 T.S. Iliot worked for three hours per day. That's surprising. Hi friends, I am Arvita Karwa and in this video lecture, we are going to talk about a lot more serious topic. But then before that, I would like to share a fun fact with you. I was reading a paper on T.S. Iliot and I found that he wrote his plays and poems partially on typewriter and partially with pen and paper. And he said in one of the interview that he never worked more than three hours per day. Because he said that when I started writing, I had an urge to write longer and longer. But when I looked at the same work next day, I never found anything satisfactory, which I wrote beyond three hours. So he decided that day that he's just going to write for three hours per day. Now, I just wonder that can we do that like working for three hours and having fun the other day? I don't know. But then if T.S. Iliot did that, I am sure that it is going to work. Because even after working just three hours per day, he wrote some of the most celebrated poems of literature, including Wasteland, Ash Wednesday, Love Song of J.L. and Hallouman. He wrote some of the greatest plays, Murder in the Cathedral and, you know, so many other interesting works was written by him. But in this video lecture, I am going to look at the essays written by T.S. Iliot. Because today in this video, we are going to look at T.S. Iliot as a critic. The first topic that we are going to talk about is T.S. Iliot's concept of objective correlative. Objective correlative was a concept which T.S. Iliot discussed in his essay called Hamlet and His Problems. And this was a question of June 2011. So you must remember that T.S. Iliot has coined the term objective correlative in the essay Hamlet and His Problems. But don't mix it up. The term objective correlative was initially for the first time used by an American painter whose name was Washington Alson. But this term was made famous by T.S. Iliot when he wrote a lot about this particular term, explained it to the people in the essay Hamlet and His Problems. So what is the objective correlative? In order to understand that better, I would like you to answer this question of mine that why horror movies always feature thunderstorm or why horror movies always have episodes shot in night. So they have a lot of episodes in the night. Most of the horror movies take place during night. Why is that so? Have you ever contemplated on this particular question? If not, then do it now because only after understanding this question, you'll be able to understand the concept of objective correlative. Objective correlative is a very easy concept. T.S. Iliot wants us to believe that if a playwright or a novelist want to create an impact on the audience, if that particular playwright wants the audience to feel a particular emotion, it will only happen in a combination of object, description, images. If I just want to show a fool and create the image of love in the reader's mind, it's not possible. Only when I mix four or five things together together, I can evoke the emotion of love in the heart of the reader. For example, if you look at the poems of Wordsworth or you look at poems of Robert Frost, you'll see that all the items in the nature are linked together to create that particular emotion, to evoke that emotion in the reader. Kabi bhi aisa rahi hoga ki ek bahut hi sunder jage ki baat ho rahi hai, ek bahut happy mood ki baat ho rahi hai, and achanak se the poet talks about thorns or the poem talks about blackness. Never will that happen. Why? Because all the good things must be linked together in order to evoke that particular emotion in the mind of the reader. For example, agar I am talking about a sunny day. I would talk about flowers blooming. I will talk about the sun rising. I will talk about the nature which is supporting my mood. But I will never look at the negative aspects of nature. I will never look at the dark side of the nature. Why? Because if I start looking at the dark side of the nature, then the objective correlative will never happen in the poem. Objective correlative tabhi hoga when all the images, all the pictures, all the description put together, evokes a same image in the mind of the reader. And that is why if you look at horror movies, you will see that all the negative dark images are presented together. And that is where we start feeling fearful. That is where we start having goosebumps. Because sari cheeze milke humare andar wo reaction kreate karegi. Sif ek cheeze akele kabi wo reaction kreate nahi kar sakti. That is what T.S. Ilyat meant by the use of the term objective correlative. The second important work written by T.S. Ilyat when it comes to literary criticism is metaphysical poetry. It's an essay which was written as a review to J.G. Greenstone's essay, which talked about metaphysical lyrics and poetry of 17th century. And T.S. Ilyat talks about the definition given by Samuel Johnson. Samuel Johnson has classified all these metaphysical poets together in the lives of Abraham Kaulay. He wrote a biography of Abraham Kaulay, who is a very famous metaphysical poet. And in that biography, he clubbed all these metaphysical poets together for the first time and said that these metaphysical poets are not very good. Why? Because these poets are trying to combine or, you know, mix and match heterogeneous ideas by the use of violence. For example, if you look at the works of John Dunn, he's comparing lovers to pair of compass. Now, comparing lovers to pair of compass doesn't seems to be a very apt comparison. So they are joining to heterogeneous, dissimilar ideas together by the use of violence. And Samuel Johnson did not like it at all. When T.S. Ilyat was looking at the work written by Samuel Johnson, he questioned himself that metaphysical poetry aren't good, is that so? And then somewhere when he looked at the works of John Dunn and other metaphysical poets, he came up with the idea that no, metaphysical poets are fabulous because they were able to combine dissimilar ideas together. Nobody during the Victorian or romantic period was able to club these two dissimilar images together. Only metaphysical people were able to do that. And that is why he celebrates metaphysical poetry in his essay, Metaphysical Poetry. You should remember this thing that Samuel Johnson passed a derogatory remark on the metaphysical poets. He was not happy with the works of metaphysical poets. But T.S. Ilyat loved the works of metaphysical poets. And he said that these poets are justified. He has quoted several examples from Herbert, from John Dunn, from Abraham Cowley, stating that look at the way they have clubbed two dissimilar ideas so beautifully, which can never be done by the Romantics and Victorian writers who preceded them. The next key idea by T.S. Ilyat is the concept of unification of sensibility and disassociation of sensibility. Now, these two terms seems really, really tough to understand. It's quite difficult to understand what he's trying to say. But I'm telling you, guys, it's very simple. Don't let the technical jargon create fear in you. It's very simple. Basically, T.S. Ilyat, as we have seen in the works of metaphysical poetry, that he praised the metaphysical poets and their views that two dissimilar things can be put together and can be fused in one and another. If you look at the works of Elizabethan writers and Jacobian writers, you'll see that T.S. Ilyat also believes in the notion that all the Elizabethan and Jacobian writers were able to synthesize dissimilar things together and were able to fuse them, mix them into unified one. And this is called unification of sensibility. When you are able to take two dissimilar images and you are able to fuse them together. So according to T.S. Ilyat, writers from the Elizabethan and Jacobian age were able to fuse different things together and were able to produce works which were classic, which were extremely wonderful. But during the restoration, during enlightenment, during romantics and Victorian period, this unification of sensibility was not present. He says that Milton, Milton and Dryden, these writers were masters of the language, but they were not the masters of the soul. The language was very good for Milton and Dryden, but they were not able to fuse things together. They were not able to master their soul. A good poet is one who writes from the soul and these writers were masters of language, but they were not masters of soul. And this was also a question in June 2011 at exam that which are the two writers for whom T.S. Ilyat has said that they are the masters of language, but not the masters of the soul. So we find that T.S. Ilyat is saying that during the enlightenment, during the Elizabethan and Jacobian period, writers were able to have unification of sensibility. But for the next 200 to 50 years, we can see that the writers suffered from disassociation of sensibility. They were not able to fuse things together. Tennyson Browning, he has commented on these writers saying that they were not good, they were not able to fuse different things together, they were not able to talk about totally unrelated ideas in their in the same poem. But then he again comes to the modern age and he says that now in the modern age, we can again see unification of sensibility in the works of modern writers because the time is such. It is a changing period plus people are going through so much trauma. There's a lot of depression, world war is happening and all these dissimilar fragmented things are there in the world. And now all these writers, budding writers, they are able to talk about these disjointed things, these disassociated things together, they are able to unify them. And that is how they are carrying forward the legacy of Elizabethans and Jacobians. So this is the concept of unification of sensibility and disassociation of sensibility. There's a beautiful statement that T.S. Eliot has used for John Dunn and he says that for John Dunn, every thought was like an experience. This is a quotation by T.S. Eliot and he's talking about the great metaphysical poet, Mr. John Dunn. There are a lot of other concepts that T.S. Eliot talks about. We have lemon squeezer method. Then he talks about the theory of impersonality in his most celebrated essay, tradition and individual talent. We'll be talking about all these works in detail in my audio online course. You can go to my website, arpitaakarwa.com and under the section of online course content, you can get a list of all the important literary critics and writers that you must study if you want to clear UGC net in your first attempt. So you can go and check the list of the writers. If you like the list, you can join my online course. You'll find the details of my online course on my website. You can even contact on the number displayed above. You can also follow me on all the social media platform. I'm running a go net quiz, which will help you to boost your exam preparation. You can also subscribe to this YouTube channel because I post videos every Saturday and every Sunday exclusively for UGC net aspirants and I help them in preparing for the next UGC net exam. I'm also running a new paper one series in which I'm talking about all the sections that must be covered when you are preparing for UGC net paper one. So if you want to get notified about all the video lectures, which will be coming up next week, do subscribe to this channel and also click the bell button, which is displayed just near the subscribe button. With that note, I end my video. That's it for this video lecture. We'll meet soon till the time we meet next. Happy learning, keep loving literature and stay tuned to ArpitaKarwa.com.