest works, including an eight-volume History of the Earth and Animated
Nature and histories of England and Rome were largely plagiarized and frequently inaccurate. Amidst
all the dross, however, were nuggets of gold
– two poems, The Traveller (1764) and The Deserted Village (1770), two plays, The Good Natured Man
(1768) and She Stoops to Conquer (1773), and one novel, The Vicar of Wakefield (1766), containing
some of the finest writing the English language has ever known.
Despite his undeniable talent and versatility as a writer, Goldsmith’s personal life was a
disaster.  He never forgot the poverty in which he had grown up, thus lusted for riches, which he
tended to drink and gamble away whenever they came his way.   He was remarkably ugly, so socially
awkward that even his friends made fun of him, and was jealous of any praise given to others.   Yet
he attained to the highest literary circles in England, moving among the likes of Samuel Johnson,
painter Sir Joshua Reynolds, actor David Garrick, and politicians Edmund Burke and Horace Walpole,
who called him an “inspired idiot.”   Ever insecure, he died prematurely because he rejected the
advice of doctors and instead insisted on diagnosing himself.
She Stoops to Conquer is Goldsmith’s most famous play, and in fact revived the comedy of manners,
which had fallen into disuse in the century before.  Though the plot has its roots as far back as
the comedies of ancient Rome, with the conflict between parents who wish to arrange their
children’s marriages and children who have ideas of their own on the subject, the central plot
element actually came from Goldsmith’s personal experience.  He, like poor young Marlow, was
socially awkward, and on one occasion actually wandered into a private home, mistook it for an inn,
and began to order the owner about as if he were the proprietor of some hostelry.  The play was
originally entitled Mistakes of a Night, and indeed it observes the classical unity of time, with







the story occupying less than a day - little more time than the two hours spent in the theater.
The scene in The Three Pigeons briefly violates the unity of place, while the Hastings/Constance
subplot violates the unity of action, however.

MAJOR  CHARACTERS


•       Dick Hardcastle – The owner of a rambling old house that looks like an inn.   He is a
stubborn traditionalist who loves the old ways.

•       Dorothy Hardcastle – His wife, she longs to get away from the house and spend time among
the fashionable people in London.

•       Tony Lumpkin – Dorothy’s son by a previous marriage, he is a ne’er-do-well practical joker
intended by his mother to be married to Constance Neville despite the fact that the two cordially
detest one another.

•       Kate Hardcastle – The lovely and lively daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Hardcastle, she decides to
pursue the bashful Charles Marlow, the love of her life, by pretending to be a kitchen maid.

•       Constance Neville – Kate’s best friend, she is intended for Tony Lumpkin, though the two
can’t stand one another, but is in love with George Hastings.

•       Charles Marlow - A shy bachelor who falls apart in the presence of women of his own class
but is very comfortable with servants and barmaids.  Kate pretends to be a servant in order to
increase his self-confidence and win his love.

•       Sir Charles Marlow - Young Charles’ father and one of Hardcastle’s oldest friends, he
wishes his son to marry Hardcastle’s daughter, though he despairs of the possibility because of the
young man’s diffidence.

•       George Hastings - Marlow’s best friend, he is in love with Constance Neville.  The two of
them participate in the plot to trick Marlow into falling in love with Kate.

NOTABLE QUOTATIONS


“An impudent fellow may counterfeit modesty, but I’ll be hanged if a modest man can ever
counterfeit impudence.”  (Marlow, Act II)

“I’m doomed to adore the sex, and yet to converse with the only part of it I despise.” (Marlow, Act
II)

“If I could teach him a little confidence, it would be doing somebody that I know of a piece of
service.  But who is that somebody? That, faith, is a question I can scarce answer.”  (Kate, Act
II)







“Ask me no questions, and I’ll tell you no fibs.”  (Tony, Act III)


“If I shortly convince you of his modesty, that he has only the faults that will pass off with
time, and the virtues that will improve with age, I hope you’ll forgive him.”  (Kate, Act III)

“May you be as successful for yourself as you have been for me.”  (Hastings, Act IV)


“I never knew half his merit till now.  He shall not go, if I have power to detain him.  I’ll still
preserve the character in which I stooped to conquer,  but will undeceive my papa, who, perhaps,
may laugh him out of his resolution.”  (Kate, Act IV)

“Seriously, Mr. Marlow, do you think I could ever submit to a connection, where I must appear
mercenary, and you imprudent?”  (Kate, Act V, scene 3)

“Mr. Marlow, if she makes as good a wife as she has a daughter, I don’t believe you’ll ever repent
your bargain.”  (Hardcastle, Act V, scene 3)

NOTES


Prologue - An actor named Woodward bemoans the impending death of Comedy, which is personified as a
sick woman who can only be cured by the ministrations of a doctor [Goldsmith was a medical doctor].
 He then begs the audience’s indulgence for the comedy that is to follow.

Act I, scene 1 -
 Mr. and Mrs. Hardcastle live in a big rambling old house that looks like an inn.
The scene begins with Mrs. Hardcastle begging her husband to take her to London for a vacation so
she can see all the newest trends.  He tells her that he loves what is old and reliable and hates
everything new.  We soon find that Mrs. Hardcastle has a son from a previous marriage, Tony
Lumpkin, a ne’er-do-well practical joker.  He briefly passes through the room on his way to the
local pub despite his mother’s attempts to stop him.   Soon the lovely Kate, daughter of the
Hardcastles, enters.  Her father complains about her fancy dress, and she reminds him that they
have an agreement to the effect that she can dress as she pleases in the mornings as long as she
wears a simple house dress in the evenings.  Hardcastle tells his daughter that young Marlow, the
son of a friend of his, will be coming for dinner that evening, and that he intends Kate to marry
him.  When he describes the young man to his daughter, she is very pleased, but he warns her that
he is extremely shy.  Kate is determined to win his love anyway.  Soon Constance Neville, Kate’s
best friend, arrives.  When Kate explains her predicament, Constance exclaims that Marlow is the
best friend of her admirer, Mr. Hastings.  Constance informs Kate that Marlow is bashful indeed
among gentlefolk, but quite a different person among those of the lower class.

Act I, scene 2
 Tony Lumpkin and some of his lowlife friends are carousing in an alehouse called
The Three Pigeons.  As they sing, the landlord announces that two gentlemen from London have
arrived asking directions to the Hardcastle home.  Marlow and Hastings come in complaining because
of the length of their journey; they had gotten lost because Marlow refused to stop and ask
directions.  Tony proceeds to give them a hard time, asking if the family they seek is one with an
ugly and difficult father, an ungainly daughter, and a handsome son; Marlow replies that they
had heard that the daughter was beautiful and the son a spoiled, “awkward booby.”  Tony gives such
confusing directions that they give up all hope of reaching the house, so he tells them they can
stay at an inn nearby (which is really the Hardcastle residence).   The owner, they say, is
eccentric and will try to convince them that he is a gentleman and the house is not an inn at all,
but they should pay no attention.

Act II -
At the Hardcastle house, the master is preparing his servants to receive the expected
guests, but because he has brought them in from their duties in the barn and fields, they are very
uncertain about how to wait tables.  Soon Marlow and Hastings enter, believing that the house is an
inn, and are greeted by a servant.   When Hastings begins to chide Marlow about his awkwardness
among members of the fairer sex, the latter claims his shyness is due to lack of experience, having
spent much of his time among men at the university, but insists that he is perfectly at ease among
lower-class women, whom he finds much less intimidating.  In fact, he admits that he only came on
the trip in the first place to help advance the romance between Hastings and Miss Neville.
When Hardcastle enters the room, the two young men mistake him for the innkeeper. When they demand
drinks, he thinks them very impudent, while his reluctance to serve them creates a bad impression
on their part as well.  Mutual misunderstandings pile one upon another. Whenever Hardcastle tries
to engage them in conversation about military history, they ignore him and think him very rude for
inserting himself into their company.  He, in his turn, wonders how anyone could describe Marlow as
shy and withdrawn.
After Hardcastle and Marlow leave to check out room arrangements, Constance Neville enters, much to
the delight of Hastings.   When he asks her why she is staying at an inn,  she quickly disabuses
him of his mistake, realizing that he has been tricked by Tony Lumpkin.  The two decide to keep
Marlow in the dark while pursuing their own goal of matrimony.   When Marlow returns, Hastings
introduces him to Constance and tells him that Miss Hardcastle is also in the inn, but Marlow
immediately becomes nervous and refuses to meet her.  She soon enters, and he promptly begins
stumbling over every sentence he attempts to speak.  When Hastings and Constance leave to enjoy
some privacy, things quickly get worse.  Marlow soon takes his leave, but Miss Hardcastle has taken
a liking to the man under the mask of shyness and I determined to give him some self-confidence.
The scene continues with a conversation involving Hastings, Constance, Tony, and Mrs. Hardcastle,
largely comic in tone and content.  After the women leave, Hastings and Tony talk about Constance,
who is loved by the former and despised by the latter.  When Hastings offers to take Constance off
Tony’s hands, the latter readily agrees to help with the plan.

Act III -
 The scene begins with Hardcastle, alone on stage, wondering aloud at the rudeness of
Marlow, who had been described by his father as the mildest of men.  Kate then enters in simple
dress and tells her father of her amazement at young Marlow’s shyness, so that the two soon wonder
if they are speaking of the same person.  Despite the vast differences of their impressions,
however, both for their own reasons are determined to reject him as a suitor for Kate’s hand,
though Kate proceeds to argue that he might be acceptable if he shows boldness to her and
politeness to her father.
After they exit, Tony runs in with a box containing Constance’s jewels – the basis of her fortune –
which he has stolen from his mother, who is Constance’s aunt and guardian.  He gives the casket to Hastings, who is preparing to elope with the love of his life. Hastings, however,
tells him that Constance is trying to get the jewels from Mrs. Hardcastle at that very moment, and
he is worried about what might happen if she finds them missing.  Hastings exits just as Mrs.
Hardcastle and Constance are coming downstairs.  Clearly Constance has been unable to convince her
to part with the jewels.  Tony whispers to his mother that she should tell Constance that the
jewels are missing, which she promptly does.  After she leaves the room, Tony tells Constance that
he has stolen them and given them to Hastings, which calms her significantly. Constance then leaves
quickly before Mrs. Hardcastle comes back downstairs. When she discovers that her jewels are really
gone, she is distraught, but Tony speaks to her as if she is pretending in preparation for putting
Constance off despite all her assurances to the contrary.  She finally chases him offstage in her
frustration.
Kate then enters with her maid and tells her that she intends to pretend to be a barmaid in order
to discover Marlow’s true character.  When he comes into the room, she asks if he called for her
services.  He is clearly upset with his treatment in the house and is preparing to leave when he
gets a good look at the supposed barmaid and finds that she is quite fetching [the conceit here is
that when he met her in the character of Kate he was too bashful to look her in the face, and thus
does not recognize the barmaid as the same person].  He immediately tries to kiss her, though she
resists his advances.  As they banter back and forth he tries to seize her hand, but she pulls away
and he quickly exits when Hardcastle enters the room.  Kate then tries to convince her father that
Marlow is truly modest rather than being the rake he just saw grab his daughter’s hand, but to no
avail.

Act IV
The scene begins with Constance telling Hastings that Sir Charles, Marlow’s father, is
expected to arrive that very evening.  Because Sir Charles knows Hastings, the two realize they
must carry off their elopement before he appears to ruin the plan.  Hastings tells Constance that
he has given the casket containing her jewels to Marlow for safekeeping. They leave and Marlow
comes in with a servant, clearly puzzled at the valuables entrusted to him by his friend.  Because
he has no safe place to put them, he has given them to Mrs. Hardcastle, who needless to say was
surprised to be getting the jewels back that she had lost that morning.  Marlow, meanwhile, is
becoming increasingly enamored of Kate, who he still thinks is the barmaid, and is determined to
make her his own.
Hastings then returns, and Marlow assures him that the jewels are safe – in the hands of the
landlady. Hastings conceals his consternation, and at the same time warns Marlow not to seek to
corrupt the barmaid. He is convinced that he and Constance must now elope without the jewels, since
he has no hope of retrieving them from the clutches of Mrs. Hardcastle.  Hardcastle then enters and
rebukes Marlow for the fact that his servants are drinking his wine cellar dry, tough Marlow argues
that he is doing so for the good of the house because he assumes he will be paying for it.
Hardcastle can take no more of this and orders Marlow to leave his house, mumbling that the letter
from Sir Charles had led him to expect a gentleman rather than in insolent bully, and Marlow
demands to be given his bill.  At this point Hardcastle stalks out of the room, leaving Marlow to
wonder whether or not he has made a terrible mistake.
Kate then comes in and Marlow asks her about the house.  She tells him plainly that it is the home
of Mr. Hardcastle and that she is a poor relation employed to make guests comfortable and see to
their needs.  Marlow is embarrassed at his mistake, but remains ignorant of Kate’s true identity.
He is more than ever determined to leave, but admits that he parts from her with great reluctance.  He sees no alternative, however, since he cannot pursue a relationship with one so far
below his station, nor can he in good conscience seduce one so kind and modest.  At this point Kate
begins to see his true character and is convinced that she should continue her pursuit of him, but
must first persuade him to stay.
Tony, helping Constance and Hastings to deceive the family about their intended elopement, pretends
to pay romantic attention to Constance when Mrs. Hardcastle enters the room. She is so convinced of
their love that she promises to give Constance her jewels forthwith and arrange for the two to
marry the following day.  A letter then arrives for Tony from Hastings. Constance recognizes the
handwriting and is determined that Mrs. Hardcastle not see it.  Tony, however, can’t read – his
mother always reads his letters for him.  Constance grabs it from her hand to keep her from doing
so and makes up something about cock-fighting and then crumples it up, but Tony, wanting to hear
the entire contents, seizes it and gives it to his mother.  The letter informs Tony that Hastings
is waiting at the foot of the garden to run away with Constance.  Mrs. Hardcastle is indignant,
especially since Hastings refers to her as an old hag, and tells Constance that the horses will be
used to send her far away in the care of her Aunt Pedigree – something Constance considers a fate
worse than death.  Hastings and Marlow then enter, both furious that they have been betrayed on the
one hand and duped on the other.  Each begins to blame the other, and more than all to blame Tony.
The friends soon apologize, however, and Tony assures them that he will make all right.

Act V, scene 1
 Sir Charles Marlow has arrived, and he and Hardcastle are enjoying a good laugh at
young Marlow’s expense.  The two openly look forward to the union of their houses through the
marriage of young Charles and Kate.  Hardcastle assures Sir Charles that Kate loves his son, but
Sir Charles wants confirmation that the attraction is mutual from young Charles, who does not yet
know the “barmaid’s” true identity.  When asked, he insists that nothing more than respect and cool
reserve exists between him and Kate.  He exits in confusion.  Then Kate arrives and, when asked,
tells them frankly that young Charles has professed his love for her openly on multiple occasions.
The fathers are now at a loss, but Kate convinces them that all will become clear if they simply
hide behind a screen during her next conversation with young Marlow.

Act V, scene 2
Hastings is in the garden behind the house waiting for a message from Tony. He has
led the carriage by a roundabout route so that the ladies eventually arrived back where they
started, and stuck in a pond at the bottom of the garden at that.  Tony then instructs Hastings to
make away with Constance while he keeps his mother occupied. The women struggle up from the pond,
in deplorable condition after their terrible journey and still believing themselves to be forty
miles distant.  Tony warns his mother that the region is notorious as a thieves’ lair, and insists
that she hide herself when they see a man approaching.  The man is none other than Mr. Hardcastle
himself, and while he and Tony talk, Mrs. Hardcastle runs from behind the tree to beg mercy from
the “highwayman.”   Once she recognizes her husband, however, they both turn on Tony as the most
nefarious trickster and rogue in all the land, then proceed into the house.   Hastings, meanwhile,
sees his chance to escape with Constance, but she refuses to elope with him, insisting that she
will do nothing underhanded, but instead patiently await the favor of her guardian.

Act V, scene 3
Inside the house, Kate has convinced Sir Charles to hide and observe her
conversation with young Marlow. He goes to find Hardcastle so they can overhear what transpires
together.  When young Marlow comes in, still believing Kate to be the barmaid, he professes his
love and insists that he is willing to risk all in order to have her.  Kate demurs, telling him
that she could not be the means of hurting his prospects or his family, but he is not to be put
off, and prepares to propose marriage.  At that point Hardcastle and Sir Charles burst out from
their hiding place and both excoriate Marlow for misrepresenting himself and Kate.   He is
astonished to discover that the girl he loves and the Hardcastle daughter he feared are one and the
same.  All, however, readily forgive him, and the young lovers retire to the back of the stage.
At this point Mrs. Hardcastle and Tony come in.  By now she is quite willing, on Tony’s
recommendation, to allow Constance to marry Hastings as long as she is able to retain the jewels.
Hardcastle, however, steps forward and rebukes her for her mercenary attitude.  He reminds his wife
that Constance will receive her inheritance if Tony, her intended, refuses to marry her when he
comes of age. Mrs. Hardcastle quickly notes that this has not yet occurred, but Hardcastle tells
Tony that he and his mother have concealed his true age, hoping that he might develop some maturity
under their tutelage; in fact, he came of age three months earlier.  Tony, overjoyed at the
prospect of being his own man, eagerly rejects Constance, leaving her free both to receive her
fortune and to marry whomever she pleases.  The two then prepare to join Marlow and Kate in a state
of blissful matrimony.

Epilogue – The play actually has two epilogues.  The first, written by the playwright and spoken by
Kate, summarizes the action of the play, while the second, written by J. Craddock, is spoken by
Tony Lumpkin, who assures the audience that he has every intention of continuing his rakish ways,
especially now that he can live on his own and soon expects to inherit a fortune.

ESSAY QUESTIONS


Discuss the following in a five-paragraph essay:


1.        Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer and Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s The Rivals
appeared on the London stage within two years of one another.  The two plays have similar plots
involving conflicts between parents determined to choose their children’s mates and children who
have minds of their own on the subject.   Compare and contrast the plot devices of mistaken
identity used by the two playwrights, as both Kate Hardcastle and Captain Absolute pretend to be
someone else in order to appeal to their chosen mates. Which is in your opinion more credible?
Which is more humorous?  Why?

2.        Both Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer and William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer
Night’s Dream focus on young lovers whose romance is hindered because their parents have other
plans.  Compare and contrast the ways in which the two playwrights resolve this parent/child
conflict.  Be sure to consider elements of both plot and character along with the use of comedy to
produce a satisfactory denouement.

3.        Both Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer and William Shakespeare’s As You Like It
center around a young woman who disguises herself in order to win the love of a man to whom she is
attracted.   Compare and contrast the characters of Kate Hardcastle and Rosalind with regard to
their motivations, methods, and successes.  Which do you find more admirable, and why?







4.        Evaluate the character of Charles Marlow in Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer.
He behaves very differently in the presence of people of different social classes.  Which set of
behaviors reflects his true character?  Is he really a rogue who puts on a polite front in society,
or does his behavior have some other explanation?  Support your arguments with specifics from the
play.

5.        While Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer is a delightful comedy, it also contains
elements of social criticism.  Discuss the treatment of social class distinctions in the play,
especially with regard to the character of Charles Marlow and his romance with Kate Hardcastle.
Does the playwright reject the legitimacy of all social distinctions or simply satirize the extent
to which people behave differently in different social contexts? Support your conclusion with
specifics from the play.

6.        In Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer, many characters engage in pretense of one
kind or another.  Choose three examples of characters who pretend, either to be someone they are
not or to believe something they know not to be true.  How do these instances of pretense drive the
plot?  How do they reveal the nature of the characters who engage in them and those who are
deceived as a result?

7.        In Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer,  Mr.  and Mrs.  Hardcastle are clearly
pictured as opposites from the opening scene of the play. In what ways are they opposites? Choose
three qualities that emphasize their opposing natures and discuss how these three serve to develop
the themes of the play.  Be sure to use specific situations and quotations in developing your
argument.

8.        Discuss the role of Tony Lumpkin in Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer.  He is
unlike any other character in the play, yet he winds up having an impact of one kind or another on
most of them.   How do his unique qualities enable him to bring out salient characteristics in the
other principal figures in the story?

9.        A number of characters in Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer are torn between what
they want to do and what society expects of them.  Choose three such characters and analyze how
they resolve this conflict.   What do these resolutions indicate about the position of the
playwright with regard to primacy of social obligations versus personal preferences?

10.      A number of characters in Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer make erroneous snap
judgments based on first impressions.  Choose three such instances and discuss what they say about
the danger of judging people and places by appearances.  Is the playwright’s position on this issue
compatible with the teachings of Scripture?  Why or why not?

11.      In Act II of Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer, Marlow says, “An impudent fellow
may counterfeit modesty, but I’ll be hanged if a modest man can ever counterfeit impudence.”
Analyze the irony of this statement. Is Marlow right in his assessment, both regarding himself and
others?  Why or why not?







12.      In Act II of Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer, Marlow says, “I’m doomed to adore
the sex, and yet to converse with the only part of it I despise.”  To what extent is this bit of
self-analysis accurate? What incidents in the play support his assessment of his own character and
which contradict it?  In the end, is the statement true or false?

13.      In Act III of Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer, Kate Hardcastle says of Marlow,
“He has only the faults that will pass off with time, and the virtues that will improve with age.”
Is her assessment of her prospective lover an accurate one?  How can she be sure that his virtues
are permanent while his flaws are temporary?  Is this wishful thinking on her part, or does the
play give some indication that her judgment is an accurate one? Support your conclusion with
specific quotations and incidents from the play.

14.      Throughout Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer,  Constance Neville and Tony Lumpkin,
who are intended to marry by Mrs. Hardcastle, who is her guardian and his mother, are presented as
cordially detesting one another.  Is their attitude supported by the script itself or merely
asserted as a plot device?  Support your conclusion with specifics from the play, in the process
analyzing the characters of the two.

15.      Compare and contrast Mrs. Hardcastle in Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer and Mrs.
Bennet in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice with regard to their attitudes toward the marriages of
their children. Consider the importance to both women of marriages arranged by parents along with
factors of wealth and social status.  In what ways do the two authors mine the qualities of the
mothers for comic purposes?  In what ways do they help develop the main themes of the stories?

16.      Analyze the view of marriage presented in Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer.  To
what extent is the picture presented in the play indicative of the era in which it was written?  To
what extent is it universal, transcending periods in history?  To what extent is it biblical?