We talked about narrative structure in class, and ostensibly, thenarrative structure of all four comic

strips is linear -- the location ofthe first panel is different from the location of the last panel,
andhence it seems to show a linear movement. And yet, by implication, all ofthem may also seen to
be circular since they implicitly begin with thehere/now (Nemo falling asleep; Calvin in a classroom /
Calvin in aplayground) and that here/now is clearly shown in the last panel. What arethe
implications (in terms of ideas) of this dual structure (explicit andimplicit) of the comic strips in terms
of their 'vision of the future'?
The linear narratives in the comic strips go on to show us the linear movement. Here that linear
movement functions to signify the travel that happened in spatial terms (Nemo traveling to
slumberland and then coming back from it and Calvin visiting his imaginary world and coming back
to reality). So, in these cases we have central characters who are travelers wandering through
strange places. While the linear narratives proceed, both of our characters acquire new knowledge
as they wander through strange realms which they had never seen or heard of. Nemo goes on to
learn about slumberland and Calvin gains another view way to look at things on a far off planet. So
this acquisition of new knowledge is a progress that we can follow through the linear narrative,
panel by panel. Be it Nemo learning about the big bird and the fact that slumberland is a place which
is filled with creatures which transpire inspire fear and he should get back home(in the two nemo
strips) or be it Calvin getting the idea that the rocks and grasses which appear pretty random are
actually very organized places, we can notice this gain of knowledge which the characters had
through their experiences. This process continues panel by panel until they are back to the place
where they begin and we get the idea of the circular narrative.
The circular narratives of the texts, which shows the characters back at the very places they were at
the beginning, go on to tell us how the knowledge gained by Nemo and Calvin has changed their
experience of the here/now.The circular narratives clearly establish the fact that our protagonists
are back from their slumber or voyage. Yet, we can see that Nemo wishes to go back to the
slumberland in the first comic strip while he dreads slumberland in the second one(because he
compares the real world and slumberland and chooses the one or the other on the basis of his
experiences). This suggests that Nemo(when is conscious) judges his surroundings on the basis of
the knowledge he gained through the travel (as denoted by linear narrative). Even when the
knowledge gained is from an entirely different world, he puts that knowledge to create an
understanding of the real world. So, that gained knowledge is determining his experiences even
when he is back from the slumberland determining Nemos decision whether he should or should
not return to Slumberland. In the case of Calvin we see that after coming back from the distant
planet he is seeing the things in a perspective which he gained at that planet. This shows that even
when our characters have finally returned to here and now(and the world does remain same, only
they have changed), they are very different from their initial states.
Finally, when we put the dual narratives of the texts in perspective we can see that the writers
vision of these texts is hinged upon the idea that travel is a source of knowledge or wisdom. Travel

Commented [H1]: But the visuals DO not show the origin point
of the travel in at least three of the cases.

Commented [H2]: Excellent point good relationship between

linearity and progress.

Commented [H3]: Excellent point! So circular isnt really back

to square one; it is, in terms of knowledge, a spiral combining
sameness with change.

also adds to experience which gets embedded onto ones self. And our characters indeed travel
through places before they arrive at here/now. These journeys/experiences have changed the way
they looked at the reality. They have a new feel about their current states. They think that world has
changed now, but its actually our characters who have changed. Considering that it can be said that
the writers convey the idea that the future is a place which is neither good nor bad. Its only the
experiences and knowledge that one brings to it determines the way one perceives it.
Grade: A. Sanjeev, this is very well done it was truly a pleasure to read. Your idea of how the linear
narrative indicates a progress that complicates the seeming implicit circularity may also be related to
the experience of the reader, whose perspective of things also changes after reading the strips, and
so it is useful for the reader to at least visually not have the sense of having returned to square one
so that the idea of linearity /progression is emphasised.

Commented [H4]: Is it thefuture that is neutral in this way, or

thepresent, which is where we return after gaining knowledge from
the future?

The tw o com ics pr esent them selves as dr aw ings of a child's im agination albeit one
in sleep w hile the other w hile aw ake. This choice is at the cor e of the di ffer ences in
their associated ideas w ith the child. At the visual level, both seem to indulge in the
childhood fantasy of flying off to an adventur e in a differ ent w or ld. Both pay gr eat
attention to the visuals captur ing the pow er of a cr eative child's im agination. But
the choices that McCay and Watter son m ake, pr esent differ ent pictur es of the
natur e of childhood. Nem o is dr eam ing in his sleep and has no (conscious) contr ol
over his exper ience. Although the visuals ar e str iking, the dialog w ith its shor t and
aw kw ar d sentences, like "He'll enjoy that r ide, sur e" and "Don't r un! Don't r un aw ay,
I w on't hur t you, no. No!" or "You just can, and I hope you succeed." is som etim es
r udim entar y. Even the nar r ation is som ew hat cr ude in its sentence str uctur e. e.g.
"He felt the bed ascending ceilingw ar d, and w hile it astonished him , it also
inter ested him consider ably." Com par e it to say, "He felt the bed ascending
ceilingw ar d. Although Nem o w as astonished, he w as incr edibly cur ious.", w hich is
both shor ter (95 vs. 104 char acter s), assum ing space to be a concer n and less
aw k w ar d in m y opinion. 1 T hr ough this it seem s M cCay is tr ying to convey that a
child has lim ited ver bal faculty. N ex t w hen w e look at the actions in the panel w e
again see N em o show s little initiative or agency, be it flying off w ith the pr incess or
on a bed. T he com ics star t off w ith other people deciding over som ething w hich
defines the r est of the com ic. As a child, m ost of their decisions ar e m ade by other
people. I think M cCay is tr ying to put that sense of lack of agency in the com ic. I n
the second com ic, although N em o is cur ious, fear of the unk now n (w hich m eant "no
har m ") over com es this cur iosity and he ends up r unning aw ay look ing for the
pr otection of his m other saying "Oh| M am a! Com e and get your little N em o".
E ventually w hen Nem o w ak es up, the panel is com pletely disconnected offr om the
r est of the events in the ear lier panels. M cCay seem s to be saying that a child's
m ental im agination is com pletely ir r ational of w hich one has to w ak e up out of, to
go back to r ational r eality. N em o's m other 's ir r ational ex planation, connecting
doughnuts to dr eam s fur ther show how adults look dow n on childr en and their
thoughts as less intelligent.
On the other hand, Calvin is consciously day dr eam ing constantly descr ibing his
alter -ego's actions in the thir d per son. T his com m entar y is fair ly sophisticated. T his
is evident in sentences lik e "I n a sur pr ise m aneuver our her o tur ns to face the
adver sar y! H is hands tighten ar ound the death r ay tr igger " or "Out in the far thest
r eaches of the galax y speeds that splendid specim en of spir it and spunk , the
1 I am not sur e if this is because it w as w r itten in 1905 w hen com ic as an ar t for m w asn't as
developed?

Commented [H1]: What is awkward about these sentences?

Commented [H2]: This is really based on nothing but arbitrary

taste you are saying that a compound sentence is more
rudiementary than two relatively simple sentences why?

Commented [H3]: Proof?

Commented [H4]: You appear to be using the word irrational

rather loosely. Why is the link between food and dreams irrational?
And what about the visual echo of the doughnut in the moon?

spectacular spacem an Spi ff." (N otice the alliter ation). T hey ex hibit the advanced
natur e of Calvin's ver bal faculties. I n contr ast to N em o, W atter son has given all
agency to Calvin. B e it flying or facing enem ies, Calvin him self does ever ything,
albeit m ost of it in his dr eam s. Unlik e N em o w ho offer s us no per spective on w hat
he sees, w hen Calvin look s at the ants and lichens, he dr aw s insights: "Spiff r eflects
that hum an scale is no m eans the standar d for life for m s.", displaying both
intelligence and r ational thought. Also by m er ging the last panel together w ith the
events in the r est of the com ic, W atter son seem s to be saying that the the cr eative
thought need not be disconnected fr om the r ationalr eal/ever yday. I nstead it
m ight help br ing a new per spective, just lik e w hat Calvin does by seeing anthills as
sk yscr aper s. Also w e see that w hat Calvin fear s (or sees as enem ies) ar e people in
the im m ediate r eality w ho show up as char acter s in the dr eam . T his is unlik e N em o
w ho fear s the str anger s in his Slum ber land. W atter son seem s to be saying that
dr eam s, cr eated by a child, ar e a function of the r eal w or ld and w hat a child fear s
ar e the figur es in r eal life w ho show up and distor t his dr eam s. Assum ing, the
unk now n as som ething to be fear ed, in the case of Calvin the unk now ns ar e the r eal
people w ho ar e not his cr eation r ather than the dr eam s w hich ar e his ow n cr eation.
H er e w e see a sim ilar ity in som e sense w ith N em o w ho also fear s his dr eam s
because he hasn't consciously cr eated itthem .
Gr ade: B -. You needed to end w ith an over all ar gum ent that sum m ar ises and ties
together your piecem eal analysis. Also, w hile your piecem eal analysis show s good
gr asp of detail, it is often under m ined by pr econceived / loosely defined notions /
assum ptions.

Commented [H5]: Good this is firm proof since it depends on

recognised rhetorical strategies rather than preference for one kind of
sentence structure over another.

Commented [H6]: Doesnt he? The visuals ARE his perspective

if we claim that he is dreaming. And his reactions to the acrobatics
of the candyman are also recorded.
Commented [H7]: So intelligence is to be measured only by
the ability to abstract/generalise? And what does this have to do with
rationality?
Commented [H8]: You are using the word rational very
loosely.

Question: Both comics contain a child character - Nemo and Calvin. How do the two comic strips
represent the figure of the child? What ideas are associated with being a 'child'? Are they more similar or
different in the two strips? Please make sure that you look at the visual and verbal aspect of the texts in
answering this question.

All of the comic strips try to make a reader empathise with the child protagonist, some of them more than
the others. In all of the strips (barring the first panels of the 'Little Nemo' strips) the protagonist is present
in the visible region of each panel. In the second Nemo strip, the size of Nemo remains constant despite
the relatively out of proportion surroundings. The panels in 'Calvin and Hobbes', even when having
another character speaking (the teacher, or the bully), chooses to show Calvin in the frame. This is only
the visual aspect though. The speech/text in both the 'Calvin and Hobbes' strips is in a third person
perspective, which somewhat alienates the reader.
One important theme in both the depiction of children is that of their innocence. Nemo's trip is a journey
into the fantasy world of his dreams comparable to that of bedtime parables. The world is like that of a a
fairy tale, with great winged birds, travel to the moon on a flying bed as well as a fickle notion of
distances and sizes (as indicated in the five hundred miles easily becoming five thousand miles and the
mouth like door entrance). Nemo, on waking up from a pleasurable dream wishes to go there again (
"How did I wake up? I wish I could go to sleep again") whereas when he has a nightmare, he cries for his
mother ("Oh!Mama! Come and get your little Nemo oh!").
Calvin's innocence is that of a child who is being forced into uncomfortable situations and is confronting
them by living them in an alternate reality that he conjures from his imagination. His interaction with the
outside affects his dreams and he lives out his fantasies as a waking dream wish fulfillment. When he is
asked to answer a question in class, he starts rattling out all possible random answers ("1812", "i before
e"), none of which work. This is mirrored in his imaginary world where he is trying out every possiblity
("mertilizer beam", "phospho bombs") and they all fail to defeat his adversary. His exploration of ant hills
is compared to a space colony of tiny trees and farmland. The bully is the "doofus ignoramus" monster.
None of his actions have any ulterior motive.
In contrast to sharing their innocence, their personalities seem to be completely different. Nemo is a timid
child and only a sense of familiarity makes him feel comfortable. In the first strip, he shows clear
discomfort when a candy kid performs acrobatics on the flying bird ("I wish they'd stop it. Mercy!"). In
the second strip, he is able to withstand his fear of flight only in the familiar solace of his bed ("vanishing
of his bed, piece by piece, kept him busy guessing, that sightseeing was out of the question"). When in the
unfamiliar territory of the moon, he runs away, calling for his mother.
Calvin's alter ego, on the other hand, is a fearless adventurer, on a quest to discover the unknown. In the
'Spaceman Spiff' avatar, Calvin commands a spaceship into the depths of space. In the second strip, he
lands on a new planet (comparable to Nemo's landing on the moon). Rather than run away, he decides to
explore the planet. The verbal cues ("fearless spaceman Spiff sets off to explore a new planer", "in a
surprise maneuver, our hero turns to face the adversary", ".. human scale is by no means the standard for
life") as well as the visuals of the blackness of space and his spaceship being tiny speck illustrate his
explorer like attitude.
This observation is based on the assumption that Calvin's fantasy is just a mechanism of coping with
reality, not an escape from it. This in turn highlights another aspect of being a child that is highlighted in
the comics - that of their reaction to outside stimulus. Nemo's fantasy is involuntary in nature. He does
not have any sort of control over his dreams. In the first strip, his good sleep makes him have a good

Commented [H1]: What does this have to do with the idea of

child?

Commented [H2]: But thats true with Nemo too!

Commented [H3]: Link? How are you defining innocence and

what is its relationship with fantasy?

Commented [H4]: Meaning? Isnt his construction of an

alternative reality a way of coping/confronting his lived reality? That
is an ulterior motive. Also, in this whole paragraph, you are doing
more summary than analysis what is the significance of Calvin
creating an alternative reality? What aspect of child does this point
towards?
Commented [H5]: The question is NOT about personalities, but
about ideas of child these are two different levels of analysis.
Commented [H6]: A disappearing bed is hardly a place of
familiar solace!

Commented [H7]: How are these two to be distinguished? Isnt

escape a mode of coping?

dream as well. In the second strip, his indigestion causes nightmarish dreams. A child unable to control
his circumstances is timid by nature.
His dream of Slumberland portrays him as a curious child as well. In the first strip, he keeps asking the
princess questions ("what is he doing that for", "are we not soon over the wall?"). Even in his nightmare,
when he was on his bed, the visions he saw "astonished him but interested him considerably".
The panels in the second strip further support these ideas: some have him fearful in his bed or trying to
hold on to the last pieces of his bed, whereas some have him peering all around to see the sights
surrounding him.
Calvin is very aware of his fantasy though, and even if it is just an escape from the dredges of his day-today life, he consciously chooses to indulge in it. There is a possibility of seeing this as a kid with an
attention deficit disorder. However, he chooses to respond in the real world too. The vision of 'Spaceman
Spiff' could also be an embodiment of what Calvin wants to be but cannot. The largest factor in support of
this is his description of the spaceman as a third person narrative. The tiny spaceship among the stars
seems far away in some of the panels and close to us in some other, and in each of the final panels, Calvin
does end up doing something in the real world. This creates more confusion with respect to which of
these views (that of an escape vs that of a coping mechanism) the author wishes to propagate. Resolution
can only be had by reading more of Calvin and Hobbes, and in particular, his adventures as 'Spaceman
Spiff'.
Pranav, you do good textual analysis, but have a tendency to jump to conclusions / generalized
statements. Try to avoid that. Also, the question was asking for an exploration of an idea that of the
child not a character analysis. So you needed to expand the character analysis into more abstract
categories to see how these two embody two different notions of the child, not just two different
children. Remember, they are characters, not real people!

Commented [H8]: Says who? Why make this generalization?

Commented [H9]: How is this idea of curiosity to be reconciled

with timidity?

Commented [H10]: Why?

Commented [H11]: Why? Think of what kind of relationship is

established in those last panels and that would provide an answer.
Saying the answer lies elsewhere is in some ways an easy escape! :P

Question:

Both comics contain a child character -- Nemo and Calvin. How do the
two comic strips represent the figure of the child? What ideas are associated with
being a 'child'? Are they more similar or different in the two strips? Please make
sure that you look at the visual and verbal aspect of the texts in answering this
question.

Answer:
A child is associated with innocence. Their minds are uncorrupted by the influence
of 'mature' indoctrination. In the comic strips Calvin, a child of six and Little Nemo,
aged nine, are the tools for the cartoonists to paint a very imaginative and satirical
but also a true image of the world we live in. They see the world as it is but with a
very pristine and pragmatic perspective which opens up our constructed, myopic
viewpoint.

The two comic strips also reflect a childs experience of space, with its dialectics of
safety and danger, the homey and the uncanny. For Nemo, the mere bed is more
than just a bed. It is a vehicle which transports Nemo to the slumber land,
sometimes metaphorically and sometimes literally. The bed is his point of entry to
those mobilized voyages of discovery. Similarly in Calvin and Hobbes, Calvin
repurposes the places of everyday life and engages in a state of endless daydreaming. In Calvins imagination, an ordinary box may turn into a space-ship. A
child is also associated with fear in both the comic strips. When Nemo finds himself
in the moon with Lunatics, he is afraid and runs away despite Lunatics repeated
assurances that he wont harm Nemo. Similar in the Calvin and Hobbes strip, the
appearance of the monster reflects a childs sense of fear. The two strips also paint
the imagery of a childs innate curiosity. When Nemo finds his bed vanishing, he is
not afraid but curious. Similarly in Calvin and Hobbes, the sense of curiosity is
reflected when he bends down to examine the lichens. Another aspect of a child that
is reflected in the comic strip of Nemo is a childs empathy. There is a sense of
empathy for the condor in Nemo when he says He does not want to go while the
candy kids were yelling and beating it. Also, a child tends to get irritated easily.
Nemo is irritated by the Candid Kid on the condor and wants him to stop.

Commented [H1]: Awkward word choice what do you mean

by mature in this context? Why not just adult?
Commented [H2]: Where are these ages coming from, and how
are they relevant?

Commented [H3]: Avoid so many judgemental words; focus on

analysis instead of evaluation. Also, wheres the evidence for all
these claims?

Commented [H4]: But this is done in significantly different ways

the bed falls apart as the dream is entered, whereas the
classroom is completely transformed into another space.
Commented [H5]: Where do we see this in these strips?

Commented [H6]: But Calvin does not exhibit fear!

Commented [H7]: Good this is clear analysis from specific

evidence.

Commented [H8]: Is it irritation or fear/discomfort? Also, why

are empathy and irritation attributed specifically to child here?

In the Calvin and Hobbes strip, Calvin falls asleep and visualises himself in space in
search of a new planet. He is therefore a part of the larger scientific obsession for
finding life in other parts of the galaxy. Humans have always considered themselves
and the surroundings they live in, as the yardstick for living forms. But Calvin
through his broader imaginative mindset actually sees the possibility of life forms
quite different from the Earthly humans: things tiny to him are skyscrapers in the
new planet, and its inhabitants, tiny too! And he remarks "Human scale is by no
means the standard for life forms." However in his imaginative world he does not
conjure up a perfect world; even his new planet has a giant which would break apart
the peaceful civilization given a chance. Quite clearly, children are not that far
removed from reality. Similarly, Little Nemo also imagines his own dream space. But
all is not perfect even in his Slumberland! His adventures involve flying though he
doesn't seem to be fond of it and there is also this Evil King Morpheous with his
devious plans and slavery and discrimination also seems to be a part of the class
structure there. He wants to see what happens next in his adventure but is woken
up somehow.
In a way both Calvin and Little Nemo are similar as they both indulge in their
respective made up, imaginative lands which is much more exciting than their drab
reality where their mischievousness and adventurous spirit is always repressed by
the 'wiser' community of adults. But it's not escapism as might be argued because
they do not choose to be at familiar places where they are in control of everything
around them. They imagine a world with hurdles where they figure out their own
ways by themselves. In a way, both are intelligent in addition to being highly
imaginative.

Grade: B-. You make some good points but there are many claims without textual
evidence and the overall comparative framework with specific framework of idea of
the child is lost at times as you wander into things such as the relationship between
the real and the visionary world.

Commented [H9]: Does he? Or is this daydreaming?

Commented [H10]: Is that really his purpose?

Commented [H11]: Where is this coming from?

Commented [H12]: Proof for this claim?
Commented [H13]: Link between these two ideas?

Commented [H14]: Proof of this for Nemo?

Commented [H15]: Proof for this?
Commented [H16]: Proof?
Commented [H17]: Where is this definition of escapism coming
from?
Commented [H18]: How is that not escapism from a world
where they have little control as children?

Q. 1) 'Dream' and 'Prophecy' have been proposed as two distinct formats for
visionary writing. Which format would you put King's speech into? Why? Please
define the two formats clearly as part of your answer to this question.
Ans. 1) To answer this question, I shall follow the following format: Ill begin by
defining both the formats. Then after classifying Kings speech into one of these
formats, I shall first justify why it belongs to the chosen format, and then why it
doesnt fit in the definitional framework of the other.
Dream, as a format for visionary writing, encompasses two ideas one, an
involuntary sequence of events one sees in sleep, and in that sense a production of
the subconscious human mind. Second, a desire or aspiration (and in that sense a
voluntary construct of human mind where the idea is thought of or developed by
human mind). At the level of construction, the source of dreams is largely internal to
humans (conscious or subconscious mind). In that sense, conscious human agency at
the level of content is much more central to dream when seen as an
aspiration/desire rather than dream when seen as a part of sleep.
Prophecy can be seen as inspired utterance, usually a message communicated to a
Prophet through visions. In that sense, a prophecy, at the level of source, is external
to the human mind. It can be seen as a direct narration of sequences seen in a vision
or communicated by a force external to humans. The human agency here is only
involved up to the narration of events, but at the level of content of those visions a
force other than human agency is at work.
As per the above stated definitions and a close analysis of Kings speech, I feel it
subscribes to the dream format of visionary writing. At the very beginning, the title
I have a dream employs the word have which gives a sense of the dream not being
just a momentary vision in the sleep but a well thought out aspiration or desire. The
use of I also invokes the idea of conscious human agency at work. This construction
of the title lends certain voluntariness to the idea, moving us to think that this dream
is a product of the dreamers conscious thought and ideation. At the level of
language, I have a dream employs language and tools that one relates to in real life.
By using a very material metaphor of cashing a check, promissory note the extent
to which readers can associate with the text is enhanced. This dissolution of readerly

Commented [SM1]: Textual evidence to support these claims

would give them more validity.

Commented [SM2]: Good distinction between content and

narration.

Commented [SM3]: Excellent use of close reading as a

technique of analysis.

Commented [SM4]: Relating to the text and relating the ideas

to the real world are NOT the same thing. Relating to the text may
also be done at the emotional / spiritual level with no reference to
the real material world.

distance is done in two ways first, by metaphorizing the aim itself with something
as ordinary as cashing a check, the achievability of the goal is enhanced. Second, by
insisting on urgency (repeated use of Now is the time) of implementation, Kings
dream is portrayed as something that is believable and more achievable. This
achievability reduces the distance that the reader feels from the text.
A dream which is a desire or an aspiration, at the level of content, reflects a hope.
This hope is rooted in the belief that one day that aspiration can be realized. It is this
hope that such texts engage the reader with. With this assumption, even at the level
of reception, an aspiration oriented visionary writing is closer to the reader than a
prophecy (the opposite shall be proven for prophecy in coming paragraphs, right
now I am tacking only the dream counterpart). Kings speech does the same. First, it
starts by critiquing the present, the here and now (hundred years later the negro is
still not free, a shameful condition and many such examples) to make the reader
understand why this aspiration is truly meaningful, and then builds the image of a
world where this condition can be changed. It engages the audience with this firm
belief that the text resounds (emphasized through urgency) and draws them in.
A prophecy functions differently. As mentioned earlier, the prophet or the author is
not the source of the prophecy, he becomes merely a pathway through which the
message is communicated by a divine (usually) force. The utterance is often inspired
in a way that is beyond the control of one who is narrating the vision as seen. Since
Kings dream is very voluntary, self-constructed and his own, it does not fall under
the prophecy format of visionary writing. The speech is very controlled in what it
wishes to convey, because of it being thought out and mulled over. In that sense too,
it falls out of the bounds of prophecy format. A prophecy also employs metaphors,
just like a desire/aspiration based writing, but the metaphors here play a different
role. The metaphorization here brings a certain distance at the level of reception by
bringing in some ambiguity or vagueness. Ill use the example of the prophetic
writing at our disposal The Second Coming. It employs ideas as falcon and
falconer, a shape with lion body etc which because of being open to interpretation
lose clarity and also add some distance by being away from our daily
lives/encounters. There is also no proper assertion of time in the prophecy it
employs phrases as moving slow thighs, slouches towards Bethlehem, revelation
at hand which take away the believability or achievability associated with the
prophecy. Instead of drawing the reader in, a prophecy consciously keeps the reader
at a distance, keeping him intrigued with many interpretations and timelines. There
is engagement here too, but this engagement doesnt reduce the readerly distance,
it in fact serves to increase the distance. Clearly as proved above, this doesnt

Commented [SM5]: Why is this important? How does this

relate to dream as a format?

Commented [SM6]: A little confusing which is more

important/characteristic of dream the idea of hope or its
achievability?

Commented [SM7]: So a dream that is not made meaningful

for the reader is not really a dream?

Commented [SM8]: Are these part of the vision /prophecy?

Commented [SM9]: Is the distance temporal (dont quite know

when this will happen) or in terms of believability?
Commented [SM10]: What kind of distance? Emotional?
Intellectual? For what purpose?

happen in Kings speech, thus again putting it out of the categorization of the
prophecy format.
Grade: B+. Excellent job of defining the two formats and analysing Kings speech as a
dream. However, some of your claims seem to depend more on content than format
(such as the achievability idea).

Yeats' poem invokes the first person while Asimov's story is written strictly in the third person.
How does this difference in narrative perspective impact the relationship between the reader
and the vision presented in the respective texts?
The narrative point of view is first person in case of Yeats' poem and third person in Asimov's
story. Let us begin by analysing each of the two individually.
Yeats poem, The Second Coming, is written from the point of view of a prophet. In the first
paragraph, Yeats describes the here and now (i.e. outcome of the war) from his point of view.
When he describes all the misery and suffering that has befallen the world, he says 'the
ceremony of innocence is lost'. This hints his bias towards acknowledging the suffering of a
certain class of people in Britain he could relate with. When he uses strong superlatives like
'best' and 'worst' to describe people, he seems to be conveying his view of people to the reader
regarding who the victims were, in the war.
In the second paragraph, his description of the prophecy is very personal to him. The prophecy
he foresees is purely his vision He describes the vision as troubling his ? sight. The reader is,
thus, able to sympathise more with the perceiver of the vision than the vision itself. By using
'Spiritus Mundi' he tries to bind the reader to the prophecy in a very implicit manner. Spiritus
Mundi refers to the concept of a collective unconscious. By invoking this idea, Yeats seems to
be aiming to include the reader and every being with a mind to his prophecy.
The third stanza is where his first person style of writing affects the readers understanding. He
begins with now I know to unfold his interpretation of the vision to the reader. It tells the reader
about the fears and apprehensions of the prophet. It is also a very clever way of streamlining
the reader's thoughts in a direction to keep them from wandering. Hence, the use of first person
narrative becomes an effective tool in conveying the writer's vision.
In contrast to Yeats, Asimov uses third person narration in Nightfall. The implied storyteller in
this case is an omniscient narrator who means exactly what he says. The story-telling is hence,
reliable and the reader is not expected to read between the lines spoken by the narrator.
The narrator is unconnected to the events of the story. This is evident from the fact that he/she
is aware of the presence of Earth while the inhabitants of Lagash are not.

Commented [SM1]: Where does the first person point of

view become evident in the first stanza?

Commented [SM2]: Is it presented as his view or a general

truth? Please pay attention to language!
Commented [SM3]: In a poem, the correct word is stanza
not paragraph.
Commented [SM4]: Do not quote incorrectly!
Commented [SM5]: Why? How does sympathy come in
simply because he says my?
Commented [SM6]: How does this relate to narrative
perspective?

Commented [SM7]: What does that mean? How does the

first person strategy keep the reader from wandering?

Commented [SM8]: How do we know that?

Commented [SM9]: Relevance? How does this relate to the
idea of reliability? You need to connect up your ideas!

By using such a mode of narration, Asimov is able to introduce the reader to multiple characters
(such as Theremon the newsman, Aton the astronomer, Latimer the Cultist etc.) and give the
reader objective information about each character's physical description and behaviour.
(Sheerin laughed and dropped his stubby figure into a chair)
Being universal ? and omniscient, the narrator is able to tell the reader what each character in
the story is thinking and thus, the reader is able to connect with the characters at an emotional
level. To mention an instance, Aton is described as crying and whimpering horribly. Empathy is
not invoked directly, as in the case of Yeats' poem. It is invoked through the experiences
various characters have throughout the narrative.

Commented [SM10]: Difference unclear how is the impact

direct or indirect? And do you mean empathy or
sympathy?

At the visionary level, third person narrator gives freedom to the reader to interpret the vision.
The narrator does not have a strict point of view. This gives the reader flexibility in terms of
philosophical view-point and understanding of the vision. In place of directly asking the reader to
imagine living in the dark, Nightfall's narrator shows us our own different ways of confronting the
unknown through different scenes in the story. We are shown through Theremon's character,
the side of us that is cynical and prudent and will not take things on face value. The Cultist's
character represents devout belief and blind faith. The deductions of the scientists that there
only six stars in the universe which proves wrong in the end opens the readers mind to the
fallibility of beliefs we consider as rational.
The story closes with the planet blanketed by the darknesses from the eclipse. The reader is
thus free to interpret the entire account of the eclipse, the amount of agency he/she wants to
give to either of science or mysticism, whether one of these was more to be believed than the
other. This is because there are no hidden intentions of the narrator that the reader can be
subjected to.
Thus the relationship between the vision and the reader in the two texts is affected by the bond
the reader develops with the first person narrator in Yeats poem and the lack of it to give more
freedom to the reader to interpret the vision in Nightfall.
Grade: B-. You have a good argument (as summed up in the last paragraph), but you dont
present it convincingly since the focus of your analysis is the content of the texts rather than
HOW it is presented (especially with respect to Yeats poem). As a result, this claim (about one
text being more open to interpretation than the other) appears to be more a comment on what
is said rather than the point of view of saying. As such, your answer relates only tangentially to
the question asked.

Commented [SM11]: Basis for this claim? After all, the

narrator is omniscient and CHOOSES to tell us the story in a
certain way isnt his view implicit in his choices?
Commented [SM12]: this is the difference between show
and tell, not the difference between narratorial perspective.

Commented [SM13]: Basis for this claim?

Question: Yeats' poem invokes the first person while Asimov's story is written
strictly in the third person. How does this difference in narrative perspective impact
the relationship between the reader and the vision presented in the respective texts?
Yeats' poem presents a prophetic vision in a first person narrative style. The
assumption that is often made when a text is presented in the first person is that it
makes the reader empathise with the narrator since only one perspective is presented.
However, with all the symbolism in the prophecy such as that of a 'rough beast'
with a 'lion body and the head of a man', 'rocking cradle' etc, this text seems to
function in a slightly different way. More than the thoughts, a reader relates with their
interpretation of the interpretation of the prophecy that Yeats himself presents. When
Yeats writes 'a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight;' and then goes on
to describe the pitiless beast with a blank gaze, he is describing the prophecy. The
usage of 'Troubles my sight' makes it clear that the prophecy is troubling the narrator.
This means that the events that a reader would associate the prophecy with would
seem to be of a 'troubling' nature. From the discussions in class, these could be
amongst- World War I, the rise of the IRA, the October revolution and Soviet Russia
or even the rise of Hitler.
In the final stanza, Yeats writes- 'but now I know that twenty centuries .. were vexed
to a nightmare'. While this stanza seems to describe only his own interpretation of
what he sees in his vision, readers try to interpret this in context of the event that
they assume that the prophecy is describing. A 'nightmare' is implied to be the
interpretation, furthering the 'troubling' nature of the prophecy. In particular, the last
two lines 'rough beast to be born' might be read as implying the smoothing of the
nationalist movement of the IRA, or the impending disaster of when Hitler rises to
power. All of this means that the reader is attributing a predictive nature to the
interpretation to the prophecy described. Had it not been in first person, say- 'the
darkness drops; leads to the vexing of a stony silence and an impending storm', it is
possible to interpret this as an upcoming revolution, and might even be read as a
historical poem describing the Renaissance. The 'to be born' could signify rebirth of
culture and thought. The usage of 'now I know' and the sleep and nightmare
metaphors in conjunction with the 'troubles my sight' of the previous stanza makes it
less likely to be such a historical poem.
Asimov's Nightfall has two different visions, both presented in third person. One
describes the alternate universe of the planet Lagash while one relates to the prophecy

Commented [SM1]: Good point. But do you mean sympathise

orempathise?

Commented [SM2]: Interpretation IS thought!

Commented [SM3]: Good connection!

Commented [SM4]: Why? What about the narratorial

perspective pushes in this direction?

Commented [SM5]: Basis for this interpretation unclear. How

does now I know and the references to nightmare make the poem
more predictive than historical?

of the cultists in the story. There is a difference in the narrative style used for both.
For the cultists prophecy, the narration is objective. Asimov describes the scenes as
being witnessed by a silent observer in the room. Most of the story seems to follow
this style. Asimov keeps writing the dialogue between Sheerin and Theremon,
sometimes joined by other characters. Although an objective description should not
bias the opinion of a reader, the stress on the cultists prophecy being one of 'lunatics
and children' seems to make the readers feel inclined to believe that it is so (despite
being aware that the cultists are right about the existence of millions of stars). For a
completely objective narration, Asimov could have chosen to alternate the story
between the observatory and the temple of the cult, where common people were
panicked and ready to do anything (including attacking the observatory) to attain
salvation. It is possible that one would be less biased as a reader in this case. In this
sense, the narrative style leads a reader to believe that they have 'chosen' the correct
side based on objective opinion, making the shock of 'crimson glow' of a 'long night'
seem more traumatising.
There are a few places where Asimov chooses to show himself ?the narrator as an
omniscient being. One of them is in the beginning of the story- writing an Epigraph
by Emerson right at the beginning and the others are towards the end (Pg 20- 'Dusk,
like a palpable entity world retreating into shadow', Pg 23- 'Not Earth's feeble
thirty-six hundred Stars cold, horribly bleak world'). All of these portray the nature
of his vision of Lagash itself, not of the prophecy in the tale. These make more sense
in light of the discussions in class with respect to the philosophical question- of
whether the unimaginable is expressible. The narrator takes this sort of stance since
speculating this situation in a relatable world(with similar social structure,
professions) is one way of understanding the answer to the philosophical question
itself.
Summarising, though Yeats' writes in the first person, he leaves a major part of the
interpretation to a reader by means of a poem with lots of symbolic imagery. A
source (http://www.yeatsvision.com/Geometry.html) suggests that Yeats felt the need to
separately explain the symbolism he used in the poem.
Asimov, uses a third person objective narrative but the characters and the setting is
familiar and makes a reader relate more to them. The omniscience of the narrator and
the readers own knowledge affect the readers differently as the former is used only
sparingly so as to create maximum impact when used, and this highlights them from
the rest of the story.
Grade: B-. You begin well with identifying strategies of narration in both texts and
how they impact the reader. But then your analysis becomes more content oriented,
moving away from narratorial perspective which is supposed to be the focus of the
answer. You needed to connect this content with narratorial perspective by focusing
on HOW it is presented, rather than on what is being said.

Commented [SM6]: What you are talking about is narrative

choice (paradigmatic choice) rather than narrative style / perspective.

Commented [SM7]: Relevance to question at hand? This

appears to be more about the content than the narratorial perspecive.

Commented [SM8]: That is NOT what you have said earlier.

There you have said that the emotional weightage biases the
interpretation in a certain direction.
Commented [SM9]: Irrelevant

Commented [SM10]: This is about content, not point of view!

Commented [SM11]: It is used THROUGHOUT! It is a story

written from a third person omniscient perspective.

Question: 1) 'Dream' and 'Prophecy' have been proposed as two distinct formats for
visionary writing. Which format would you put King's speech into? Why?
Please define the two formats clearly as part of your answer to this
question.

Answer: Before analyzing the question I would like to define the two formats of visionary writings i.e,
'Dream' and 'Prophecy'.
Dream
The look up on oxford dictionaries provides two meanings of Dream in its usage as a noun:
1. A series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a persons mind during sleep
2.A cherished aspiration, ambition, or ideal.
Going by these two meanings there can be two definitions of 'Dream' as a format of visionary writing.
In the first definition, 'Dream' can be exploited ? as tool to convey involuntary visions experienced
during sleep. Dreams can be both speculative and extrapolative in this definition.
Whilst in the second definition of 'Dream', the visions are particularly voluntary aspirations. This is
what mostly aspirations and expectations from future. 'Dream' in this definition will be very much
extrapolative with a clear way from here and now to there and then. For example- I have a dream that
I'll graduate with good grades, if I work hard.

Prophecy

Dictionary definition of 'Prophecy' is given as:

Commented [H1]: Meaning what? And how does this relate to

these dreams being involuntary?

Commented [H2]: Good clear idea with example / explanation

to support it.

1.A prediction of what will happen in the future

With this meaning the definition of 'Prophecy' format of visionary writings comes as a tool to convey
visions which talk about the prediction of a future event which is destined to happen. Mostly the
prophecies gives the vision of a future which will happens immaterial irrespective of what we do to
change it. Prophecies are seen as speculative in nature with no instructions on extrapolation from
present.

Commented [H3]: Why? Without a reason, this is an arbitrary

claim that doesnt stand up.

Analysis of King's speech.

In my opinion King's speech falls into the format of 'Dream' following from the second definition of
dream. The visions of a future of Martin Luther King is talking as his personal aspirations of an ideal
future, which is very much confirmed from the title of his speech i.e, I have a Dream.
The speech starts with talking about current situation of the promises of equality and justice at that time.
King asks his listeners to wake up and work together for a revolt to realise his dream that one day on
the red hills of Georgia sons of former slaves and sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down
together at the table of brotherhood. He has a dream of times of equality and justice in future but for
that vision to realize the people have to work for it and the dream is attainable. For that in the end
giving a way to realize this dream he asks,Let freedom ring!

The 'Dream' King is talking about is his vision of future. His visions of future are his cherished
aspirations. His visions are extrapolative in in nature as he starts talking from the here and now of
the injustices and talks about a future he dreams of the there and then, but while expressing his
visions he also gives the recipe to realize it which is the extrapolation. Then he comes back to present
again. Following by the all of the above observations, I'll consider King's speech as a visionary writing
as a 'Dream'.
Also a Prophecy is that vision of future which is a prediction of future no matter what the agencies
do. A prophecy also doesn't tells you ways to go to materialize one's visions. Since King doesn't predict
a future of racial equality rather has aspirations for? King's speech can't be considered a prophecy.

Grade: B. You do a very good job of defining both formats, and then linking Kings speech to one of
them on the basis of its title / main focus (aspiration). But you fail to give specific textual evidence for
your subsequent claims about the speech being a dream which weakens your overall argument.

Commented [H4]: Good linking title to format creates

immediate strong evidence.
Commented [H5]: What time, and whose promises?

Commented [H6]: How does let freedom ring indicate

people working for this dream?

Commented [H7]: Where? How? You need textual evidence to

support each claim you make.

Commented [H8]: Seems like you have some missing words

there.

The text of The Communist Manifesto talks about the classification of society through the ages, and
dissolution of existing classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The Manifesto models the
abolition of private property in general and declassification ?? in particular as its vision for the
future. Abolition of the concept of Free Trade is what it calls for. Another text with a very
prominent idea of freedom is the speech I have a dream by Martin Luther King Jr. This speech
calls for the attainment of freedom from the clutches of racial prejudices and segregation.
Both the texts talk about freedom from classification at some level. The Manifesto focuses on the
classification of people into the bourgeoisie and the proletarians. The Manifesto talks about the
material means of production as the instruments that allow the bourgeoisie to restrict the proletariat
from escaping the shackles of the class. The Communists want to destroy the private ownership of
these means of production as the way to attain equality and hence, freedom from the class
inequalities. The speech by King talks about the breaking of the social barriers of race, rather than
that of economic class. The means were the mentalities of the people as well as the laws of
America. Despite the Proclamation of IndependenceEmancipation, the laws of segregation bound
the black person to a lonely island of poverty amidst a vast ocean of material prosperity. These
are the shackles that King seeks to abolish.
The Manifesto constructs our present ideas of freedom to being a very bourgeois idea of freedom. It
says that freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free
selling and buying. Further, the Manifesto goes on to state that these stand for naked, shameless,
direct, brutal exploitation. Only the bourgeoisie has freedom while the proletariat is bound to its
fancies. Communism seeks to bring this freedom to all by abolishing the freedoms of the
bourgeoisie. It is a subtractive ideology leading to an association, in which the free development of
each is the condition for the free development of all. This idea of freedom is ideologically different
from the idea of freedom for King. For King, freedom is that intrinsic right of man to be able to live
life as he pleases irrespective of his race or religion or creed. King was fighting for the attainment
of this freedom for the black population of the USA instead of reducing the freedoms of the white
people. His is a more additive idea of freedom.
The concept of freedom in the Communist Manifesto is a very material' one. It is linked to the
ownership of productive property of both the bourgeois as well as the proletariat. These include
farmlands, industrial machinery, natural resources, and in the case of the proletariat, their labor. The
freedoms referred to by King are often more idealist in nature. For example, the freedom to vote is
an ideology. The freedom to intermingle does not involve any physical material. It is an ideological
change that King want to fight for.

Commented [SM1]: So freedom is defined basically as freedom

from class inequality?

Commented [SM2]: That sounds more economic than social?!!

Commented [SM3]: When only quotes are used, it does not

show YOUR understanding of the ideas. So when you make a claim
such as subtractive ideology, it remains unclear, as does the idea of
abolishing freedom since you have not specified what freedom
means here.
Commented [SM4]: So freedom is not an instrinsic right in the
Communist Manifesto? Or that freedom means something different
from being able to live life as one pleases without racism / religious
discrimination?
Commented [SM5]: Aha NOW I understand. But this is based
on a misunderstanding of the Manifesto which is NOT talking about
taking the same freedoms away from the bourgeosie and giving them
to the proletariat, but of changing the very idea of freedom as
stated in the first sentence of this paragraph. So how is that
subtractive?
Commented [SM6]: Voting and accommodation are very
material facts; also, you appear to be confused here between
ideology and idealism.

Martin Luther King Jr. gives the reader visions of a world in which everyone has the same freedom.
A child of any race would have the freedom to play with a child of another race. A black person
would have the freedom to vote for who he wanted, and be able to stand for elections. Anyone
would be able to utilize public conveniences such as motels and hotels. Black people would have
freedom from police brutality.
On the other hand, The Communist Manifesto seeks to give the working man the freedom from
subjugation inat the hands of the bourgeoisie, by depriving the latter of the freedom to appropriate
the products of proletariat labor. It actually questions what we call freedom. This is not something
that King's speech does. It adheres to widely accepted notions of freedom. Thus, it seems that the
two texts both want to promote equality, one by promoting and one by reducing freedoms.

Commented [SM7]: Your last sentence ignores the very

important point youve just made before that. If the definition of
freedom is being changed in one, then that is NOT the same as
reducing freedom (which assumes that the definition remains
constant!). You may want to think more about what is this new idea
of freedom being proposed in the Communist Manifesto, instead of
backing away and assuming that it simply means reducing freedom
in some pre-defined way.

Grade: B-. This is a good attempt at conceptual analysis which suffers from some confusion at the
level of ideas, but does end up with a perceptive understanding of the fundamental difference
between the two texts approach to freedom.

Formatted: Left

The manifesto is designed to convince one set of people: the working class proletarians. Although it
certainly is designed to antagonize all other classes of people which are not the proletarians,
especially the reformers who practiced competing forms of socialism and communism. This is
evident in section I, where the authors describe the history through the lens of class struggle. They
write how the bourgeoisie, with their Modern Industry revolutionized modern production and took
control away from the feudal lords, "putting an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations." and
later claim that how "The development of Modern Industry, , cuts from under its feet the very
foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products" They say how the
proletarians have anyway "lost all individual character", "owing to extensive use of machinery, and
to division of labour" and all concepts of individuality, family, religion etc are conceptions of
bourgeois society ("bourgeois clap-trap about family ") and their means of controlling the
proletarians. Through all this, the authors divide the population into ingroup consisting of the
proletarians and outgroup consisting of bourgeoisie and the aristocrats (section III feudal socialism).
They dismantle all other approaches to improve worker conditions by casting them as hypocritical
still rooted in the past with the same conception of proletarians as "suffering class" and render them
illegitimate. This makes it easier for the proletarians who could be confused by the similar nature of
their aims, to work with the Communists who were their only representatives.
The intended impact of this text on the proletarians is to convince them how they have been
persecuted over the centuries (the entire first section), how the bourgeoisie with their out of control
means of production and exchange (like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers)
are on the way to their doom, how the society is on the cusp of imminent revolution and how the
communists are on going to bring this about thus bringing control of means of production in the
hands of working class, who "alone is the really revolutionary class". The text functions as a call to
action for these proletarians. The text also functions to unite the proletarians across nation
boundaries under one class label. We see this in sentences like "it compels all nations, on pain of
extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production" and "made the country dependent on
towns, barbarians ans semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of
peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West." and of course "Working Men of All
Countries, Unite!"
Grade: B-. You have focused on effect/ intended impact more than intended audience. Your focus
on the polemical strategy of the text which clearly creates an ingroup and an outgroup is good,
and clarifies the different impacts it has on both, making the primary intended audience the
ingroup. However, you completely ignore the entire second section where the you (obvious
audience is certainly NOT the ingroup as defined by you. This makes your answer incomplete.

Commented [SM1]: I think you are confusing Section I with

Section III; the latter is where reformist ideologies are critiqued.

Commented [SM2]: This misrepresents ideas do not delete

words in a way that the idea itself changes!

Commented [SM3]: Representatives in what sense? Or the

only ones whose ideology actually was in their favour?
Commented [SM4]: ?? I thought the idea was complete control!

Q. 1) Several of the texts we've looked at so far invoke 'freedom' as an important

element in their vision of the future. How does the idea of 'freedom' in 'The
Communist Manifesto' compare with the idea of 'freedom' in any of the texts studied
earlier this semester? Please choose ONE text for comparison, and be very specific in
your analysis of what freedom means, both conceptually as well as in terms of actual
content.
Ans. 1) To answer the following question, the following will be my strategy I shall
start out by defining freedom, followed by how The Communist Manifesto and my
chosen text I have a dream by Martin Luther King, at the level of content use the
idea of freedom under the umbrella of this definition of freedom. Abstracting the
content, I will move to compare what is meant by freedom at the conceptual level in
these two texts.
Freedom literally means the power or right to act, speak or think as one wants. It
also stands for the condition of not being enslaved. The second definition may
include the ideas talked about in the first definition. In the Communist Manifesto,
Marx and Engels clearly identify the current condition of proletariats as enslavement
(The text quotes this as - Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the
bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the
overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself). Very
literally here, by explicitly describing the process of this enslavement through the
growth of modern industry, the organization of labourers into soldiers of an army
whose work is devoid of any individual character, and finally the conversion of the
proletariat worker into an appendage of the modern machines, the idea of freedom,
or the lack of it, is being invoked. The bourgeois industrialist is clearly accused of
exercising control in four major ways first, by suppressing the value of individual
skill and treating a human worker as an instrument of production (quoted as - Owing
to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the
proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the
workman). Second, by exploiting the labourer to exact profits be it by prolongation
of working hours, or increasing work exacted in a given time or increased speed of
machinery (quoted exactly as mentioned here in the text). Third, exercising control
on wages (the average price of a wage-labour is the minimum wage i.e. the quantum
of means of production which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare
existence as a labourer) as well as the means of production which makes attainment

Formatted: Centered

Commented [SM1]: That already defeats the purpose of the

question which is asking you to find the definition of freedom in
the texts, not come up with your own!

Commented [SM2]: How is this a form of control, and what is

the relationship between control and freedom?

of freedom from this what?? as difficult state to achieve. Fourth, by pouncing upon
the meagre wages of the labourer as landlords, shop owners etc. Freedom then, is
presented as liberty from these forms of control that result in enslavement of the
labourer by the bourgeois through machines (means of production which treat him
as an appendage, which homogenize any distinction in skill thereby making it
worthless). This corresponds to the second definition of freedom (and since it
includes the restriction on power to act in certain ways, it also encompasses the first
definition.)
In Kings speech, even though the Negro is literally free from enslavement but, as
King puts it But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred
years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation
and the chains of discrimination. By restricting entry of Negros in lodges, disallowing
them the right to vote, effectively their freedom to act the way they want is taken
away. This corresponds to the first definition of freedom. In this way, both the texts,
at the level of content use freedom as an element.
I will now be looking broadly at what concept is evoked by this way of employing
freedom as a tool. Largely, we can see the concept of freedom in both the texts as
the idea of equality. In Communist Manifesto, which is centred on the communist
motto of abolition of private property, inequality is portrayed in allowing
accumulation of property for one class (bourgeois) while giving the other class bare
minimum wage to allow for only bare subsistence which cannot allow them to
accumulate any property. Also, there is unequal control over means of production,
where bourgeois dominantly controls these means and appropriates the fruit of
these means (this is Marx and Engels view in the Manifesto), the proletariat class
doesnt have any control over the means and can access only the bare minimum
provided wage leads to the enslavement talked about above. Thus, equality here is
talked about by disallowing anyone from accumulating property that cannot be
accessed by others equally. The central tenet of the communist revolution here is
about property accumulation, which is then extended to equality in other spheres
such as law, education, taxation etc. Since the major distinction between the two
groups that are being talked about here is based on work/labour which leads to
capital/property accumulation, disallowing the power to subjugate labour by this
accumulation would allow for equality in other spheres as well. The idea of freedom
here thus privileges a restructuring of property relations (since here the primary
means of control lies in property means of production, freedom is centred around
relinquishment of that control by the ruling class).

Commented [SM3]: And where does this liberty lie? In NOT

using the machines at all? Or somewhere else?

Commented [SM4]: Not true emancipation proclamation

ensured the vote!
Commented [SM5]: too vague! One could argue that negros
did not want the same things as the whites! You are assuming here
that everyone wants the same thing!.
Commented [SM6]: This was NOT the question of course
both texts talk about freedom question was about how they
DEFINE freedom?
Commented [SM7]: Freedom is NOT a tool; it is the central
IDEA and OBJECTIVE of both texts. It may be seen to encapsulate
the very vision of the future in both texts.

Commented [SM8]: Misunderstanding of the idea of private

property. The question is NOT about how much money one has to
buy things; the question is who owns the means of production.
What you are talking about is higher wages; as far as the Manifesto
is concerned, ANY wage is still a slave wage.
Commented [SM9]: EXCLUSIVELY, not just dominantly.
Commented [SM10]: Why the need to repeat this here. This is
your analysis of the text, so obviously you are focusing on the texts
ideas. Or is it because it is here that you think that the ideas are not
what everyone believes, and so this distinction has to be made?
See how our own ideology functions in our writing!
Commented [SM11]: What do you mean by access? Workers
do access the means of production, so wheres the problem?
Commented [SM12]: No accumulation is not the issue;
control is.

Commented [SM13]: So the ruling class is just going to give up

this control? And then who will control?

In Kings Speech, very evidently, since lack of freedom arises from subjugation of one
class over the other, freedom is equality of Blacks and Whites in social, political, legal
and other spheres of life. The idea of freedom is not rooted in a particular type of
material relations (but rather all of them), since the two classes defined here are
differentiated based on colour/origin?, inequality exists at all levels be it political
(right to vote), civil (disallowing entry in lodges , putting boards such as For whites
only), legal (criminalization of Blacks) etc. Thus the origin of the idea of freedom (and
thus of equality, conceptually) is less specific here, rooted in a variety of spaces
unlike the idea of freedom in the Manifesto which is rooted in material private
property and its abolition.

Grade: C. You chose a difficult question that was asking you to deal with a rather
abstract concept. You have made a good attempt, but as you can see from my
comments, there are too many confusions and unexamined assumptions which are
clouding your analysis. If you like, we can talk about this at some point.

Commented [SM14]: Class? Or RACE?

Commented [SM15]: Equalitydefined how? Segregation was
also based on an idea of equality; it was called separate but
equal.

Commented [SM16]: Not really; it is inequality that is

experienced in various sphere, but it is not rooted separately in
each sphere; the root is racism, just as in the Manifesto, the root is
classism. But more importantly, in terms of this question, how /
where did you jump from freedom to inequality? What is the
relationship between the two?

Formatted: Centered

3) A Manifesto, by definition, is meant for a collective audience whom it attempts to convince of

its ideas / promises. According to you, what group is the intended audience for 'The Communist
Manifesto'? Please make sure that your answer looks at the ENTIRE text of the Communist
Manifesto (all four sections). And in answering this question, please also elaborate on the
intended impact of this text on its intended audience.

I believe that the Manifesto of the Communist Party (henceforth referred to as the Manifesto)
has two groups of people as its audience. First, it is a sort of a call to the class of people the
Manifesto defines as the proletariat and the second is a not-so-veiled threat to the ruling class,
the bourgeoisie, who are invariably also the most vocal critics of Communism. The Manifesto
figuratively tears apart the various objections that the bourgeoisie have against the fundamental
tenets of Communism. It also establishes, through its paradigmatic choices of interpreting
history through the lens of a somewhat unidimensional? class struggle, how the Communist
ideology is meant for the proletariat to establish through a course of radical changes, a society
in which class distinctions between oppressor and oppressed has disappeared and there is 'free
development' for all.

A clear aim of the Manifesto is to make the proletariat aware of their role and power, urging
them through various arguments, to never cease their struggle against bourgeoisie who control
the means of production. As explained clearly in the final chapter, the Manifesto wishes to instill
in the current proletariat, the recognition of existence of hostile antagonism between them and
the bourgeoisie. The development of class antagonism sprouting forth from the monopoly over
the means of production of the bourgeoisie class shall lead to a revolution among the working
classes, initially to elevate them to the position of the ruling class (at least temporarily) i.e. - a
sort of dictatorship of the proletariat. The Manifesto urges the working class to recognize that a
revolution to upset the existing social conditions is what is necessary and inevitable. The
revolution is needed to forcibly change the accepted bourgeois notions of private property,
family, individualism, nation etc. It is needed to remove the bourgeois notions that ingrain in
society, oppression and inequality. The harbingers of this revolution are the Communists, who
have no interest separate from the proletariat. The Manifesto reassures the proletariat that it is
they who the Communists are for, they who can fulfil the aims of the ideology of the
Communists.
If however, I try to judge the impact, I would say that the most important impact is to bring about
the realization that the various struggles that were so far seen differently, can be seen as

Commented [H1]: Good job clear identification of two

audiences with two correspondingly different intended
impacts.

Commented [H2]: Confusing it is not the development of

class antagonism that will lead to revolution; it is the
awareness amongst the proletariat of their shared class
position that will, in fact, create them as a political class that
will lead to revolution. Also, what does this have to do with
intended audience / impact?

Commented [H3]: So the communists themselves are

NOT part of the intended audience?

instantiations of the abstraction that the Manifesto calls a class struggle between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat (the very first opening line declares so) It also lays out the
theoretical reasons behind this struggle, as in how the modern bourgeois society, through its
supremacy and control, is no longer able to control the rate of production, more specifically,
over-production that necessitates mass destruction of productive forces, conquest of newer
markets, growth of the enigmatic ? 'capital' and hence, increase in numbers of the labour class.
Since it cannot control the growth of the immense majority that constitute the proletariat, hence
it is inevitable for the proletariat to be victorious, provided it constitutes itself into the
revolutionary party that the Manifesto envisions. The impact is on the psyche of the collective
group of the proletariat to wrest political power through revolutions (the means are not clearly
given) and to bring about an end to injustice through the various actions (abolition of property,
centralization of credit, abolition of inheritance etc, the 10 points of the second chapter) The
impact is to capitalize (no pun intended) on the growing scattered movements and discontent
among the proletariat and assure them that Communists stand beside the proletariat in
whatever revolution they intend to carry out to overthrow existing social conditions. As a
Manifesto should be, it presents radical strong statements and aims to bring under one banner,
the working class, cutting across and hence denying all divisions that the bourgeoisie might
have established of race, nation, caste and creed. Working Men of All Countries, Unite aptly
justifies what it aims, a unifying call to arms. However, what impact it does not intend to make,
or rather has failed to make, is to more clearly define the path to be taken by the revolutionary
party to get the aims fulfilled. And once the aims are en route towards completion, the Manifesto
assures an automatic transition from the rule of the proletariat to a classless, supremacy-less
equal society, provided the old conditions of the production are swept away. How this shall lead
to the subsiding of class antagonisms is not clearly mentioned.
Hence, as a clarion call, its intended impact is on the proletariat to set the ball rolling, but to
serve as a complete guide with all answers to the nitty gritties of the problems that the people
might face if an ideal classless society is established is not discussed.

Let us move forward towards the other class that the Manifesto addresses, the bourgeoisie. It is
evident that the Manifesto clearly warns the bourgeoisie, who have established themselves as
the ruling class, to take heed that their destruction and overthrow is inevitable via their own
deeds. Initially praising the class of bourgeois people for overthrowing the feudal structures of
places like Europe to let industry and trade be the new measure of social hierarchy, Marx and
Engels go on to examine how this notion has translated all notions once held supreme, the
sanctity of family, of an individual, of private hard-earned property, of noble professions, of
nations, into relations of trade and exchange of money into a monochromatic relationship
between wage-labourer and means of production. It is aimed to clearly scare the bourgeoisie,
the various people of the ruling class, warn them that their deeds have led to the establishment
of a majority of distraught people whose seething anger the Communists intend to capitalize on.
The very last paragraph declares how the Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims
- how they intend to justify their abolishment of long held concepts now corrupted by bourgeois
mentality. This justification is clearly aimed at the critics of the ideology of Communism, i.e. the

Commented [H4]: Good job it is a redefinition highlighting

ONE perspective that both creates and attempts to rouse a
specific class of audience.

Commented [H5]: Logic unclear how is growth of markets

leading to increase in numbers of the labour class?
Commented [H6]: How can it not control this? The
proletariat are CREATED by the forces of production that are
controlled by the bourgeoisie.

Commented [H7]: In whatever revolution, or in a specific

kind of revolution? What is the intended impact? A promise of
solidarity, or a promise of solidarity with a caveat of shared
political ideology?

Commented [H8]: True and a problem, but I dont see

how this relates to this particular question.

Commented [H9]: Again relevance to the question? Does

this have an impact on intended audience or intended affect?

bourgeoisie themselves. It is aimed to let the bourgeoisie realize that they must tremble at the
possibility of a Communistic revolution. It is intended to make them realize that the cornucopia
of capital they have created has led to the consolidation and growth of a huge number of labourclass proletarians who shall lead the revolution. This Manifesto clearly tells both the classes that
one must realize that they have led to their own downfall while the other must come together to
realize that they have nothing to lose but their chains in the struggle for class equality. Its
impact is to make everyone aware of the aims that the ideology of Communism intends to
pursue and the interpretations it assumes for the classes to play their roles.
Before I conclude, I must say that there are also mentions of different aims that the Manifesto
has towards the working classes of different nations. Especially interesting in the impact they
expect on Germany, where a bourgeois revolution is about to take place, following which
proletarian revolution is inevitable. The impact they wish to make might be to initially get the
working classes separate countries to work towards the Communist aim before the greater ideal
of a classless nationless society is fulfilled.
In conclusion, I hope I have been able to argue how the Manifesto has aimed to address both
classes of society, its followers to be and its critics, to impact their view on history and to
establish the final society based on abolition of bourgeois notions, through the revolution of the
proletarians.
Grade: A-. Yes, youve done a very good job of identifying the two intended audiences and the
intended impact on both. The only unclear point is the precise relationship between the
bourgeoisie (a class) and the critics of communism (a group identified by varying political
ideologies).

Commented [H10]: So you are assuming that the critics of

communism and the bourgeoisie are IDENTICAL groups (all
bourgeoisie are critics of communism, and all critics of
communism are part of the bourgeoisie)??

Commented [H11]: What role is earmarked for the

bourgeoisie?

Commented [H12]: Or before the greater ideal of workers

of the world unite? You seem to have missed a stepi n
between there!

Question: Broadly speaking, human nature can be understood in two very different ways - as
something innate and unchangeable OR as something that is formed by social conditions and, as
such, is variable / changeable over time and space. Which of these notions of human nature is
implicit in Chaplins speech? Give specific reasons, with textual evidence, for your answer.
The speech starts with the speaker declaring that he does not want to be an emperor. With the
starting statement itself, the human agency is emphasized where the person is free to make his own
choices as to what he wants to do or not. According to societal values, being an emperor, holding
power over other people might have been the most coveted thing, but the speaker rejects it upfront
and hence in the process undermines the societal value system against his own.
He then expresses his wish to help everyone - without discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. He
generalizes this aspect to all humans. The speaker might have started with an 'I', but as the speech
progresses it becomes clear that it could have been anyone speaking at the podium, any natural
man, as the speaker states further on. Thus, being human is something which is seen in terms of a
collective. It is a shared value system.
We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. This line asserts what the speaker
believes in, that it is the innate nature of humans to be such. 'Like that' is elaborated upon as he tells
how all humans want to live by each others happiness - not by each others misery. The speaker
also rejects the idea of hate and despise spite to be a part of being a human. He considers the human
qualities, i.e. the qualities that characterize a human being, to be a given and not something
acquired.
Further on, he moves to talk about the good earth which is rich and can provide for everyone, hence
expanding the context of human and nature further. This common innate nature of 'nurture' that is to
care for and love everyone equally, has what made possible coexistence of not only humans but also
human and earth.
Through all this, the speaker seems to be talking about a certain essence of mankind, which is a
fundamental reality and has an independent existence. This here is the loving, careful, peaceful coexistence like nature of human beings and this essence is also reverberated in how Earth has
provided for everyone. He then concludes the starting para with the fact that we have lost our
way, thereby placing the responsibility of human behavior on other external factors other than
human nature.
The speaker further elaborates his point, blaming the concept of greed to have poisoned mens
souls - thus making greed an artificial construct, external to the human soul. Rooting it further in the
external is his reference to machines, where the machines had led to overproduction, knowledge
acquired - that has made one cynical. All of this places the negative attributes of human behaviour
to be a result of the external structure human operates in. Thus making the concept of human nature
two-fold, there is one which is innate to a person, that is the collective of the human race (which is
considered as 'The human nature') and one which is learnt overtime or which one is conditioned to
as a result of the external political, social and economic structural frameworks one operates in (this
we can see as mere human behavior, not central to being a human). The innate seems to be like a
bedrock, which is always present, unchangeable and inalienable to being human. The other is
temporal in nature and might even override the innate human tendencies, but that is seemn as
something which is acquired and can similarly be done away with.
What is the natural state of human becomes clear in the speech through the method of contrast. The
speech juxtaposes negative actions with positive actions and negative ideas with positive ideas.
Hatred, greed, despise, bitterness, unkind, unloved are unnatural emotions according to the speaker
and the one who is so fundamentally rooted in these is an unnatural man, machine men with

Commented [SM1]: Relevance? This is about what humans can

do, not what humans are. You are confusing role with nature.

Commented [SM2]: The question is not about a value system,

but about nature.

Commented [SM3]: which specific qualities? Hate is also a

quality, but that doesnt seem to be innate as far as hes concerned.

Commented [SM4]: Misunderstanding of question, which is

NOT about the relationship between human and nature, but about
human nature itself.
Commented [SM5]: Textual evidence?
Commented [SM6]: Independent of what?
Commented [SM7]: Logic unclear how is human nature
linked to nature?
Commented [SM8]: How is losing ones way indicative of
external agency? It could also be due to our own carelessness!

Commented [SM9]: Circular logic because greed is the cause

therefore it must be external??

Commented [SM10]: Good distinction, but you need better

textual analysis to support this claim.

Commented [SM11]: Good use of textual evidence and

machine minds and machine hearts! These unnatural men are the ones who perform the negative
make your point!
actions of enslavement, are dictators.
Tofhese
men
negative
fear emotions explanation
like thetobitterness
human progress. Human which is described as helpful, caring, nurture the feeling of togetherness,
whose inventions are for universal brotherhood. The system is what makes men torture and
Commented [SM12]: Confusing what is the system and
imprison innocent people. If the system is changed, if human progresses enough then the unnatural
where does it come from?
negative actions will be curtailed automatically, and negative feelings would not propagate. The
human negative behavior is limited by and fears human nature, and would cease to exist as human
nature resurfaces and takes control of human actions.

Similar to the condition of men is the condition of technology, the aeroplane, the radio which
inherently speak of the goodness in mankind. But, what if the same means are used in a system of
dictatorial power, these then become instruments of inflicting pain and death, communicating fear
and terror. Analogous to this is the condition of humans, whose innate nature is composed of
feelings such as kindness, contrasted with how he behaves in a system which makes him inflict
terror on innocent fellow humans.
The speaker points out that structure that has caused despair and misery is the dictatorial regime and
it is the political structure of democracy that can liberate men. By pointing out that the power is
inherent within men, the speaker gives the man the agency to be the creator of his own life, but
along with that he mentions restrictions like national barriers that condition men, that limits the
exercise of this inherent power within individuals. These curtailed humans then behave in a certain
way, in ways which are unnatural to being human. They are the effect of restrictions, conditions both social, economic and political that are put on man. Whereas what is innate is free of all
restrictions, it exists in the entire human community, it is common to all humans. Realizing these
two levels at which human behavior functions - one that is present, and one that is learnt as a result
of being part of a particular institution/ political structure; the speaker invokes the innate in manthe human nature. This tells us about his belief that how human nature is a set of positive feelings
is something that is interwoven in the fabric of being a human, and this is a common binding feature
that could bring together humans to adopt positive actions and fight for a common cause- 'for
liberty'. Liberty from these external structures, these constructs which limit human nature. Human
nature is seen as an essence with an independent existence, it is neither limited to an individual nor
can be separated from his existence. All the people who are in the collective of this essence which
enables one to create a life of happiness, are humans, and the rest which aren't interwoven in this
fabric are the outliers- the 'unloved' machine mens.
Grade: A. After a rocky beginning, this PDA just soars and ends up with a very solid convincing
argument. A pleasure to read, Asmita thank you!

Commented [SM13]: Excellent parallel between human and

technology. Does raise the question, though, as to the accuracy of
machine men as a negative since machine here is not seen to be
inherently negative.

Commented [SM14]: Very well put a clear articulation of

your argument.

Human nature is a concept characterised by the behaviour and thoughts of a person and is a very
individual concept. In the speech in The Great Dictator, the speaker gives us a view of human
nature that is innate, but which can be molded by society. The speaker is of the opinion that human
nature at birth is of a certain kind, and can be changed over time explicitly or implicitly by their
societal conditions or by instruction.
The first paragraph is where the speaker describes what human nature innately is. He talks of the
feeling of mutual help, and that people naturally do not want to hate or rule. He speaks of how he
does not want to be an emperor, or to rule. This gives us the idea that despite his environment that
would allow him to be so, his human nature is not given to commanding. It is a comment on his
innately non-oppressive nature. In the fifth paragraph, the speaker refers to the soldiers persent,
saying You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don't hate!. In an audience with
hundreds of thousands of soldiers, the speaker does not express any doubt that this is indeed the
case. This supports the idea that the speaker thinks innate human nature is innate and kind
universally. Society cannot change these.
From the very next paragraph, the speech talks about how society can twist human nature. The
speaker talks about greed as a poison. He talks of knowledge making people cynical and cleverness
making them hard and unkind. These imply that human nature is naturally not so, and that these
are?(what are?? re-state in your own words to show your understanding) some of the causes that
may change it. He talks of the system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. The
speaker lays the blame on the system not the perpetrator. It shows an assumption that if the system
was not as it is, people would never commit such injustices. The last paragraph contains a call to
do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Further, in the fifth paragraph, he addresses
soldiers. He pleads with them to gain control over their nature, and to not allow brutes to mold
them. This shows an underlying assumption that human nature is moldable, and also that people
have a choice in which direction their nature changes, and that it is possible to externally influence
the change in an individual's nature.
In conclusion, the concept of human nature as being innate rather than formed is implicit in
Chaplin's speech in The Great Dictator, while saying that societal norms and conditions can twist or
vitiate that nature. A person's nature inherently has some structure, and hence, is not solely a
product of social conditions. Life is not a formative, but modifying process.
Grade: A-. A neat clear argument, but it refuses to tackle underlying assumptions by not engaging
with ideas of knowledge / system that vitiate this innate human nature to figure out what
aspects of life are seen to be modifying it.

Commented [SM1]: Meaning? Humans are a species;

individuals are sole representatives of that species. Nature refers to
the entire species, NOT to individual specimens.
Commented [SM2]: Good summary of your argument.

Commented [SM3]: Good pulling evidence from different

parts of the speech shows how this idea runs throughout and so is a
basic premise of the idea of human nature.

Commented [SM4]: Which is what? How do you understand

this difference between system and human?

Commented [SM5]: Very nicely put.

2) Broadly speaking, human nature can be understood in two very different ways - as something
innate and unchangeable OR as something that is formed by social conditions and, as such, is
variable / changeable over time and space. Which of these notions of human nature is implicit in
Chaplin's speech? Give specific reasons, with textual evidence, for your answer.
A) I believe that Chaplins speech chooses the notion of human nature to be innate and
unchangeable. The tense in the statement quoted (We all want to help one another. Human
beings are like that) as well in general in the text while referring to human character, is
perceived to be present imperfect tense which implies that the statement being made is true in
general. In the statement Greed has poisoned mens souls, the author seems to imply that
greed is something outside the soul and not something that can be created in the soul, the
character of human nature that this portrays is that human nature is not made of hate or greed.
The statement Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. Creates a
divide between human nature and human mind, and opposes these two forces, mentioning that
knowledge and cleverness, constructs of the mind are in contrast to human nature being
kindness. In this statement ( We think too much and feel too little.) We see the divide between
thinking and feeling, one which is done by the mind and the other whatever you may call it, soul
or here which refers to human nature. Phrases like .. cries out for universal brotherhood..
victims of a system.. take these opposing forces the construct of the mind versus human nature
or humanity and evaluates them, by using the word victim, since the mind is shown to be taking
over the soul, feelings, kindness all akin to human nature, and has been portrayed as the
perpetrator as well as something that is external to human nature, even it is undeniably a part
of the human. The hate of men will pass, the speaker predicts that the hate will pass as it is
transitory unlike human nature which will survive the torture of the mind-ly constructs causing
war and bloodshed due to lack of kindness. It provides human nature an unchanging position
and the mind and hate and greed created outside human nature to be transitory that will pass.
While I have been going on about the mind and soul as opposing does the following statement
contradict it?- Dont give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine
minds and machine hearts. No, while here the mind and hearts are given equal pedestal, it
is what is machine like about then that makes then un-natural as opposed to human nature.
But this machinery is the very construct of the mind hinted earlier in- Machinery that gives
abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical since it seems to imply
that machinery was born from our knowledge and cleverness. You have the love of
humanity in your hearts! You dont hate! Only the unloved hate. This statement is crucial, it
says that love is intrinsic to humanity or human nature and that only the unloved can hate,
but in the vision if there is kindness and love, that is if human nature triumphs then there
would not be unloved people who would hate!
To conclude, the Chaplin speech sides on the notion of an unchanging human nature and
that is something one should bank on to achieve the vision described in the speech.

Grade: A-. An excellent analysis of how mind and soul/ heart have been distinguished
in this idea of human nature. But you leave unexamined the idea of being unloved as
well as the means by which mental constructs create hate what are these mental
constructs in everyday practical terms?

Commented [SM1]: Good way of reading greed as external.

Commented [SM2]: Excellent job this makes human nature

into something that is not defined by the human mind (kind of like
the old heart/mind dichotomy!).

Commented [SM3]: Good showing that not only mind, but

heart may also be corrupted by mental constructs.

Commented [SM4]: Does raise the question of why anyone is

unloved is human nature is to love?

Question 2) Broadly speaking, human nature can be understood in two very different ways - as
something innate and unchangeable OR as something that is formed by social conditions and, as
such, is variable /changeable over time and space. Which of these notions of human nature is
implicit in Chaplin's speech? Give specific reasons, with textual evidence, for your answer.

Ans: This question talks about the two understandings of human nature which as often known as the
nature versus nurture debate, The two sort of understandings of human nature as as
I) Innate or unchangeable: The understanding of human nature under this school of thought is
known as innatism. It means that we humans have basic nature that cannot be changed over time
with environmental experiences or even conscious efforts.
II) Changeable as a result of social conditions or variable: In this human nature is understood as a
blank slate which is formed over time and then changed with social experiences. Under this
understanding human nature can also change with time and space.

In my opinion the notion of changeability of human nature is implicit in Chaplin's speech in The
Great Dictator.
Firstly, In the speech the ideal nature for humans are defined to be considered humans in the first
paragraph with, I dont want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone - if
possible - Jew, Gentile - black man - white. We all want to help one another. Human beings
are like that. We want to live by each others happiness - not by each others misery. We dont
want to hate and despise one another.
But then he claims that this very basic nature of humans is adulterated with the last line of the
paragraph with The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.
This is the first manifestation of the fact that the speaker is subscribing to the dynamic notion of
human nature which can be influenced by external factors. The nature of humans is said to have
moved away from its ideal nature of innocence. The cause for such change in nature is also
mentioned as greed in the line, Greed has poisoned mens souls, has barricaded the world
with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed

Commented [H1]: In which case there IS an innate nature too;

this view doesnt seem to begin with the blank slate idea.

With the above observation I can claim it as the first instance of implicit assumption of changeable
nature of mankind in support of my argument.
Chaplin speaks about how we have changed in We have developed speed, but we have shut
ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us
cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little.
After that he speaks,More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need
kindness and gentleness. He also said,The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the
power they took from the people will return to the people. These lines conveys Chaplin's faith
that human nature that has been corrupted due to greed and ambitions can be changed back to
righteousness through conscious efforts. This is the second instance in support of the argument that
the speaker believes change can happen in human nature.

In conclusion I would like to write that aforementioned instances proves my point of an implicit
notion of human nature that is formed out of social experiences. In the whole speech I perceive
Chaplin as defining the central reference line on a moral compass and telling us that on the course
of development how human nature has moved off from that. He then asks us to look towards going
right on the moral compass by making efforts to change our nature. Which is evident from looking
at the instances quoted above as a whole.

Commented [H2]: You have not provided an evidence / analysis

of this claim. Conscious effort is not the same as social
experiences and that is the only cause of human nature you have
hinted at so far.
Commented [H3]: This again gives the idea of an innate human
nature.

Commented [H4]: The image really isnt relevant to your

argument.

Grade: B-. You begin with good definitions of the two options, but then begin to focus only on the
idea of changeability, ignoring completely if that change occurs on a blank slate or on an innate
nature. And so your argument becomes weak at times when you also use words that point towards
an innate idea of human nature.

Question: Today in class we did an 'understanding' exercise whereby we tried to

create a coherent and comprehensive picture of the 'vision' in the 'Declaration of
Purna Swaraj' in terms of its central ideas and their implications. Undertake the same
exercise with the Chaplin speech from ''The Great Dictator'. Please remember that
this speech is made in the film NOT by the dictator, but by a barber (a common man)
who happens to resemble the dictator and so gets a chance to speak to the public. This
context may give you a better understanding of the ideas expressed in the speech.
Your answer to this question should provide a COHERENT and COMPLETE picture
of the structure of ideas that constitute the vision of the future in this text.
The vision of future future given in Chaplin's speech is characterised by his
description of three main ideas regarding it:
A 'beautiful' way of life
Freedom, Liberty
Initiative of a collective, for a collective
Since it is the barber speaking, Chaplin starts by making it clear that he does not want
to be ruler or conqueror of all. He then goes on to describe his view of the current
social conditions: greed has made humans cynical, violent. They don't have an innate
tendency to hate one another, rather they would want the betterment of everyone. And
there are enough resources for all of them. A way of life that would incorporate
empathy would be 'free and beautiful' . The reason that this would be 'new' is not the
change of ideas innate in humans, but the change of power bearers who are 'brutes'
and have made everyone else victims of their system. In both the occurrences of
beautiful life, it is a 'free and beautiful' life. This seems to imply that the vision of
free life must be a beautiful vision.
The initiative of the collective also goes hand in hand with Chaplin's idea of liberty.
All the dictators who give false promises of the same vision that can be achieved via
a universal brotherhood. The system of dictatorship has made millions victims of
torture. The reference to the 'Kingdom of Lord' and mention of democracy are ways
in which the idea of a collective is explored in the speech. He also highlights that
modern technology (aeroplanes and radio) has brought people closer together. And
the power to create this lies in the people. The end of rule of power in the hands of
few is inevitable - power they took from the people will return to the people , so
long as men die, liberty will never perish. He calls forward action asks for
soldiers to unite to fight for this liberty. He claims that it is unnatural to not do so.

Commented [H1]: Whats the connection between these two?

Commented [H2]: Isnt it the other way around that a beautiful

vision must include free life?

Commented [H3]: unclear

Commented [H4]: How?

Only cattle, and the hateful would choose not to.

Commented [H5]: Too many ideas being lumped together

without clarifying connections collective, Kingdom of Lord,
democracy, power of people, liberty WHAT are the connections
between them?

An explicit description of the vision of the new world is also given and these are the
important aspects:
Social/Economic: one where men are given a chance to work, youth are given a
future, security in old age
Political: doing away with national barriers
Scientific: creation of a world of reason, where science and progress will lead to
happiness
The political and socio-economic views seem to be consistent throughout the speech,
but the vision of scientific progress is not. At one point he says that machinery and
knowledge has made humans lose their kindness, and at another point he claims that
modern inventions bring people closer together, and that progress would lead to
happiness. In this sense, it is unclear what sort of scientific progress would be
desirable in his vision.
Grade: B-. This is a good comprehensive summary of the ideas that characterize
Chaplins vision, but you have not been able to make any coherent connections, and
hence your exploration of the implications of these ideas remains incomplete /
unclear.

Commented [H6]: This will become clearer if you CONNECT

up ideas what are the fundamental ideas governing the vision, and
how would these ideas shape science /human progress?

The central ideas presented in the text are in the following lines of this paragraph. Human
beings want to help one another and live by each other's happiness. There is room for
everyone in this world. Greed has poisoned mens souls. More than
machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Technology brought us closer together. We must not despair as the misery that is now
upon us is but the passing of greed. the Kingdom of God is within man. In the name of
democracy - we must use that power and unite. We must fight for a new world - a decent
world that will give men a chance to work - that will give youth a future and old age a
security. Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Commented [SM1]: When quoting directly from the text, use

quotation marks otherwise, this is called plagiarism.

The Great Dictator's Speech implies that human beings want peace intrinsically and
we all can live together in that way. We have enough resources to support each and
everyone. However , greed of human beings hasve poisoned the mind and caused conflict in
the world. Even the technologies call for us to be together. Having mentioned this, the
speech says that this greed and all the other bad stuffs??(too vague) will pass away and
urges the listeners not to lose hope and join hands to bring down the brutes.
Here, the speech sees an ideal future where there is world peace and unity. It does
not clearly mentions how one can achieve the future. The vision of the future is spactial in
the sense of the conditions that will change as the one attains such future, a future which is
inclined towards being Utopian. There is no extrapolative thing in this vision as the speaker
just mentions the present condition where the listeners are and the future that the can
achieve. So, it is more speculative. The speech can be called a dream as it is too ideal and
the speaker also does not mention if we can actually get there but just gives the audience
the motive of such aa world.
Grade: C. This is mainly a summary of Chaplins ideas without any analysis of how
they are connected to each other. The last paragraph where you attempt some analysis in
terms of the class discussions, you do not define your terms clearly and so remain vague.

Commented [SM2]: No, but does it imply how this may happen?
This is where analysis comes in.
Commented [SM3]: Unclear what is spatial about this vision?

Commented [SM4]: No it is based on an assumption of

CURRENT human nature, and so is extrapolative based on that.
Commented [SM5]: NOT the definition of dream as a form of
visionary writing. If you want to make this a part of your argument,
then you have to define dream more clearly and show how it is
related to the overall vision in this speech.

This is how I have answered the question. I have first borrowed the Oxford definitions of
prescriptive and descriptive. Analysed my understanding of these meanings and given three
characteristic features of both descriptive and prescriptive texts that can be arrived at from
these definitions. Then I have contrasted my two texts on these three features.
Descriptive: describe and classify objectively.
Nature of subject (presenters of text).
1)There seem to be two ways to be able to do this. One party who is non-biased and who can
look at a topic from all possible angles. Or multiple parties of varying opinions having an equal
representation in presenting their viewpoints. If it is the latter case, it implies that the multiple
parties can have an discussion and even agree to disagree. This is to prevent all of the parties
converging to an accepted viewpoint as right or wrong. Also since only description and
classification are taking place, there seems to be no value judgement in descriptive texts. If
there are multiple parties presenting their viewpoints this is possible only if they have varying
world views so that different viewpoints are represented. Also since the conclusion of the text
does not preach one particular viewpoint as right or wrong, the parties presenting their
viewpoints need to be equally represented in terms of the number of people believing in their
world view.
2) Multiple parties' opinions being given equal weight brings me to my second point of contrast
between descriptive texts and prescriptive texts. Since there seems to be a very divided opinion
of the situation, both of them are well represented so that neither side is overshadowed by the
other merely by the number who believe in that particular world view. There is no one clearly
favourable or unfavourable outcome.
3) The final outcome has a significant degree of unexpectedness associated with it because of
the above. Since opinion is divided equally and there exists no dominant or right view point, any
outcome tends to surprise some or the other group.
Prescriptive: Relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or a method.
1)This could happen if there is solely one speaker who presents only one side of an argument
without observing the other possibilities. Since it is an enforcement or imposition of ideas, it
could mean that the presenter of the ideas is probably of superior status socially, politically or
economically. Since, it is him/her imposing his/her ideas it is probably a reflection of his/her
dream/ambition of how society should be. This brings in a preachy undertone to the entire
viewpoint being presented.
2) To contrast with the corresponding 2) of descriptive texts, since there is a preachy undertone
to the entire text, the favourable outcome is typically one which is desired by the speaker. Since

Commented [YUN1]: Thanks for the summary. Usually not

needed in such a short write-up, but very useful in longer
articles where the structure may not be self-evident.

Commented [YUN2]: Is equality really measured only in

terms of numbers? What about sources of authority? In a
classroom, there is usually only one instructor and more than
one student, and yet if they offer different viewpoints, these
viewpoints will not be measured for value in terms of the
number of adherents but in WHO proposed it!
Commented [YUN3]: But you havent defined what
prescription means yet!

Commented [YUN4]: How can a description have an

outcome? What predictive value are you associating with
description and how/why?
Commented [YUN5]: Why so specific? Why not a way of
thinking?

(s)he has to convince/impose/enforce (varying degrees of compulsion) his/her vision on them, it

is portrayed as a collective vision so that the subjects would accept is as beneficial for them.
3) Since this is typically the vision of a single person/unit/group, the vision is very certain as it is
reflects one set of world views. In that sense the favourable outcome is known when the vision
is presented itself. The favourable outcome is the dream vision of the speaker being imposed on
the public.

Commented [YUN6]: Why specifically dream vision? Why

cant it be a prophecy?

With the above understanding of the two words descriptive and prescriptive, I would like to say
that Isaac Asimov's Nightfall sounds like a descriptive text to me, and Martin Luther King's
speech sounds prescriptive.
Nightfall and King's speech analysed wrt points 1), 2) and 3)
1)In Nightfall, the viewpoints of the Cultists, astronomers and the reporter are all presented with
none of them being called right or wrong. All of them have a very different idea of Lagaash's
future. Asimov tries to stir up questions like 'What are the limits to which humanity would
become accustomed to lifes daily phenomena? What would happen to humanity if we are to
become too acquainted with the goings-on in our lives?. The Cultists and astronomers have
different takes on these kinds of questions, and the word 'would' is very significant amongst the
above questions.
1) In King's speech however, the audience is only addressed by King throughout the speech.
For instance when King says that 'It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this
promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned.', he has assumed unfairness to
the colored. His speech does not consider the view point of the white at all. King's vision is
given primary importance because he is the leader of the African American Civil Rights
Movement.
2) The last line of the previous paragraph brings me to my next point. The word 'should' is
never used when these kind of questions are raised. This allows for a lot of speculation in the
story since different world views have different fundamental ideologies which they assume.
Neither of them is favoured because the cultists and the astronomers are both well represented.
2) The preachy undertone in King's speech is evident throughout. The degree of enforcement
varies from enforcing weakly to at times very strongly. For instance, 'It would be fatal for the
nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in
America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights.' are all signs of King imposing his vision
on the people
3) Till the end there is a high degree of unpredictability associated with the outcome of nightfall.
When nightfall does occur, there is societal collapse and breakout of civil disorder. This is
surprising to the scientists who had prepared to overcome nightfall.
3) The vision of dream America is portrayed very clearly by King to the audience. He says: 'We
cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one.
' , 'I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be

Commented [YUN7]: Good! But then, is this descriptive or

speculative? Or are you seeing these two as interchangeable?
Commented [YUN8]: But then, this would be true of ANY
speech! Does that mean that any speech (including,for
example, class lectures) are prescriptive by definition?

Commented [YUN9]: Confusing where are you saying

that should is never used? You have just talked about Kings
speech and yet I think you are now talking about Asimovs
story.

Commented [YUN10]: So being imposing and being

prescriptive are the same thing one is always the other?
How would this apply to the phrase prescriptive medicine??

judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. ' These lines indicate very
clearly his dream for America.
Grade: B. You have a very good plan of action and follow it through quite consistently. However,
the baseline of how you define descriptive and prescriptive is limited in itself since you only
look at it in terms of technique of presentation and ignore completely content as well as
intention. The latter does come in indirectly, but is not a focus of comparison, which raised
several questions (as seen above in my comments).

Commented [YUN11]: Yes - -his dream but how does

that make it prescriptive for others?

In the Sorting Hat Songs, the four houses are defined on the basis of the difference between the
four founding wizards; each is seen to have a different defining set of characteristics. Does the
way in which the songs articulate this difference create a hierarchy within the four sets of
characteristics associated with the four houses? Or is this really a case of different but equal?
Please pay very careful attention to the connotative meanings of words when answering this
question
In the third song, the sorting hat puts Slytherins as people who chose people on the basis of their
ancestry, Ravenclaws on the basis of intelligence, Gryffindors on the basis of courage while the
Hufflepuff welcomed everyone else to its house. The distinction as it appears in the third song seems
to put all the differences on an equal platform. Yet, there are instances when there appears a
hierarchy. For example, at one point in the third song it is written, Good Hufflepuff, she took the
rest. The adjective, good, puts Hufflepuff onto a place that is a bit higher than the others who are
defined only in the ways they define and differentiate their folks. Also, while defining the Slytherins
the hat says, Slytherin took only pure-blood wizards of great cunning just like him.Now cunning is a
word that comes with some value judgements with itself. The hat, thus, mildly implies that the
Slytherins have a deceitful nature. Compare this to the bravery of Gryffindor and the intelligence of
Ravenclaws, and we realize that Slytherins are not actually considered an equal with the two. They
are at the bottom of a ladder which seems to put Hufflepuffs at the top.

Commented [YUN1]: Pretty much all words have some implied

value judgements. You need to be more specific here, at least in
terms of clarifying whether the connotations are positive or
negative, and why.

Thus from the third song, we get the idea that there is a hierarchy which is implied in the way the
hat articulates the characteristics.
This pattern becomes obvious in case of the first and second songs where the hat portrays Slytherins
as Those cunning folks use any means To achieve their ends and And power-hungry Slytherin
Loved those of great ambition.This shows that the hat makes its own value judgements upon the
houses and the differences that let the houses choose their students.We get an idea that the hat
looks down upon the Slytherins because of theirthey strived to reach their goals at all cost. On the
other hands the words that imparts value judgement on the other houses are brave, daring and
chivalry for Gryffindors; just, loyal and hardworking for Hufflepuffs; and wise and clever are used
for the Ravenclaws.
This suggests that all the defining differences, for the houses other than Slytherin, are seen in equal
light in the first two songs. The differences stand independent of each other but none is smaller or
larger than each other.
So finally, seeing the three songs we realize that there is definitely a hierarchy that is at work. This
hierarchy is in no way very obvious, which makes it tough to define the order. However, Slytherins
remain at the bottom for a certainty.
Grade: B. Good job of analysing connotative significance and how it changes over songs. You could
have taken it further by examining other elements such as order of presentation, and also analysed
the implicit ideology that ascribes these values to the four houses.

Commented [YUN2]: Why this strange order of starting with

the third and then going to the first and second?

Commented [YUN3]: So cunning and wise and clever are

seen as distinct? This difference is worth exploring. Such analysis
also reveals underlying ideologies / value systems. For example, you
seem to be saying that the implicit value system here does not
value ambition as much as loyalty.

Commented [YUN4]: Awksard dont you mean less or more

valued?
Commented [YUN5]: What about the order in which they are
talked about?

3) In 'Welcome to Hiroshima', the poet addresses the audience as

'you'.Based on your analysis of the poem, who do you think is
included in this'you', and why does the poet address this chosen
audience directly as'you'? In other words, what are the implications
and affects of this formof address in the poem?

A) I believe the poet is addressing the tourist Gaijin, or the western foreigner tourist
who makes a stop at Hiroshima to know more about the nuclear bombing, since the
billboard is in English, uncommon to Japan, and since its the first thing one notices off
the train. Western tourist I say due to clues like, use of English on billboard, beer, coffee
and tea as a drinks, and pizza and pancakes as food, common to the western world
much more than any other culture. (Welcome to Hiroshima is what you first see,
stepping off the train: a billboard brought to you in living English by Toshiba Electric.)

The author takes this addressed tourist though the poem through a different welcome,
one that uses imagery and allegory, to bring the contrast of their visit into sharp focus.
(.. that brims its risen columnful like beer..you feel a thirst for history: what year it
started to be safe .. But no, the waters clear, they pour it for your morning cup of tea)
Here the clouds of the bomb explosion are compared to beer, a drink common outside
Japan (in Japan its Sake), and this is followed by the you feeling thirst for history..a
satirical comment on the behaviour of tourists who eat and drink as they visit places,
who quench their biological thirst alongside the visceral or intellectual one. But no the
water is clear indicates how impressions are cast on the you by acts that are tailored
to tourists, clean water, a sign not of the bygone haunting past but a sign of the tourism
market that wishes its visitors to have a pleasant stay.

Perhaps, then the answer to why does the poet choose this direct address can be
answered. To bring the contrast of the tourists visit, one filled with pleasure and
comfort and how it jars with the very history they have come to absorb, visit and see
with their own eyes. It is this contrast that is highlighted by using the address you, and
taking you from a familiar concept where we have all been at some point, on a vacation
as tourists, and then the author takes us out of this very familiar comfort zone to help us
ponder on his vision of the past, which he believes is the truer one since it is not
shadowed by the needs of tourists, where the past is more brutal and still haunting and
one which has not erased its own erasure. The use of imagery, metaphors also can be
understood, as it helps us stay in the liminal, in between the two visions of the past, one
that is shown to us and the one that is hidden which the author is highlighting. The
imagery at first creates an image familiar to us (getting of a train in a new place, eating
not so unfamiliar food with companions) and then through metaphors draws us out of
this image into a more uncomfortable one, which we would not have been propelled
into without the anchoring of the initial familiar tones. The time stuck at 8:15 for a dead
child brings back the horrors of the bomb as if time hasnt passed, present but lost in the
pretty presentations in glass, like the poets vision of the past, begging to be heard.
Grade: B-. You do a good job of identifying who the you is, and what impact is intended on this
you. But you dont explore at all WHY the you is used. Hence the answer is more focused on a
summary of the poem than an analysis of its choice of narrative address.

Commented [YUN1]: Yes there are all references to the West,

as the poem explicitly states, but what do these references have to
do with the address to you. How are you relating all of them to
this specific addressee?

Commented [YUN2]: Good but this seems to be more about

how the poem is handling the you rather than who is the you and
why this mode of address is used.

Commented [YUN3]: Nicely put so the addressee is the

tourist but with the idea that this tourist needs to see differently.
But why use the second person for this? Why not have a third
person or first person invocation of the tourist?

Commented [YUN4]: More an analysis of the images in the

poem rather than its mode of address.