Wetalkedaboutnarrativestructureinclass,andostensibly,thenarrativestructureofallfourcomic
stripsislinear--thelocationofthefirstpanelisdifferentfromthelocationofthelastpanel,
andhenceitseemstoshowalinearmovement.Andyet,byimplication,allofthemmayalsoseento
becircularsincetheyimplicitlybeginwiththehere/now(Nemofallingasleep;Calvininaclassroom/
Calvininaplayground)andthathere/nowisclearlyshowninthelastpanel.Whatarethe
implications(intermsofideas)ofthisdualstructure(explicitandimplicit)ofthecomicstripsinterms
oftheir'visionofthefuture'?
Thelinearnarrativesinthecomicstripsgoontoshowusthelinearmovement.Herethatlinear
movementfunctionstosignifythetravelthathappenedinspatialterms(Nemotravelingto
slumberlandandthencomingbackfromitandCalvinvisitinghisimaginaryworldandcomingback
toreality).So,inthesecaseswehavecentralcharacterswhoaretravelerswanderingthrough
strangeplaces.Whilethelinearnarrativesproceed,bothofourcharactersacquirenewknowledge
astheywanderthroughstrangerealmswhichtheyhadneverseenorheardof.Nemogoesonto
learnaboutslumberlandandCalvingainsanotherviewwaytolookatthingsonafaroffplanet.So
thisacquisitionofnewknowledgeisaprogressthatwecanfollowthroughthelinearnarrative,
panelbypanel.BeitNemolearningaboutthebigbirdandthefactthatslumberlandisaplacewhich
isfilledwithcreatureswhichtranspireinspirefearandheshouldgetbackhome(inthetwonemo
strips)orbeitCalvingettingtheideathattherocksandgrasseswhichappearprettyrandomare
actuallyveryorganizedplaces,wecannoticethisgainofknowledgewhichthecharactershad
throughtheir
 
experiences.Thisprocesscontinuespanelbypaneluntiltheyarebacktotheplace
wheretheybeginandwegettheideaofthecircularnarrative.
Thecircularnarrativesofthetexts,whichshowsthecharactersbackattheveryplacestheywereat
thebeginning,goontotellushowtheknowledgegainedbyNemoandCalvinhaschangedtheir
experienceofthehere/now.Thecircularnarrativesclearlyestablishthefactthatourprotagonists
arebackfromtheirslumberorvoyage.Yet,wecanseethatNemowishestogobacktothe
slumberlandinthefirstcomicstripwhilehedreadsslumberlandinthesecondone(becausehe
comparestherealworldandslumberlandandchoosestheoneortheotheronthebasisofhis
experiences).ThissuggeststhatNemo(whenisconscious)judgeshissurroundingsonthebasisof
theknowledgehegainedthroughthetravel(asdenotedbylinearnarrative).Evenwhenthe
knowledgegainedisfromanentirelydifferentworld,heputsthatknowledgetocreatean
understandingoftherealworld.So,thatgainedknowledgeisdetermininghisexperienceseven
whenheisbackfromtheslumberlanddeterminingNemo’sdecisionwhetherheshouldorshould
notreturntoSlumberland.InthecaseofCalvinweseethataftercomingbackfromthedistant
planetheisseeingthethingsinaperspectivewhichhegainedatthatplanet.Thisshowsthateven
whenourcharactershavefinallyreturnedtohereandnow(andtheworlddoesremainsame,only
 
states.
Finally,whenweputthedualnarrativesofthetextsinperspectivewecanseethatthewriters’
visionofthesetextsishingedupontheideathattravelisasourceofknowledgeorwisdom.Travel
Commented [H1]: ButthevisualsDOnotshowtheoriginpoint
ofthetravelinatleastthreeofthecases.
Commented [H2]: Excellentpoint–goodrelationshipbetween
linearityandprogress.
Commented [H3]: Excellentpoint!Socircularisn’treallyback
tosquareone;itis,intermsofknowledge,aspiralcombining
samenesswithchange.
 
alsoaddstoexperiencewhichgetsembeddedontoone’sself.Andourcharactersindeedtravel
throughplacesbeforetheyarriveathere/now.Thesejourneys/experienceshavechangedtheway
theylookedatthereality.Theyhaveanewfeelabouttheircurrentstates.Theythinkthatworldhas
changednow,butitsactuallyourcharacterswhohavechanged.Consideringthatitcanbesaidthat
thewritersconveytheideathatthefutureisaplacewhichisneithergoodnorbad.Itsonlythe
experiencesandknowledgethatonebringstoitdeterminesthewayoneperceivesit.
Grade:A.Sanjeev,thisisverywelldone–itwastrulyapleasuretoread.Yourideaofhowthelinear
narrativeindicatesaprogressthatcomplicatestheseemingimplicitcircularitymayalsoberelatedto
theexperienceofthereader,whoseperspectiveofthingsalsochangesafterreadingthestrips,and
soitisusefulforthereadertoatleastvisuallynothavethesenseofhavingreturnedtosquareone
sothattheideaoflinearity/progressionisemphasised.
 
Commented [H4]: Isitthefuturethatis‘neutral’inthisway,or
thepresent,whichiswherewereturnaftergainingknowledgefrom
the‘future’?
 
The two comics present themselves as drawings of a child's imagination albeit one
in sleep w hi le the other w hi le awake. This choice is at t he core of the dif ferences in
their associated ideas w ith the child. At the vi sual l evel, both seem to i ndul ge in the
childhood fantasy of flying off to an adventure in a different world. Both pay great
attention to the visuals capturing the power of a creative child's imagination. But
the choices that McCay and Watterson make, present different pictures of the
nature of childhood. Nemo is dreaming in his sleep and has no (conscious) control
over hi s exper ience. Although the vi suals are str iki ng, the dialog wi th i ts short and
awkw ard sentences, like "He'll enjoy that r ide, sur e" and "Don't r un! Don't r un aw ay,
I won't hurt you, no. No!" or "You just can, and I hope you succeed." is sometimes
rudimentary. Even the narration is somewhat crude in its sentence structure. e.g.
"He felt the bed ascending ceilingward, and while it astonished him, it also
interested him considerably." Compare it to say, "He felt the bed ascending
ceil ingward. Alth ough Nemo w as astoni shed, he was in credibly curi ous.", wh ich i s
both shorter (95 vs. 104 characters), assuming space to be a concern and less
awkward in my opinion. 1 
 
 
child has limited verbal faculty. Next when we look at the actions in the panel we
again see Nemo shows little initiative or agency, be it flying off with the princess or
on a bed. The comics start off with other people deciding over something which
defines the rest of the comic. As a child, most of their decisions are made by other
people. I think McCay is trying to put that sense of lack of agency in the comic. In
the second comic, although Nemo is curious, fear of the unknown (which meant "no
harm") overcomes this curiosity and he ends up running away looking for the
protection of his mother saying "Oh| Mama! Come and get your little Nemo".
 
rest of the events in the earlier panels. McCay seems to be saying that a child's
mental imagination is completely irrational of which one has to wake up out of, to
go back to rational reality. Nemo's mother's irrational explanation, connecting
doughnuts to dreams further show how adults look down on children and their
thoughts as less intelligent.
On the other hand, Calvin is consciously day dreaming constantly describing his
alter-ego's actions in the third person. This commentary is fairly sophisticated. This
is evident in sentences like "In a surprise maneuver our hero turns to face the
adversary! His hands tighten around the death ray trigger" or "Out in the farthest
reaches of the galaxy speeds that splendid specimen of spirit and spunk, the
1 I am not sure if this is because it was wr itten in 1905 when comic as an art form wasn'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?
1
spectacular spaceman Spiff." (Notice the alliteration). They exhibit the advanced
nature of Calvin's verbal faculties. In contrast to Nemo, Watterson has given all
agency to Calvin. Be it flying or facing enemies, Calvin himself does everything,
albeit most of it in his dreams. Unlike Nemo
 
 
he sees, when Calvin looks at the ants and lichens, he draws insights: "Spiff reflects
 
displaying both
intelligence and rational thought. Also by merging the last panel together with the
events in the r est of the comic, W atterson seems to be saying that the the creative
thought need not be disconnected from the  rational’real’ /ever yda y. Instead it
might help bring a new perspective, just like what Calvin does by seeing anthills as
skyscrapers. Also we see that what Calvin fears (or sees as enemies) are people in
the immediate reality who show up as characters in the dream. This is unlike Nemo
who fears the strangers in his Slumberland. Watterson seems to be saying that
dreams, created by a child, are a function of the real w orld and w hat a child fears
are the figures in real life who show up and distort his dreams. Assuming, the
unknown as something to be feared, in the case of Calvin the unknowns are the real
people who are not his creation rather than the dreams which are his own creation.
Here we see a similarity in some sense with Nemo who also fears his dreams
because he hasn't consciously cr eated itthem.
Grade: B-. You needed to end with an overall argument that summarises and ties
together your piecemeal analysis. Also, while your piecemeal analysis shows good
grasp of detail, it is often undermined by preconceived / loosely defined notions /
assumptions.
 
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]: Doesn’t 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.
2
 
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.
 
 
 perspective, which somewhat alienates the reader.
 
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
 
 
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.
 
 
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 that’s true with Nemo too!
Commented [H3]: Link? How are you defining innocence a nd what is its relationship with fantasy?
Commented [H4]: Meaning? Isn’t 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 tw o different levels of analysis.
Commented [H6]: A disappearing bed is hardly a place of ‘familiar solace’!
Commented [H7]: How are these two to b e distinguished? Isn’t
escape a mode of coping?
 
 
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,
 
 
hold on to the last pieces of his bed, whereas some have him peering all around to see the sights
surrounding him.
 
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
 
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 g eneralization?
Commented [H9]: How is this idea of curiosity to be reconciled with timidity?
Commented [H10]: Why?
 
 .
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 child’s 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,
 
those mobilized voyages of discovery. Similarly in Calvin and Hobbes, Calvin
repurposes the places of everyday life and engages in a state of endless day-
dreaming. In Calvin’s 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 Lunatic’s repeated
assurances that he won’t harm Nemo. Similar in the Calvin and Hobbes strip, the
appearance of the monster reflects a child’s sense of fear. The two strips also paint
the imagery of a child’s innate curiosity. When Nemo finds his bed vanishing, he is
not afraid but curious. Similarly in Calvin and Hobbes, the sense of curiosity is
 
is reflected in the comic strip of Nemo is a child’s empathy. There is a sense of
empathy for the condor in Nemo when he says “He does not want to go” while the
 
Nemo is irritated by the Candid Kid on the condor and wants him to stop.
Commented [H1]: Awkwardwordchoice–whatdoyoumean
by‘mature’inthiscontext?Whynotjust‘adult’?
Commented [H2]: Wherearetheseagescomingfrom,andhow
aretheyrelevant?
Commented [H3]: Avoidsomanyjudgementalwords;focuson
analysisinsteadofevaluation.Also,where’stheevidenceforall
theseclaims?
Commented [H4]: Butthisisdoneinsignificantlydifferentways
 –thebedfallsapartasthedreamisentered,whereasthe
classroomiscompletelytransformedintoanotherspace.
Commented [H5]: Wheredoweseethisinthesestrips?
Commented [H6]: ButCalvindoesnotexhibitfear!
Commented [H7]: Good–thisisclearanalysisfromspecific
evidence.
 
 
search of a new planet. He is therefore a part of the larger scientific obsession for
 
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
 
 
 
up somehow.
In a way both Calvin and Little Nemo are similar as they both indulge in their
 
 
 
 
 
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
 
 
 
Commented [H10]: Isthatreallyhispurpose?
Commented [H11]: Whereisthiscomingfrom?
Commented [H12]: Proofforthisclaim?
Commented [H13]: Linkbetweenthesetwoideas?
Commented [H14]: ProofofthisforNemo?
Commented [H15]: Proofforthis?
Commented [H16]: Proof?
from?
Commented [H18]: Howisthatnotescapismfromaworld
wheretheyhavelittlecontrolaschildren?
 
Q.1)'Dream'and'Prophecy'havebeenproposedastwodistinctformatsfor
visionarywriting.WhichformatwouldyouputKing'sspeechinto?Why?Please
definethetwoformatsclearlyaspartofyouranswertothisquestion.
Ans.1)Toanswerthisquestion,Ishallfollowthefollowingformat:I’llbeginby
definingboththeformats.ThenafterclassifyingKing’sspeechintooneofthese
formats,Ishallfirstjustifywhyitbelongstothechosenformat,andthenwhyit
doesn’tfitinthedefinitionalframeworkoftheother.
Dream,asaformatforvisionarywriting,encompassestwoideas–one,an
involuntarysequenceofeventsoneseesinsleep,andinthatsenseaproductionof
thesubconscioushumanmind.Second,adesireoraspiration(andinthatsensea
voluntaryconstructofhumanmindwheretheideaisthoughtofordevelopedby
humanmind).Atthelevelofconstruction,thesourceofdreamsislargelyinternalto
humans(consciousorsubconsciousmind).Inthatsense,conscioushumanagencyat
thelevelofcontentismuchmorecentraltodreamwhenseenasan
aspiration/desireratherthandreamwhenseenasapartofsleep.
Prophecycanbeseenasinspiredutterance,usuallyamessagecommunicatedtoa
Prophetthroughvisions.Inthatsense,aprophecy,atthelevelofsource,isexternal
tothehumanmind.Itcanbeseenasadirectnarrationofsequencesseeninavision
orcommunicatedbyaforceexternaltohumans.Thehumanagencyhereisonly
involveduptothenarrationofevents,butatthelevelofcontentofthosevisionsa
forceotherthanhumanagencyisatwork.
AspertheabovestateddefinitionsandacloseanalysisofKing’sspeech,Ifeelit
subscribestothe‘dream’formatofvisionarywriting.Attheverybeginning,thetitle
‘Ihaveadream’employstheword‘have’whichgivesasenseofthedreamnotbeing
 justamomentaryvisioninthesleepbutawellthoughtoutaspirationordesire.The
 
work.Thisconstruction
ofthetitlelendscertainvoluntarinesstotheidea,movingustothinkthatthisdream
isaproductofthedreamer’sconsciousthoughtandideation.Atthelevelof
 
 
wouldgivethemmorevalidity.
Commented [SM2]: Gooddistinctionbetweencontentand
narration.
techniqueofanalysis.
Commented [SM4]: Relatingtothetextandrelatingtheideas
tothe‘real’worldareNOTthesamething.Relatingtothetextmay
alsobedoneattheemotional/spirituallevelwithnoreferenceto
the‘real’materialworld.
 
distanceisdoneintwoways–first,bymetaphorizingtheaimitselfwithsomething
asordinaryascashingacheck,theachievabilityofthegoalisenhanced.Second,by
insistingonurgency(repeateduseof‘Nowisthetime’)ofimplementation,King’s
dreamisportrayedassomethingthatisbelievableandmoreachievable.This
achievabilityreducesthedistancethatthereaderfeelsfromthetext.
 
Thishopeisrootedinthebeliefthatonedaythataspirationcanberealized.Itisthis
hopethatsuchtextsengagethereaderwith.Withthisassumption,evenatthelevel
ofreception,anaspirationorientedvisionarywritingisclosertothereaderthana
prophecy(theoppositeshallbeprovenforprophecyincomingparagraphs,right
nowIamtackingonlythedreamcounterpart).King’sspeechdoesthesame.First,it
startsbycritiquingthepresent,thehereandnow(‘hundredyearslaterthenegrois
 
 
understandwhythisaspirationistrulymeaningful,andthenbuildstheimageofa
worldwherethisconditioncanbechanged.Itengagestheaudiencewiththisfirm
beliefthatthetextresounds(emphasizedthroughurgency)anddrawsthemin.
Aprophecyfunctionsdifferently.Asmentionedearlier,theprophetortheauthoris
notthesourceoftheprophecy,hebecomesmerelyapathwaythroughwhichthe
messageiscommunicatedbyadivine(usually)force.Theutteranceisofteninspired
inawaythatisbeyondthecontrolofonewhoisnarratingthevisionasseen.Since
King’sdreamisveryvoluntary,self-constructedandhisown,itdoesnotfallunder
theprophecyformatofvisionarywriting.Thespeechisverycontrolledinwhatit
wishestoconvey,becauseofitbeingthoughtoutandmulledover.Inthatsensetoo,
itfallsoutoftheboundsofprophecyformat.Aprophecyalsoemploysmetaphors,
 justlikeadesire/aspirationbasedwriting,butthemetaphorshereplayadifferent
role.Themetaphorizationherebringsacertaindistanceatthelevelofreceptionby
bringinginsomeambiguityorvagueness.I’llusetheexampleoftheprophetic
 
falconer,ashapewithlionbodyetcwhichbecauseofbeingopentointerpretation
loseclarityandalsoaddsomedistancebybeingawayfromourdaily
lives/encounters.Thereisalsonoproperassertionoftimeintheprophecy–it
employsphrasesas‘movingslowthighs’,‘slouchestowardsBethlehem’,‘revelation
 
 
atadistance,keepinghimintriguedwithmanyinterpretationsandtimelines.There
isengagementheretoo,butthisengagementdoesn’treducethereaderlydistance,
 
relateto‘dream’asaformat?
Commented [SM6]: Alittleconfusing–whichismore
important/characteristicof‘dream’–theideaofhopeorits
achievability?
Commented [SM7]: Soa‘dream’thatisnotmade‘meaningful’
forthereaderisnotreallya‘dream’?
Commented [SM8]: Arethesepartofthevision/prophecy?
Commented [SM9]: Isthedistancetemporal(don’tquiteknow
whenthiswillhappen)orintermsofbelievability?
Commented [SM10]: Whatkindofdistance?Emotional?
Intellectual?Forwhatpurpose?
 
happeninKing’sspeech,thusagainputtingitoutofthecategorizationofthe
prophecyformat.
Grade:B+.ExcellentjobofdefiningthetwoformatsandanalysingKing’sspeechasa
dream.However,someofyourclaimsseemtodependmoreoncontentthanformat
(suchastheachievabilityidea).
 
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?
 
 he seems to be conveying his view of people to the reader regarding who the victims were, in the war.
 
 
'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 fi rst person style of writing affects the reader’s 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.
 
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.
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’)
 
 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 [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?
 
 
 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 reader’s mind to the fallibility of beliefs we consider as rational.
 
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. 
 
Commented [SM11]: Basis for this claim? After all, the narrator is omniscient and CHOOSES to tell us the story in a certain way – isn’t 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.
 
 
interpretation of the interpretation of the prophecy that Yeats himself presents. When
 
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,
 
 
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.
 
 
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’ or’empathise’?
Commented [SM2]: Interpretation IS thought!
Commented [SM3]: Good connection!
Commented [SM4]: Why? What about the narratorial  perspective pushes in this direction?
 
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,
 
 
 
 
 
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
 
 
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
 
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 person’s 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 slee
 
 p. 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.
 
 
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?
 
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.
 
 
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
 
Dream”.
 
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
 
 
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 King’s speech to one of
them on the basis of its title / main focus (aspiration). But you fail to give specific textual evidence for
 
Commented [H3]: Why? Without a reason, this is an arbitrary
claim that doesn’t stand up.
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.
 
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
 
 
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.
 
 
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
 
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
 
 
an ideology. The freedom to intermingle does not involve any physical material. It is an ideological change that King want to fight for.
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.
 
 
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 [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’.
Commented [SM7]: Your last sentence ignores the very important point you’ve 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
 
Grade: B-. This is a good attempt at conceptual analysis which suffers from some confusion at the
 
 
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 "
 
 
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
 
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
 
Formatted: Left
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!
1
 
Q.1)Severalofthetextswe'velookedatsofarinvoke'freedom'asanimportant
elementintheirvisionofthefuture.Howdoestheideaof'freedom'in'The
CommunistManifesto'comparewiththeideaof'freedom'inanyofthetextsstudied
earlierthissemester?PleasechooseONEtextforcomparison,andbeveryspecificin
youranalysisofwhatfreedommeans,bothconceptuallyaswellasintermsofactual
content.
 
startoutbydefiningfreedom,followedbyhow‘TheCommunistManifesto’andmy
chosentext–‘Ihaveadream’byMartinLutherKing,atthelevelofcontentusethe
ideaoffreedomundertheumbrellaofthisdefinitionoffreedom.Abstractingthe
content,Iwillmovetocomparewhatismeantbyfreedomattheconceptuallevelin
thesetwotexts.
Freedomliterallymeansthepowerorrighttoact,speakorthinkasonewants.It
alsostandsfortheconditionofnotbeingenslaved.Theseconddefinitionmay
includetheideastalkedaboutinthefirstdefinition.IntheCommunistManifesto,
MarxandEngelsclearlyidentifythecurrentconditionofproletariatsasenslavement
(Thetextquotesthisas-‘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
literallyhere,byexplicitlydescribingtheprocessofthisenslavementthroughthe
growthofmodernindustry,theorganizationoflabourersintosoldiersofanarmy
whoseworkisdevoidofanyindividualcharacter,andfinallytheconversionofthe
proletariatworkerintoanappendageofthemodernmachines,theideaoffreedom,
orthelackofit,isbeinginvoked.Thebourgeoisindustrialistisclearlyaccusedof
exercisingcontrolinfourmajorways–first,bysuppressingthevalueofindividual
skillandtreatingahumanworkerasaninstrumentofproduction(quotedas-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,
 
byexploitingthelabourertoexactprofits–beitbyprolongation
ofworkinghours,orincreasingworkexactedinagiventimeorincreasedspeedof
machinery(quotedexactlyasmentionedhereinthetext).Third,exercisingcontrol
onwages(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 )aswellasthemeansofproductionwhichmakesattainment
Formatted: Centered
Commented [SM1]: Thatalreadydefeatsthepurposeofthe
questionwhichisaskingyoutofindthedefinitionof‘freedom’in
thetexts,notcomeupwithyourown!
Commented [SM2]: Howisthisaformofcontrol,andwhatis
therelationshipbetween‘control’andfreedom?
 
offreedomfromthiswhat??asdifficultstatetoachieve.Fourth,bypouncingupon
themeagrewagesofthelaboureraslandlords,shopownersetc.Freedomthen,is
presentedas
 
libertyfromtheseformsofcontrolthatresultinenslavementofthe
labourerbythebourgeoisthroughmachines(meansofproduction–whichtreathim
asanappendage,whichhomogenizeanydistinctioninskilltherebymakingit
worthless).Thiscorrespondstotheseconddefinitionoffreedom(andsinceit
includestherestrictiononpowertoactincertainways,italsoencompassesthefirst
definition.)
InKing’sspeech,eventhoughtheNegroisliterallyfreefromenslavementbut,as
Kingputsit–‘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.’ByrestrictingentryofNegrosinlodges,disallowing
themtherighttovote,effectivelytheirfreedomtoactthewaytheywantistaken
away.Thiscorrespondstothefirstdefinitionoffreedom.Inthisway,boththetexts,
at
thelevelofcontentusefreedomasanelement.
 
employing
freedomasatool.Largely,wecanseetheconceptoffreedominboththetextsas
theideaofequality.InCommunistManifesto,whichiscentredonthecommunist
 
minimumwagetoallowforonlybaresubsistencewhichcannotallowthemto
accumulateanyproperty.Also,thereisunequalcontrolovermeansofproduction,
wherebourgeoisdominantlycontrolsthesemeansandappropriatesthefruitof
thesemeans(thisisMarxandEngels’viewintheManifesto),theproletariatclass
doesn’thaveanycontroloverthemeansandcanaccessonlythebareminimum
providedwageleadstotheenslavementtalkedaboutabove.Thus,equalityhereis
 
accessedbyothersequally.Thecentraltenetofthecommunistrevolutionhereis
aboutpropertyaccumulation,whichisthenextendedtoequalityinotherspheres
suchaslaw,education,taxationetc.Sincethemajordistinctionbetweenthetwo
groupsthatarebeingtalkedabouthereisbasedonwork/labourwhichleadsto
capital/propertyaccumulation,disallowingthepowertosubjugatelabourbythis
accumulationwouldallowforequalityinotherspheresaswell.Theideaoffreedom
herethusprivilegesarestructuringofpropertyrelations(sinceheretheprimary
 
Commented [SM3]: Andwheredoesthislibertylie?InNOT
usingthemachinesatall?Orsomewhereelse?
Commented [SM4]: Nottrue–emancipationproclamation
ensuredthevote!
Commented [SM5]: toovague!Onecouldarguethat‘negros’
didnotwantthesamethingsasthewhites!Youareassuminghere
thateveryonewantsthesamething!.
Commented [SM6]: ThiswasNOTthequestion–ofcourse
bothtextstalkabout‘freedom’–questionwasabouthowthey
DEFINEfreedom?
Commented [SM7]: FreedomisNOTatool;itisthecentral
IDEAandOBJECTIVEofbothtexts.Itmaybeseentoencapsulate
theveryvisionofthefutureinbothtexts.
Commented [SM8]: Misunderstandingoftheideaofprivate
property.ThequestionisNOTabouthowmuchmoneyonehasto
buythings;thequestioniswhoownsthemeansofproduction.
Whatyouaretalkingaboutishigherwages;asfarastheManifesto
isconcerned,ANYwageisstilla‘slavewage’.
Commented [SM9]: EXCLUSIVELY,notjustdominantly.
Commented [SM10]: Whytheneedtorepeatthishere.Thisis
youranalysisofthetext,soobviouslyyouarefocusingonthetext’s
ideas.Orisitbecauseitisherethatyouthinkthattheideasarenot
what‘everyone’believes,andsothisdistinctionhastobemade?
Seehowourownideologyfunctionsinourwriting!
Commented [SM11]: Whatdoyoumeanbyaccess?Workers
do‘access’themeansofproduction,sowhere’stheproblem?
Commented [SM12]: No–‘accumulation’isnottheissue;
controlis.
Commented [SM13]: Sotherulingclassisjustgoingtogiveup
thiscontrol?Andthenwhowillcontrol?
 
 
classovertheother,freedomisequalityofBlacksandWhitesinsocial,political,legal
andotherspheresoflife.Theideaoffreedomisnotrootedinaparticulartypeof
materialrelations(butratherallofthem),sincethetwoclassesdefinedhereare
differentiatedbasedoncolour/origin?,inequalityexistsatalllevels–beitpolitical
(righttovote),civil(disallowingentryinlodges,puttingboardssuchas‘Forwhites
only),legal(criminalizationofBlacks)etc.Thustheoriginoftheideaoffreedom(and
thusofequality,conceptually)islessspecifichere,rootedinavarietyofspaces
unliketheideaoffreedomintheManifestowhichisrootedinmaterialprivate
propertyandits
abolition.
Grade:C.Youchoseadifficultquestionthatwasaskingyoutodealwitharather
abstractconcept.Youhavemadeagoodattempt,butasyoucanseefrommy
comments,therearetoomanyconfusionsandunexaminedassumptionswhichare
 
Commented [SM15]: ‘Equality’definedhow?Segregationwas
alsobasedonanideaof‘equality’;itwascalled‘separatebut
equal’.
Commented [SM16]: Notreally;itisinequalitythatis
experiencedinvarioussphere,butitisnotrootedseparatelyin
eachsphere;therootisracism,justasintheManifesto,therootis
classism.Butmoreimportantly,intermsofthisquestion,how/
wheredidyoujumpfrom‘freedom’to‘inequality’?Whatisthe
relationshipbetweenthetwo?
 
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 disappear ed 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 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
 
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
 
Formatted: Centered
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?
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
 
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 don’t see how this relates to this pa rticular question.
 
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 labour-
class 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
 
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, you’ve 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?
 
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 Chaplin’s speech? Give specific reasons, with textual evidence, for your answer.
 
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 other’s happiness - not by each other’s 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
 
 
 
human and earth.
 
 
 
 
way”, thereby placing the responsibility of human behavior on other external factors other than
human nature.
 
 
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
 
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.
 
 
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 a lso a quality, but that doesn’t seem to be innate as far as he’s 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 one’s 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??
 
machine minds and machine hearts!’ These unnatural men are the ones who perform the negative
 
 
imprison innocent people. If the system is changed, if human progresses enough then the unnatural 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
 
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
 
 
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 man-
the 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.
 
Commented [SM11]: Good use of textual evidence and explanation to make your point!
Commented [SM12]: Confusing – what is the ‘system’ and where does it come from?
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.
 
 
individual concept. In the speech in The Great Dictator, the speaker gives us a view of 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
 
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
 
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
 
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 Chaplin’s 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 men’s 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.
 
 
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?- “Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine
minds and machine hearts”.
 
 
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 don’t 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 [SM2]: Excellentjob–thismakes‘humannature’
intosomethingthatisnotdefinedbythehumanmind(kindoflike
theoldheart/minddichotomy!).
heartmayalsobecorruptedbymentalconstructs.
Commented [SM4]: Doesraisethequestionofwhyanyoneis
‘unloved’ishumannatureistolove?
 
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 don’t 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 other’s happiness - not by each other’s misery. We don’t
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
 
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 men’s souls, has barricaded the world
with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed”
 
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.
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.
 
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 giv