Date: 25/07/16
Timing: 9 - 10 a.m.
Ms. Arya R Krishnan of II M. A. English Studies gave a presentation on “Understanding the Humanities”. Initially, she attempted to explain the term humanities and its different senses which are attributed to it in the course of time. In doing so, she dwelled on the current sense of that term at length. Next, she tried to examine humanities in relation to other branches of study like Science and Social Science. She clearly demarcated the lines among the disciplines like humanities, science, social sciences and history. As she was concerned with humanities, she discussed some of the distinctive features of the humanities as an academic discipline in detail. She pointed out that unlike science humanities analyse and exchange ideas. Moreover, she highlighted that stories and ideas are primary concerns of humanities, which are believed to help people to create a sense of living experience. In this respect, she showed narrative imagination as a key tool in producing and reproducing the meaning of life. In addition to this, she commented on the ambiguous nature of history as a discipline and concluded her presentation. At the end of the session, Mr. Vijayaganesh, the teacher in-charge, gave a few suggestions.
Date: 18/07/2016
Date: 13/07/2016
Timing: 9 - 10 a.m.
Ms. Arya R Krishnan of II M. A. English Studies gave a presentation on “Understanding the Humanities”. Initially, she attempted to explain the term humanities and its different senses which are attributed to it in the course of time. In doing so, she dwelled on the current sense of that term at length. Next, she tried to examine humanities in relation to other branches of study like Science and Social Science. She clearly demarcated the lines among the disciplines like humanities, science, social sciences and history. As she was concerned with humanities, she discussed some of the distinctive features of the humanities as an academic discipline in detail. She pointed out that unlike science humanities analyse and exchange ideas. Moreover, she highlighted that stories and ideas are primary concerns of humanities, which are believed to help people to create a sense of living experience. In this respect, she showed narrative imagination as a key tool in producing and reproducing the meaning of life. In addition to this, she commented on the ambiguous nature of history as a discipline and concluded her presentation. At the end of the session, Mr. Vijayaganesh, the teacher in-charge, gave a few suggestions.
Date: 18/07/2016
Timing:
2.30 – 3.30
The class seminar of this week had two presentations by Mr.Anbarasu and
Ms.Aruna of II M. A. English Studies. Mr. Anbarasu introduced different
objectives of audio-lingual method to the students. He emphasised the dominant role of teacher in
audio lingual method and explained how it is being practised in
classrooms. He elaborated on the
methodology of audio-lingual method pointing out the primary importance of listening
and speaking in it. He observed that
dialogues and language drills are the major techniques used in this method.
Then, he listed out some of the advantages of audio-lingual method- second
language learners can acquire the native accent, improvement in oral
pronunciation, reading and speaking skills.
Later, he moved onto the principles of audio-lingual method and
concluded his presentation. Following
this, Ms. Gargi questioned his comment on the degradation of mother tongue in
audio-lingual method and Ms. Amanta asked whether there are any disadvantages
in using this method. In this
connection, the speaker tried to clarify the doubts.
After the discussions, Ms. Aruna
started her talk on “Character and Characterisation”. Firstly, she asserted the importance of
character in a literary work by saying that “without characters, stories don’t
make any sense”. Secondly, she
explained the term ‘character’ and different types of characters with proper
illustrations. In doing so, she gave a
detailed account of flat characters, round characters, dynamic characters, and
the like. Finally, she concluded her
presentation with an explanation of the significance of alternative
methods - ‘showing’ and
‘telling’ – of characterisation in a narration. After the end of
presentation sessions, Mr.
Vijayaganesh, the teacher in-charge, gave a few suggestions to both the
presenters.
Date: 13/07/2016
Timing:
3.30 – 4.30
The speaker, Miss. Amanta Vency Gladiya, II M.A English Studies, gave a talk
on “Modernism: An Introduction”. She started her presentation with a discussion
of the difference between the terms modern
and modernism. Then, while
trying to trace the origin of modernism, she listed out some of the key factors
that contributed to the development of this movement - rise of capitalism,
rational thinking, and shift in the worldview. Moreover, she highlighted the influence
of modernism on different art forms. Following this, she briefly outlined some
of the major characteristics of Modernist literature. First, self-reflexivity;
second, rejection of the conventions of realism; third, a blurring of the distinction
between genres; and fourth, fragmentation. Finally, she added that modernism
must be understood not only as a historical period but also as a state of mind
and attitude. In the question-and-answer session, Ms. Amanta
clarified Ms. Gargi’s doubt about the explanation of the term
institutionalization. Ms. Arya pointed out that there seems to be a
contradiction in T. S. Eliot’s discussion of Tradition. This led to a lengthy
discussion among the students present. Towards the end, Ms. Gargi raised a doubt
about the term self-reflexivity which was clarified by Mr. Vijayaganesh, the
teacher who is in-charge of the seminar.
Date: 23 February 2016
Mr. Vijayaganesh, Assistant Professor (On contract),
gave a talk on metadrama. As this area is vast, the speaker chose the aspects
of metadrama/metatheatre discussed by two thinkers, Lionel Abel and James
Calderwood in their books, Metatheatre: A
New View of Dramatic Form and Shakespearean
Metadrama respectively. Firstly, the postulations – the world is a stage
and life is a theatre put forward by Abel were discussed with reference to
Shakespeare’s, Beckett’s, and Brecht’s plays. Secondly, it was shown that James
Calderwood’s definition of metadrama is different from Abel’s and his idea of
double seeing was introduced with reference to Shakespeare’s plays.
Date: 9 February 2016
Mr. Vijayaganesh, Assistant Professor of English (on
contract), attempted to give a background of drama criticism in order to make
the students understand the concept of Metadrama/Metatheatre. Firstly, he
talked about the difference between Art reality and Real reality with specific
reference to Aristotle’s notion of drama. Instances were given from
Shakespeare’s Henry V and A Mid-Summer Night’s Dream. Secondly, the
concept of Realism was introduced. In doing so, the difference between reality
and realism was highlighted and also, it was pointed out that it can be seen as
reaction to the previous theatrical traditions. Finally, it has been argued
that the shift in understanding reality is brought out by the influence of
poststructuralism and postmodernism. The discussion on metadrama was reserved
for another session.
Date:22 January 2016
Ms. Arya R.
Krishnan, I M.A. English Studies, presented her paper titled “Vijay Tendulkar’s
Reliance on Non-naturalistic Techniques in Ghashiram
Kotwal”. Firstly, she discussed the larger framework in order to study
Ghashiram Kotwal. In her attempt to do so, she focused on the shift that
happened from realistic representation of themes to a deliberate attempt to
experiment with non- realistic techniques in the post-independence phase of
Indian drama. Secondly, using this larger framework, she tried to analyse how
Vijay Tendulkar has created theatrical effects by employing
stylized/non-naturalistic techniques drawn from different theatrical
traditions. Also, she highlighted that incorporation of non- naturalistic techniques
is an effective way of distancing the audience and making them critically aware
of the socio-political conditions of their times, which are embedded within the
historical setting of the play.
Date: 19 January 2016
Ms. Gargi Thilak, I M.A. English Studies introduced
the genre, historiographic metafiction. She started her discussion on the
conventional notion of history and historical novel writing. Then, she moved
onto consider the influences of poststructuralism and postmodernism on the
traditional understanding of history. In doing so, she talked about the
contributions of the postmodern philosophers of history who shaped the recent
historical novel writing. Of all the theoretical postulations with regard to
postmodern historical novel writing, the speaker chose to focus on Lind
Hutcheon’s theory of postmodern history. In this connection, she spoke about
historiographic metafiction, a term coined by Linda Hutcheon with specific
reference to Julian Barnes’s Flaubert’s
Parrot. In the course of this discussion, she highlighted the devices of
historiographic metafiction like parody, intertextuality and metaphor, and how
this genre has been used by some of the writers in order to subvert the
existing hegemonic structures in a particular society.
Date: 5 January 2016
The
speaker, Mr. Vijayaganesh, Assistant Professor (on contract), gave an
introduction to gender theories. An attempt has been made to discuss certain
common assumptions that form the basis for gender theories. First, the
gender/sex binary was discussed with specific reference to two dominant
approaches that shaped feminist criticism in the twentieth century – the
essentialist and the social constructionist approaches. In doing so, the
contribution of science and social sciences discourses to these approaches and
to the developments of women/gay/lesbian’s movements was pointed out. Second,
the shift in the notion of sex and the consequent problematistion of the
distinction between gender and sex were highlighted. At the end of the talk,
students raised questions about the transgender category, which were clarified
by the speaker.
No comments:
Post a Comment