Announcement of the next meeting (Thanks Renuka):
Date and Time: Sunday, March 08, 2009; 10:30 am
Venue: Empress Garden
Topics:
1. Morality in a changing world
2. Two things I would change in the Literature Club, Pune
THE FEBRUARY MEET
The February meeting had two very interesting topics for discussion. The first was word portraits of characters. Mr. Rajagopalan started the session with the reading of a line from “An Outline History of English Literature” by William Henry Hudson. He went on to “speak his heart” on Dickens. He is obviously very passionate about this author. He also dwelled on the difference between caricature and portrayal of characters. He recapitulated the caricature of Pickwick (Dickens), Bertie Wooster (PG Wodehouse) and “The Picture of Dorian Gray” by George Elliott. He concluded with a recommendation - “Poetics” by Aristotle. Those who were absent missed a gem of a discourse!
Others who spoke on this topic were Kusum and Vasu, who spoke on the character Atticus Finch from “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee.
The second topic was “Redeeming Features in a Negative Character”. Shama spoke about Jeffrey Archer and described his misdemeanors and redeeming characters. Prateek spoke about the redeeming features of Darth Vader and Ravan. Mr. Rajagopalan spoke about the redeeming features of Karan (from the Mahabharat) and Ravan. Kusum spoke about reform, about “The Mayor of Casterbridge” and about “Crime and Punishment”. Brig. Inamdar spoke about the redeeming features of Hitler.
Other things that were discussed included Othello, and “Small is Beautiful” by Schumacher.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
January and February meets
Announcement of the next meeting (Thanks Renuka):
Date and Time: Sunday, February 08, 2009; 10:30 am
Venue: Empress Garden
Topics:
1. Word portraits of characters;
2. Redeeming features in negative characters.
Report on the previous meeting (Thanks Ila):
Two topics [as usual] were scheduled for this meeting. The first was Social Turmoil as depicted in Literature. Mr. Rajagopalan set the ball rolling with a few opening comments on the topic. He felt that the word ‘turmoil’ needn’t only be interpreted as a chaotic situation but can even be the mental stirring caused in society by the writings of Adi Shankaracharya, Ramanuja & Madhavacharya.
Kusum was the first speaker; she pointed out how social turmoil is the backdrop of all literature, naming a few examples out of the sea that is available to us.
Shama pointed out that there were 2 approaches to literature; art for art’s sake & art for a social purpose. With many examples she showed us how powerful words have acted as a catalyst for social change.
Many speakers related the topic to books they were currently reading.
Kaushik gave an erudite talk in which he pointed out that much good literature, whether in English or any of the Indian languages, brings out the helplessness of the downtrodden & it is the power of brilliant literature to have brought about some change.
The second topic was Patriotism & Literature. Again Mr. Rajagopalan made some opening comments on his interpretation of patriotism. The preoccupation of most of the speakers dealing with the topic appeared to be the interpretation of this word.
Vaarun felt that each of us has several identities – religious, social, regional, linguistic etc. Any of these identities can create problems somewhere down the line so he would not like us to judge people on the basis of these affiliations but to accept people in the spirit of universal brotherhood denoted by the phrase ‘vasudev kutumbakam’.
Zulekha’s interpretation was that patriotism means different things to different people: so if you bring to a successful end whatever you have in your mind you are ‘patriotic’. Whether that end is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depends on your point of view.
Brig Inamdar felt that a patriot is one who gives everything to his nation. He read out an article written by M. J. Akbar immediately after the Mumbai blasts as a good piece written by a thoroughly patriotic person.
Renuka felt that the world is one body: any action in one part affects the rest. She wondered whether that makes patriotism irrelevant in today’s scenario. But she eventually concluded that our country has an indefinable something that forces the respect of the world.
Vinita had a unique definition of the word ‘patriotism’. She thought of the subject as not being confined to any geographical barriers. So patriotism is living in such a way that the earth we inhabit stays intact by adhering to the best principles of careful use of all our resources.
Date and Time: Sunday, February 08, 2009; 10:30 am
Venue: Empress Garden
Topics:
1. Word portraits of characters;
2. Redeeming features in negative characters.
Report on the previous meeting (Thanks Ila):
Two topics [as usual] were scheduled for this meeting. The first was Social Turmoil as depicted in Literature. Mr. Rajagopalan set the ball rolling with a few opening comments on the topic. He felt that the word ‘turmoil’ needn’t only be interpreted as a chaotic situation but can even be the mental stirring caused in society by the writings of Adi Shankaracharya, Ramanuja & Madhavacharya.
Kusum was the first speaker; she pointed out how social turmoil is the backdrop of all literature, naming a few examples out of the sea that is available to us.
Shama pointed out that there were 2 approaches to literature; art for art’s sake & art for a social purpose. With many examples she showed us how powerful words have acted as a catalyst for social change.
Many speakers related the topic to books they were currently reading.
Kaushik gave an erudite talk in which he pointed out that much good literature, whether in English or any of the Indian languages, brings out the helplessness of the downtrodden & it is the power of brilliant literature to have brought about some change.
The second topic was Patriotism & Literature. Again Mr. Rajagopalan made some opening comments on his interpretation of patriotism. The preoccupation of most of the speakers dealing with the topic appeared to be the interpretation of this word.
Vaarun felt that each of us has several identities – religious, social, regional, linguistic etc. Any of these identities can create problems somewhere down the line so he would not like us to judge people on the basis of these affiliations but to accept people in the spirit of universal brotherhood denoted by the phrase ‘vasudev kutumbakam’.
Zulekha’s interpretation was that patriotism means different things to different people: so if you bring to a successful end whatever you have in your mind you are ‘patriotic’. Whether that end is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depends on your point of view.
Brig Inamdar felt that a patriot is one who gives everything to his nation. He read out an article written by M. J. Akbar immediately after the Mumbai blasts as a good piece written by a thoroughly patriotic person.
Renuka felt that the world is one body: any action in one part affects the rest. She wondered whether that makes patriotism irrelevant in today’s scenario. But she eventually concluded that our country has an indefinable something that forces the respect of the world.
Vinita had a unique definition of the word ‘patriotism’. She thought of the subject as not being confined to any geographical barriers. So patriotism is living in such a way that the earth we inhabit stays intact by adhering to the best principles of careful use of all our resources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)