 This lecture is titled Student Responses Part 2. If you recollect, in Part 1, we had examined MIME and PLOT. Let me read out the lecture outline for you. Series of activities have been undertaken by the students and their reports as per the sequence in which the ideas were developed is presented before you. So as to generate better understanding of literary forms and the writing process, remember we are constantly trying to maintain a balance between reading and understanding of possibilities in terms of various literary forms, whether you want to be a short story writer or novelist or playwright or you want to write about nature, you want to write about science, technology. We really are thinking of you in a broader framework, but at the same time we wish to constantly bring back the focus on the writing process. In this lecture, we will look at character, you know the notion of character in general and we will also share student responses to the interpretation of Trophimov's character. In terms of the notion of character, a lot has been said about many, many writers who in particular have created writing manuals. The discussion and dispute between the notion of plot and character has already been presented before you, but I want to add one more idea for your consideration. Remember Pamuk had mentioned that E. M. Foster and his aspects of the novel really needs to be examined all over again for very, very fertile set of ideas that he had presented in that book and I am actually extrapolating just a little bit from the chapter titled People in which he says since the actors in a story are usually human and so he is talking about the fact that whether it is a short story or a novel, the focus is on character and since the actors in a story are usually human, it seemed convenient to entitle this aspect people. Other animals have been introduced but with limited success for we know for we know too little so far about their psychology. There may be probably will be an alteration here in the future comparable to the alteration in the novelist's renderings of savages in the past. The gulf that separates man Friday from Batuala may be parallel by the gulf that will separate Kipling's wolves from their literary descendants 200 years hence and we shall have animals who are neither symbolic nor little men disguised nor as four legged tables moving nor as painted scraps of paper that fly and this is the idea that I like you to reflect on he says it is one of the ways where science may enlarge the novel by giving it fresh subject matter but the help has not been given yet and until it comes we may say that the actors in a story are or pretend to be human beings. This is to suggest that when we talk about the notion of character we can also have this kind of enlarge awareness of looking at the world from various angles that helps us understand the totality of our experience or also the crucial issues that we wish to highlight much much better. So therefore now in terms of the notion of character I like you to consider writing not only from the vantage point of human consciousness but an imagined animal consciousness also as Foster said based on scientific understanding our and you know we may be able to understand the animal point of view much better. One way of starting off is to you know read checkers a chameleon from the view point of the white puppy. Here is the white puppy for you and you can also try and imagine and recreate the story from the perspective of the white puppy. In terms of character motivations agree in the earlier reference that we made to his fairly well known study had talked about the greater significance that he attributed to the notion of character as opposed to the notion of plot. The title of agrees book itself is very eloquent he says you know that his point of view is based on creative interpretation of human motives. So again character and human motives or motivations this is what the focus of this whole exercise is all about. And also the fact that agree considers character much more important is related to the historical changes that have occurred gradually where the complexity of understanding our own selves has become even more demanding. And therefore in terms of the plot structure which is event based or where ideas get crystallized through actions and events that really does not have the same charge that existed in Greek period or in the age of Shakespeare also. Agree quoted William Archer in this frame of reference and let me read that part of the quotation where he said that in order to create character it is really not possible to depend on any pre-given theoretical considerations. Thereby what agree and what William Archer also was emphasizing is our own experiential commitment our own strengths as people who watch our you know the world around and we develop an understanding of that world. We want to you know engage with the world in our own terms or on our own terms. So this is the idea that we place before the students also and they decided to discover character motivations of Trophimov. This is of course textually based exercise but we asked them to create a monologue from the writer, narrator's point of view. So instead of becoming imaginary checkers they were independent writers who were trying to explore Trophimov as a character and writer monologue. We were also aware of the resonances of Bildung's Roman in this exercise. Although we did not really stretch it too much nor did we give any pre-given framework but we were aware of these resonances. We were also aware that the you know character of Trophimov immediately would enable the students to dip into self and society conflicts in a fairly important way. So here are now the varied interpretations offered by the students based on their own understanding, their own sense of Trophimov as a character and their own sense of their desire to be writers of a certain kind. The first piece that we would present before you is actually again the performative piece we had shared earlier. This is Arvin Singh performing Trophimov and although you know this particular moment that we have chosen it is a kind of a peak moment in terms of Trophimov's self expression but at the same time it should be emphasized that the students' interpretation has taken into account every bit of Trophimov's interactions with other characters in the play. This is very very important because we really have not encouraged reductionist approach while reading the play or interpreting the characters. So it was very important to understand Chekhovian sense of those small even trivial moments that Chekhov was looking at in a very sharp critical manner. So apart from the speech all those interactions were also taken into consideration and I think this will be evident when you see some of the answers. But before you understand the answers I think it is important for me to place the test paper. Remember whatever we have discussed so far whenever it has been discussed in class we also have tried to deal with those ideas while testing the students. There is a very very close connection between teaching, learning and testing. So we have tried to be as close to the discussions as possible. So here is the test paper that was given to the students and the answers are also before you. John Gardner in his book titled The Art of Fiction notes on craft for young writers has emphasized the value of reading and criticism of original fiction, drama and plotting exercises to develop better writing skills. The following question combines these two processes. Based on the reading of Anton Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard write a monologue for Trophimov in which he indicates awareness of his contradictions. Remember we have talked about Chekhovian irony the gap between what the characters say what they do or the external view of the character and the internal view of the character. The other option was using fictional liberties or poetic license, rename the character and change the locale and other details to plot and write this monologue based on Trophimov's character. I had also given a few instructions. You are free to use the first person point of view or the third person point of view depending on the genre before or after writing the monologue briefly describe the following in a sentence or two each. The plot structure of your monologue so again remember the plot structure really also seeks to emphasize the highs or the lows of a character or of a narration. So the plot structure of your monologue the reasons for the choice of specific point of view stage directions if the monologue is for performance. If it is an interior monologue in a short story format how are the locale and other environmental details implied. So these were the set of questions that were given to the student for a two hour test and they took their own time to undertake this activity and I thought we would start with Kishore Nyer's interpretation and that was really fair way interesting very I would say now typical of Kishore it is very meticulous. So what he did is to finally come up with a write up which can be placed in the realm of speculative fiction where he you know sort of presented Trophimov as a political figure. His preparatory methodology I found that to be really fascinating because he noted down every aspect of Trophimov's interaction with other characters. He will explain that methodology himself I requested him to share it so that you can see how carefully he has worked on the plot and also how carefully it has led to an interpretation that takes into consideration various aspects of Trophimov's complex rounded character. So then he would after sharing his preparatory methodology Kishore will also then read his answer and you will notice that when the students read their answers they bring in the kind of zest and the dramatic qualities that they experienced while creating that monologue. So here is Kishore. So before I begin with the analysis and the reading I will just give a small intro on how I answer the question. I have been doing a lot of research work for the past two years and what I observed is before you start working you should really spend time to think thinking and analyzing how you are going to go about doing your work. So that is what I did in the paper. In the two hour examination I had devoted almost one hour, one hour fifteen minutes to understanding how I am going to write the whole process understanding each idea and before actually writing the piece. So here is my analysis here. In the question the question was about how Trophimov bring out a monologue where Trophimov is aware of his contradictions. Now firstly I analyzed what he said in the whole play. For example in Act 2 his key lines, his key speeches with Anya, the aim of life according to him, his perspective on the cherry orchard, the symbol of slavery about himself what he said in Act 3, Act 4. Then I went on to highlight his main attributes, what the important contradictions are regarding love, regarding freedom, money and regarding himself as a thinker, how people should work, etc. His main attributes, optimism, morality, equality among men, his confusion about love, logic, poverty and then finally I went about actually constructing the monologue, deciding how I should portray it. So I wanted three, four essential key ideas to come about, that is love, the fact that he is thinking free men and women. So I structured it in the form of a speech and this is the work that I devoted to that section and so finally I start with the actual monologue. I have created a small modification so here is the modified version so I will start. So the actual reading, so the background of the monologue. The years have passed since the incidents of the cherry orchard. Trawfimov has gone on to become a prominent leader and thinker in Moscow, spreading his ideology and inspiring the people of Russia, the local, a town hall on the outskirts of Moscow, a large throng of people both workers and peasantry have assembled to listen to Trawfimov. The speech. Brothers and sisters of Russia, we became a free race in 1861 with the emancipation but are we truly free? We thought that it would bring us great happiness but has it? Look at how sorry a great country has become. The vast majority of Russia today is distracted, fighting amongst themselves for nothing. There are also those who call themselves intellectuals in Russia who treat the poor and the workers with disgust. They think for us, discuss and debate but do nothing at the end of it. The intellectuals and noblemen talk of fancy things, crushes and reading rooms. Have you seen any? You may ask of me, why sir, are you not an intellectual yourself? To you my reply is that yes, I am a thinker. Most of my youth was spent in learning and understanding, time spent in preparation for this moment to inspire you. I too work day and night, spending all the time I have, penning my thoughts and spreading it, working tirelessly to better my country and my countrymen. The emancipation has come and gone but our Russia is still divided but worry not my friends for our human race is progressing in leaps and bounds. All that we feel we cannot reach for shall soon be within our reach provided we work towards it. The emancipation has made us free and it is now time to let go of our pasts. We must redeem our past and look onward to the happiness that is coming. The time has come to rise above our petty quarrels and live happy and fulfilling lives and the only way to get there is through tireless labour. We must toil hard towards the great future that awaits us. Let us lose ourselves in our work and look onward to the highest truths of life. Let us cut ourselves loose from the shackles of love and money. Rise above it and become free men and women. When I say rise above love, what I mean is not to let love distract you. My wife Anya and I are above love. We work towards making Russia a greater and better place. Our purpose towards Russia makes what we have for each other above love. Brothers and sisters, let not love reduce you to petty thoughts. Rise above it to together serve our great and beloved country. Become free men and women. Let not money and love affect you. Will you not be free men and women if you do not let these petty things influence you? I was once a very very poor man but in my mind I was a free man living a free life unaffected by anything. You may ask did not poverty influence you? To that I answer yes it did. Sometimes I went hungry, felt cold in the winter and was tossed around by fate. However I did not let poverty affect my mind and my thoughts. I was poor, free and happy. I lived life with the optimism of a free man and happiness came to me. Men and women of Russia be unaffected by the distraction in our lives. The time has come to toil hard for a better Russia and live happy and fulfilling lives. Let us embrace our great future. Let us now shift to Abhishek's interpretation. Abhishek emphasized Trophimov's recognition of the complexity of the notion of love and life. This is what gripped Abhishek's attention and in that sense this gives another understanding or another view or vision of Trophimov's character. What I have found very interesting apart from the write up is the manner in which Abhishek presented this write up. This is almost now an inimitable irrepressible style that I have begun to associate with Abhishek. So here is Abhishek's view of Trophimov. This is my interpretation of Trophimov as we were asked to do as an exercise. I have titled it The Thinker's Term Oil. The stage is set for a grand monologue as in the previous act we have seen Rana Vizkaya admonish Trophimov for his empty, loveless lifestyle and this represents Trophimov's attempt to transcend that anguish in some way and we see him conflicting some antagonistic internal forces that come about because of his self-view conflicting with everyone else's view of him. Trophimov enters from the left of the stage. The room is empty except for a table with a glass of water on it and a chair. The room that we see here is Rana Vizkaya's bath house where Trophimov had taken up residence. Trophimov enters looking confused, depressed, emotionally stirred. Oh, I have never quite felt so tired. Why am I so tired? Emotion and weakness are frailties of a common man. I am a philosopher, a great thinker, perhaps the most rational mind this part of Russia has ever seen. How can I feel so tired? Alas, it is not physical. Some great emotional burden weighs me down. Like the weight of the world has been placed on my shoulders. How could she say that? Surely she must have been perturbed, emotionally weak, worried about her silly orchard just like all the others, confined eternally to that simplistic, unimaginative view of our world. Emotions got the better of her. Yes, it was emotion. She didn't mean it. She couldn't. She was weak. He stops, drinks some water, sits on the chair and breathes heavily. But that which she said cannot be taken lightly, cannot be forgotten. She said I had never loved. She said I had never suffered. She said that I was blind to the real world and needed to open my eyes to see the truth. I already know the truth. I know what love brings. It brings hurt, pain, emotional distress. When I am above petty emotions, I have not suffered because I choose not to suffer. I choose to conquer that weakness, that vulnerability. I choose to live life in a way that gives me all I desire, to know truths, higher truths. He gets up and begins to walk around. To understand science and art and politics and social affairs, to understand implications and methodologies of various acts and mark our history, to seek the truth, the purpose of our being, the eternal question plaguing all our minds, that of our existence. Shadowed I shall not be in this dark mystifying web of emotion. I shall not be swayed. He raises his fist, shakes it fiercely as he says the last line, then withdraws his hand slowly. But why would she say that? He drinks more water, sinks back into his chair. She said I had never loved. I had never suffered. I have loved though. I have suffered. I have experienced all that is to experience and it brought me no joy, no peace. Have I really loved though? What is love? Surely a great philosopher such as myself should be able to explain such a childlike interjection in all its profoundity. What is love? Love is an emotion and I am above emotion. Emotion is for the weak. But by denying the existence of love, am I not blinding myself to knowledge, blocking out truth in a way? A truth which so plainly and abundantly exists and pervades every fiber of our being? Truth is the supreme power, the utmost being. Attaining the truth should be man's primary objective, attaining it and understanding it completely. But can I say that I have completely understood love or suffering? Am I not just fooling myself in a way? Am I not just wearing a mask of intellectualism when in actuality I am a novice, a child, a being of no emotional truth? Drinks the last of the water, suddenly gets up, throws the glass. It breaks. He kicks the chair in frustration. But emotion is a weakness and I am not weak. Sings into a heap, begins to weep, holds his head in his hands and shakes it from side to side. I am nothing, a nobody, a child. Rana Viskaya was right. She was. Love is not a burden, it is truth. Truth which I fail to acknowledge. Truth which I have ignored, unscrupulously ignored. My life is a giant, ignominious futility. My search for knowledge has been a farce. I am finished. The light slowly starts to go out until the spotlight is on Trofimov. He is still on the ground, weeping like a child. Let's shift to Himanshu saying who actually took the second option of using creative liberties in order to create his take on a Trofimov-like character. So he presented a motif of a journey and while I was talking to Himanshu about his interpretation and I do have to tell you that some of these presentations that are before you that have involved a lot of work after the write-up also. Once I examined the write-up of the students, I gave critical remarks and then we discussed those critical remarks on one-on-one basis and sometimes some interesting ideas developed out of that. So while talking to Himanshu, I realized that his thought process itself was really very, very interesting while he was writing this particular response or creating this particular monologue. So I requested him to share his thought process while working out this response and now here is his response and the reading of his answer. When we were given the opportunity to use creative license while writing Trofimov monologue, my first immediate thought was how could it be adapted in an Indian setting? Having recently read The Hungry Tide by Amitav Ghosh and also being deeply influenced by it, I was intrigued, could it be used in a setting that was based in Bengal? In seeing in a few Satyajit Ray movies, I found a certain similarities between Madame Ranova's Kaya's character and that of a matriarch in a traditional Bengali-Zamindar family. Hence, I decided to go for a Bengali backdrop. The name Rukhmavati Devi, incidentally, is inspired from the title of the Govind Nehalani movie Rukhmavati ki Haveli which is itself an adaptation of the play The House of Bernarda Alba by a famous Spanish playwright. So here is the reading of my Trofimov's monologue which I have titled Above Love. The scene is, it is around midnight on a cold winter day at the Varanasi railway station sometime in the mid-1970s. It was just being announced that the Haava Express to Delhi, already running late, had been further delayed and won't arrive till half-past four. On the deserted platform, Vikram is sitting on a bench with the suitcase between his legs. As soon as he hears the announcement, he taps his suitcase and then starts speaking as if talking to him. Well, dear friend, looks like a predicament has just been lendened. Ask you and me then and ask before any other human contact. These are times like these that I wonder what the explorer must feel like, treading in charter territory in the search of a new world. He leaves behind everything he knows, everything he loves, and heads toward what almost certainly would be his watery grave. Has he evolved to a higher state of being? Is he free from Maya, the illusions of the world that hold his back? Is he beyond compassion, beyond emotion, beyond love? Just yesterday I took leave from Purnima and Rukmavati Devi. After helping them settle down at their new home in Calcutta. I used to consider myself above love. When the time came for taking leave, saying goodbye to Purnima, I just couldn't. Knowing that I was not going to meet her for a very long time, a sudden feeling of sorrow overcame me. Girl like her, probably when I met her the next time, she would be with another man, a man deserving of her, far more than I could ever be. I may have read Tagore, studied the ideologies of Marx, but I fell in love just like any other common human being. Did I know this now that I am able to be truthful of myself? Yes. I have known all along. I remember what Mausheed had said to me back at the party at her Haveli, that I was a delusional freak, a man who hides his shortcomings by burrowing in his cocoon of lies. Do I not realize that life was never ideal and never would be? That you can't simply disconnect, leave behind and erase everything that you have experienced over the years. I am appalled now that I have suggested to Mausheed that her attachment to the Haveli and her orchard was foolish, anguish that I faced just at the thought of leaving Puru. I left her without as much as leaving a note to her. And I am judging her, there's so much she's loved and lost in that place, changes hard for everyone, I've just been too stubborn to accept it. Am I being too hard on myself? Probably not. But to her is human, isn't it? And to forgive is divine indeed. Mausheed is the bigger person here. Even though she was the jilt lover in this case, she's still willing to help Subhash Babu in his troubled times after all that he has done. This is something that should have commanded respect and admiration, not ridiculed which I gave. As far as I am concerned, my aim is still to help mankind achieve the highest truths and the highest happiness. But perhaps a bit of empathy would do some good. In the same vein now, in terms of poetic license, creative liberties that were taken by many of the students, we shift to a response by Kavish. In this response, what struck me really is the way in which Kavish tried to understand the struggle of Trofimov in a very different way. So this is a Trofimov inspired character who struggles to maintain his pristine sense of self, resulting in awkward connections with the world. I won't say more about this because I think once you hear Kavish, you will understand that this is again a very different kind of take on Trofimov. Krishna Kabira, a young man of age 22 years, is living in Mumbai with his parents. In Mumbai, where feverishness is in the air, Krishna Kabira in his isolated world has lots of dreams and promises safely kept. He whenever gets time nurtures them as ideas in his valued treasure. In an isolated dark space, in absence of someone else's sight on him, and in absence of any kind of judgment, he listens to his inner voice calmly. In his home made studio where entry to his parents is also not allowed, takes place his divine soulful work. With utmost care and love, he keeps his work in his studio. He hates the word work as people associate boredom, mechanistic life, routine and a dull life to it subconsciously. He is extremely sensitive to his work and knows that judgment of his work is futile. As the critics would never feel his dreams, thoughts or feeling which he has tried to put in his creation which is incomplete though. His parents complained to him about his aloofness to this word and urged him to start earning by getting a job. At one point of time they even threatened him to live alone, only to be faced by an aggressive discourse on life by him and the failures of the parents by him. He is so confident about his dreams and ideas that he has no doubt on the fact that when these ideas would dawn upon the usual population they would change their lives and his dreams would be fulfilled. He would obviously get everything, money, fame, love, which he claims that he doesn't want. He loves the time when he spends it creating some artwork. He though is in no hurry to release his work or put them up for sale as he feels that there is something missing or incomplete in his work. His creative space gets disturbed because of the pressure put on him as he goes to the studio and tries to listen to his inner voice fighting with it at the same time to help him finish his work sooner. In this struggle he is not able to create anything but make himself suffer more. As he gets tired with the struggling in the studio his inner voice speaks to him and what he creates reflects the feelings of the struggle and the futility of this word. Not the ones which he required to complete his artwork. Finally we will shift to Alap Parik's presentation and as I was reading his answer I felt as if this interior monologue that Alap has created it almost shows this process of Trophimov in which he was building his identity. He was building his sense of the self and at the same time he was standing out and viewing that sense of the self. I hope you get the same feeling when you hear Alap. The following is my response to the question on Trophimov. Trophimov enters pacing about his room shuffling a few things around apparently searching for something. The room predominantly has wooden furniture and is fairly neat. Trophimov. Just as every other morning even today it isn't where I kept it. Every night I make sure my books are in place if not anything else and yet some dull art shifts around things on my table with the supposed purpose of cleaning up as if it weren't enough that I can't find my clothes, razor and comb on a frighteningly regular basis and today it seems as if my book of accounts has gone missing or what will happen to the little money I was to receive and yet there's nothing I can do about it presently. He sits down in a huff and holds his head in his hands. I should be calmer. If life's purpose were to make every moment count as something valuable it is a sin to waste thousands of them with anger and frustration. A bird chirps distinctly. How beautiful the day really is and I have spent near on five minutes babbling about a book I will find by the time it's noon. Yes ours may actually be a minuscule part of this enormous and mind-boggling creation we call the universe but as every laborer and an orchard needs to put in his utmost for the full benefit of the orchard to be reaped so too should we take up the struggle to find some meaningful purpose in our lives. Yet what is it that I see around me blind greed for money, status and other unnecessary trifles. He starts pacing the room again talking loudly and worse still indifference, laziness. I see people around me. I see the new generation lapping up the same garbage that the stupidly blind elders did from theirs and so forth. Who will he anke on the reins to stop this aimless gallop of civilization? For I see this path leading over a cliff and we may already be too fast to stop ourselves. He finds himself in front of his mirror and halts. Yet here I stand thinking all this allowed, judging the world, when many could point a finger at me. Yes, I talk about learning and knowledge as a higher purpose and I am still a student. I talk about laziness and I am still called to hard workers in their own right such as Lopakheen. I talk about being above love and yet I look at Ania and wonder what I am feeling. Why this very morning I was upset about my account book when money was supposed to be a petty and trivial matter but how does one truly follow that path? I believe and yet I do not know. I am confused by this incessant torrent of emotion both pleasant and unwelcome that washes over me every day. I struggle to be ideal but is there such a thing? And how will I ever know when I am on the right path for certain? Oh, this morning is cursed. He slowly exits the stage. So I hope you enjoyed these student presentations. We have not undertaken very close analysis of their answers because the students are at a stage where they are exploring their creative potential, their voice. For the first time in a systematic manner even if they have written earlier I think this is their first systematic attempt to try and engage with the writing process and many of the issues that are thrown up while writing. I would at the same time like to conclude by saying that in literary readings or while writing also one has to be aware of the multiple angles that automatically generate. Sometimes the writer does not intend those multiple levels but while reading it we reading a particular piece we ascribe certain meaning. A lot of complex issues develop in reading and writing and I think this notion of multiplicity of interpretations I think that is at the heart of the democratic sentiment of writing processes. While we were looking at these multiple angles of viewing Trophimov one idea that stands out very strongly for me as a reader is Trophimov's indictment of the intelligentsia. Indeed many many many critics have also commented on this close connection between maybe Chekhov's own world view and many of the articulations that Trophimov presents in the play. I do want to point out that Trophimov remains a fully developed character and independent creative character and therefore it is really not possible to see him as Chekhov's mouth mouthpiece in a very very rigid sense. Trophimov himself is a member of the intelligentsia like you and me. He is an object of Chekhov's irony and therefore I would like to end this concluding part of the lecture by quoting from Trophimov these are lines that haunt me. Trophimov says they call themselves the intelligentsia but they speak rudely to the servants. They treat the peasants like animals, learn nothing, read nothing serious, do absolutely nothing, only talk about science and know little or nothing about art. They are all serious and all wear solemn faces. They discuss important subjects and air their theories but meanwhile workers eat abominably and sleep in filth and stuffiness without pillows.