The Regional Institute of English, South India, Bengaluru will hold an All India Seminar from 1 - 3 March, 2010 on the theme Literature in English Language Teaching
Teachers, teacher educators, researchers and others who are interested in English anguage education are requested to send in the abstracts of the papers they wish to present at the seminar, on or before 10 February, 2010. Acceptance of the abstracts will be intimated to the presenters by 15 February, 2010. Complete papers should reach us by 26 February, 2010.
Theme
Literature in English Language Teaching
Sub-themes
Place of Literature in the Language Classroom
Trends in Language and Literature Teaching
Literature and Language Curriculum
Assessment of Literary and Language Competence - Issues and Implications Selection of Texts - Challenges before the Curriculum Developer Using Technology to Teach Language through Literature
Translation as a Tool for Language Learning and Teaching
Literature for Creative Writing
Literature-based Tasks for Language Acquisition
Language, Literature and Culture
Literature in ESP Context
Abstracts and papers may kindly be mailed to elt@riesi.co.in and the hardcopies may be sent to:
The Coordinator
All India Seminar 2010
Regional Institute of English, South India
Jnanabharathi Campus, Bengaluru - 560 056
Note: Abstracts must be written in 200 - 250 words. The writers may also make a mention of the mode of presentation and the equipment required for the same
Registration Fee for the Seminar:
Three days: Rs 500
One day: Rs 300
Accomodation fee: Rs 200 per day
Ravinarayan Chakrakodi
Email: ravirie@gmail.com
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Sudhamshu needs help
Dear people, warm greetings to you!
Our Sudhamshu is leaving Christ to work on his Phd. Yup, an irreparable loss for the department. And hope he comes back.
Just when he was doing the last minute work to leave from here, he came to know that five of the books that he had borrowed from the library are yet to be returned. And he doesn't have them. Most probably, and quite typically, he has lent it to others and hasn't kept track.
For someone like Sudhamshu, who believes in an open society, this could be a testing moment.
Most of those books are foreign publications and each easily costs Rs. 1, 500 and above, working to a total of some Rs. 9,000 and odd.
In case, you are any of your friends do have any of the following books, please get back to Sudhamshu or Anil or me.
Postcolonialism - an Historical Introduction - Young Robert C J
Asian Cinemas: A Reader and Guide - Eleftheriotis Dimitris
Solitude of Emperors - david Dadvidar
Film Studies Reader - Hollows, Joanne
And please do spread the message to other friends who might have borrowed it from him.
Thank you!
Our Sudhamshu is leaving Christ to work on his Phd. Yup, an irreparable loss for the department. And hope he comes back.
Just when he was doing the last minute work to leave from here, he came to know that five of the books that he had borrowed from the library are yet to be returned. And he doesn't have them. Most probably, and quite typically, he has lent it to others and hasn't kept track.
For someone like Sudhamshu, who believes in an open society, this could be a testing moment.
Most of those books are foreign publications and each easily costs Rs. 1, 500 and above, working to a total of some Rs. 9,000 and odd.
In case, you are any of your friends do have any of the following books, please get back to Sudhamshu or Anil or me.
Postcolonialism - an Historical Introduction - Young Robert C J
Asian Cinemas: A Reader and Guide - Eleftheriotis Dimitris
Solitude of Emperors - david Dadvidar
Film Studies Reader - Hollows, Joanne
And please do spread the message to other friends who might have borrowed it from him.
Thank you!
National Conference on New Perspectives in Non-Native Literatures in English
CALL FOR PAPERS
Maulana Azad National Urdu University , Hyderabad
Objectives:
The arrival and recognition of non-native English literatures in the English world is undoubtedly keyed to the references of social, economical, political, artistic and global dominance and aspiration of non-native English critics, scholars and students. The genesis of the manufacturing of literature in English in almost all parts of the non-native English world can be greatly attributed to the unending popularity of English in addition to its expressive flexibility which fascinates even its vociferous opponents.
The National Conference New Perspectives in Non-Native Literatures in English is the second conference that the Department of English is hosting.
In this conference the endeavor will be to discover new perspectives and challenges which pave way to identify the untrammeled and new areas of trends in creative writing and new research in English Studies. Additionall y, the Conference aims at facilitating an accord and understanding between literatures in other languages and their manifestation in English so that students and scholars around the world develop a literary intelligence which, while honoring linguistic excellence, also successfully de-recognizes linguistic barriers.
The theme and sub-themes of this conference succinctly mirror the objectives of this Conference which are necessitated by research activism in the Department of English. It is positively held that the conference shall be effectively helpful to research scholars and supervisors who are looking out for new fields and disciplines to proactively carry out their study and make some contributions to the fields of English Studies.
Additionally, an apprehension amongst the literature scholars and teachers particularly in
Theme
New Perspectives in Non-Native Literatures in English
Sub Themes
1) New Areas of Research in English Studies
2) Comparative Study of Urdu and English Literatures
3) Translated Literatures
4) The Death of Post-Colonialism
5) Stereotyping of Literature
7) The Politics of Literature
8) Muslim Literatures in English
9) Author Translator Issues
10) Guided Research in Literature
11) Indian Literatures in English
12) World Literatures in English
15) The Death of Theory in Present Literatures
16) Regional & Cultural Identity, Globalization and Literature
17) Teaching Literature
18) Affinities between Cultures in Literature
19) Multiculturalism
20) Literature, Plagiarism and Entertainment Industry
21) Digital Story-Telling
Call for Papers
Scholars and researchers can present papers on any topic or related topic listed above. Those s who wish to present their papers are required to submit the abstract electronically at englishconference2@gmail.com in about 250 words before 28th February 2010. On 10th March 2010 they would be informed about the acceptance or rejection of the paper. In case of acceptance, the candidates are required to electronically submit the full paper at englishconference2@gmail.com by 20th March 2010. No paper should exceed 2000 words. The candidates are required to bring along with them in the Conference at least four sets and a soft copy of their paper. The paper must be written in MLA style sheet.
Please send your completed application form with a DD or cheque of Rs. 500 payable to:
Professor Amina Kishore
Head, Department of English,
MANUU, Gachibowli, Hyderabad
TA/DA will not be provided
Closing date for receipt of application: 10th March 2010
Registration can be done electronically at englishconference2@gmail.com
Monday, February 01, 2010
MPhil - Research Methods in English Studies Course Plan
Course Introduction: This course will hone the reading writing and textual analytical skills of the participants. While the first module will be lecture oriented. Module two and three will take the workshop mode involving intensive reading and writing exercises. Module four will be in a seminar mode. Only a select essays will taken for the seminar.
Course Objectives
- To introduce the participants to the various research methods in English Studies.
- To equip students with the skill of textual analysis
- To hone research writing skills
- To expose students to the theories of reading authorship
Session 1 : Archival Methods (Anil)
Session 2 : Oral History as a Research Method (Varghese)
Session 3 : Visual Methodologies (Debasmita)
Session 4 : Discourse Analysis (Sumeela)
Session 5 : Ethnographic Methods (Varghese)
Session 6 : Quantitative methods for text studies (Shaheen)
Session 7 : Textual analysis as a research method (Meenaa)
Session 8 : Interviewing (Sumeela)
Session 9 : Elements of Literary Works; Understanding a Literary Text
Session 10 : Interpreting and Analyzing a Literary Text
Session 11 : Exposition
Session 12 : Compare and contrast
Session 13 : Cause and effect; argument
Session 14 : Barthes - Work to Text (Shahin)
Session 15 : Barthes: Death of the Author(
Session 16 : Foucault - What Is an Author? (Debasmita)
Session 17 : White -The Historical Text as Literary Artefact (Varghese)
Session 18 : Jameson - Preface, and On Interpretation (Anil)
Session 19 : Jameson - Metacommentary (Meenaa)
Session 20 : Jameson - The Ideology of the Text (Sumeela)
Note:
- Each session is of two hours duration.
- Sessions 1 to 8. Will be seminar based. Research Methods for English Studies edited by Gabriele Griffin will be the textbook.
- Sessions 9 to 13 will draw upon the work of MAR Habib in research writing. The sessions will follow workshop methodology
- Sessions 14 to 20 will also be seminar based. The texts will be made available in the beginning of the course.
CIA I - Four short research papers of not less than 750 words each using exposition, compare and contrast, cause and effect, and argument as styles of writing. Date for submission: By 22 March 2010. Based on Sessions 1 to 13.
CIA II - Presentation and report based on sessions 1 to 8
CIA III – Presentation and report based on sessions 14 to 20
Note: The reports should summarise the presentation and discussion in respective seminars. The reports should strictly adhere to standard academic writing formats. The reports should reach me within a week from the date of presentation. I will respond to them within a week's time.
Bibliography
Griffin, Gabriele. ed. Research Methods for English Studies.
MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. 7th ed.
MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing. 3rd ed.
Somekh, Bridget and Cathy Lewin. eds. Research Methods in Social Sciences.
The
The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 5th ed. Washington: Amer. Psychological Assn. 2001. Print.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Lecture on Henrik Iben's 'A Doll's House'
Henrik Ibsen was a major 19th century Norwegian playwright, director and poet. His works shaped the modern theatre. Ibsen’s plays were considered scandalous to many of his era. One could characterize rebellious sprit and unforgiving scrutiny through his writings. A Doll’s house is a scathing criticism of the acceptance of the traditional roles of men and women in Victorian marriage. This play is also an important work of the naturalist movement, in which real events (day to day conversations) and situations are depicted on stage in a departure from previous forms as romanticism.
Mr. Pinto’s advise\observation to us was that, “We always try to place or accommodate new objects\ideas to the existing framework (which we already know). Hence, we should try to move away from what we already know and explore new possibility to fit new objects\ideas.” Similarly with Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House’, people could not place his works in the existing framework thus giving rise to modern theatre. This play rocked the stages of Europe when it premiered. Nora’s rejection of marriage and motherhood scandalized the contemporary audiences. Self-liberation was reflected through this play. Many could not accept ‘A Doll’s House’ till as late as 1940’s. In fact, the first German productions of the play in the 1880s used an altered ending, written by Ibsen at the request of the producers. In this ending, Nora is led to her children after having argued with Torvald. Seeing them, she collapses, and the curtain is brought down. 1970 onwards there was a shift in the theatre itself to performance studies. Accordingly, ‘A Doll’s House’ was also studied upon and perceived differently. It went back to anthropology and ethnographic studies were conducted on actors who have portrayed the role of Nora, which is one of the most challenging role in the world of theatre.
Mr. Pinto’s advise\observation to us was that, “We always try to place or accommodate new objects\ideas to the existing framework (which we already know). Hence, we should try to move away from what we already know and explore new possibility to fit new objects\ideas.” Similarly with Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House’, people could not place his works in the existing framework thus giving rise to modern theatre. This play rocked the stages of Europe when it premiered. Nora’s rejection of marriage and motherhood scandalized the contemporary audiences. Self-liberation was reflected through this play. Many could not accept ‘A Doll’s House’ till as late as 1940’s. In fact, the first German productions of the play in the 1880s used an altered ending, written by Ibsen at the request of the producers. In this ending, Nora is led to her children after having argued with Torvald. Seeing them, she collapses, and the curtain is brought down. 1970 onwards there was a shift in the theatre itself to performance studies. Accordingly, ‘A Doll’s House’ was also studied upon and perceived differently. It went back to anthropology and ethnographic studies were conducted on actors who have portrayed the role of Nora, which is one of the most challenging role in the world of theatre.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Review of the Presentations and Discussions on History and Cultural Studies
The study of history and culture are the two sides of one coin. They complement each other. The culture of a society or a nation is very much influenced by its history. So the manner of interpreting history is very important. So the presentations and discussions on history and culture raised different questions and problematized the understanding of history. What are the parameters used to analysis the history? How does the imperialism influence the history? Whether the past is fixed or not?
The first presentation was based on the article, “Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks for "Indian" Pasts?” by Dipesh Chakrabarty. It problematized the idea of “Indians” representing themselves in history. In the academic discourse of history “Europe” remains the sovereign, theoretical subject of all histories. All other histories, Indian, Chinese, Kenyan etc., tend to become variations on a master narrative that could be call the history of Europe. In this sense, Indian history itself is in a position of subalternity. Europe works as a silent referent in historical knowledge itself becomes obvious in a highly ordinary way. There are at least two everyday symptoms of the subalternity of non-Western, third-world histories.
Third-world historians feel a need to refer to works in European history; historians of Europe do not feel any need to reciprocate.
The dominance of Europe as the subject of all histories is a part of a much more profound theoretical condition under which historical knowledge is produced in the third world. Our footnotes bear rich testimony to the insights we have derived from their knowledge and creativity.
For generations now, philosophers and thinkers shaping the nature of social science have produced theories embracing the entirety of humanity. These theories have been produced in relative and sometimes absolute ignorance of the majority of humankind i.e., those in non-Western cultures. The everyday paradox of third-world social science is that the third world intellectuals use these theories eminently useful in understanding their societies.
For example, following the western methodology of writing history on the basis of historical transition, the Indian history is also written. To prove this the writer takes Sumit Sarkar’s Modern India (regarded as one of the best textbooks on Indian history written primarily for Indian universities). The text opens with “The sixty years or so that lie between the foundation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 and the achievement of independence in August 1947 witnessed perhaps the greatest transition in our country’s long history. A transition, however, which in many ways remains grievously incomplete, and it is with this central ambiguity that it seems most convenient to begin our survey.”
Now the question arises, what kind of a transition was it remained? Answer is grievously incomplete. The study of such a failed history creates a lackness, absence or incompleteness. This history lead us to the British conquer and to the medieval period. This led to modernity. The terms have changed with time. The medieval was once called despotic and the modern is the rule of law. For example, Alexander Dow’s History of Hindostan, (1770) says: “this fundamental jurisprudence was the rule of law that contrasted with a past rule that was arbitrary and despotic ...Despotism was the opposite of English constitutional government.”
In the nineteenth and twentieth century’s, generations of elite Indian nationalists found Indian history between the two poles: despotic-constitutional, medieval-modern, feudal-capitalist. Within this narrative shared between imperialist and nationalist imaginations, the Indian was always a figure of lack. There was always the theme of inadequacy or failure.
This discussion led to Provincializing Europe. Here Chakrabarty is not dealing with "the region of the world we call 'Europe,'" but rather the "imaginary figure [of Europe] that remains deeply embedded in clichéd and shorthand forms in some everyday habits of thought." European thought is no longer the sole property of Europeans and can be used by postcolonialists to good effect, when revised for local conditions.
The Second presentation was based on the article “The Many worlds of Indian History” by Sumit Sarkar. It explores the idea of Indian History, its limitations and the development of history in the late colonial and contemporary times .Finally, the article concludes with a discussion on the how the gap between the writings of elite people on history and the teaching done by primary school teachers can be bridged in the academic arena. . In this article Sumit Sarkar first describes how Indian history failed to project reality. Our historigraphical essays tend to become bibliographies, surveys of trends or movements within the academic guild. Through the Ramjanmabhumi issue in Ayodhya, he gives a clear idea about how history is created because of faith and academic knowledge is sidelined. This, however, was very far from being a simple triumph of age-old popular faith over the alienated rationalism of secular intellectuals. Scholars and researchers have limited role here.
Sumit Sarkar says in his essay that the main aim of teaching history is limited to stimulating patriotism among students and to build in a quiz culture where the students should have by-hearted knowledge of various dates and events. Thereby we fail to imbibe in ourselves questioning attitudes and the ability of critical evaluation.
Impact and impositions of Western English education has affected Indian history. Two major changes occurred because of the influence of Western English education. British rule brought a notion of time as linear abstract and measurable. The other major change was they divided period into three phases. This led to the four yougas being replaced by three phases (i.e., Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Schema).
The focus of this essay, however, is not the history of India. Rather, the purpose of this piece is to explore very schematically some of the issues and examples for the abandonment of history and show what is the present stage of our history and how it can be effectively produced in future in the academic arena. Sumit Sarkar argues that the shift from late colonial history has produced one-sided accounts that artificially separate from pure history. As a result, the main essence/aim of Indian history and its basic purposes has been neglected altogether.
In the third part Sumit Sarkar compares two periods in Indian History i.e. late colonial Indian history and contemporary history. He says that, hierarchical division is more visible in late colonial period opportunities, for any kind of education was more restricted and therefore education and research was not sharp in the late colonial period. But in contemporary times, research and education has grown considerably. In late colonial period, absence of internal hierarchization is more visible. Sumit Sakar gives the example of Sir Jadunath Sarkar whose formal degrees were in English, and till retirement he combined research with the teaching of history.
In contemporary India very significant shifts in basic approaches and choice of research question has taken place. In 1950 the themes like social formation, debates about the existence and nature of Indian Feudalism, the possibilities of capital development in pre-colonial time were focused on, but in late colonial period the primary focus was on information about kings, dynasties or conquests. In 1960-1970 there were major changes happening in history. Firstly, there was the emergence of the Left. Secondly, the lower cast became more powerful due to peasant revolution. Thirdly, women participated in revolutionary activities. Sumit Sarkar says that, due to these changes Subaltern Studies and Women history came into existence. Meanwhile, there was a spate of research publications on tribal peasant and labour movements, as well as a few pioneering, sympathetic studies of lower-caste initiatives in large part independent of, or even hostile to, mainstream nationalism. The hierarchical divisions between scholars at research institute, university teachers, and those working in undergraduate colleges are visibly deepening in contemporary times. Sumit Sarkar gives the example of Ekalavya volunteer group who tried to bridge the gap between the primary school teachers and the elite researchers through teaching-cum-research seminar. They encouraged classroom discussion and creative assimilation.
Other questions that came up for discussion were, on Gramsci’s notion on common sense? How do the social and the political get connected to the education about which Sumit Sarkar has discussed in the later part of his essay? What does Partha Chatterjee say about the adoption of modern principle of European history in India?
For the further discussions the class invited Dr.Vageshwari SP, Christ University. She initiated the discussion on systematic breaking down of history. The problem in the study discourse is that we consider history as fixed not dynamic. We are not questioning the history. In India, the study of history is based on the methodology of imperialism and Geometry which provides a defined way of studying history.
The theory of relativity challenged the undisputable absolute truth of the past. Study of history is a truth making process.
One of the problems is how to convert the cultural practices to academic. Here many times form takes over content and we fail to bring up tools for the analysis.
Rewriting history is always a part of society. Here, why the history is rewritten is important, not what is rewritten. What is the agenda behind it?
The syllabus of the history in higher education should be re-worked. It should be based on facts as well as issue based.
The first presentation was based on the article, “Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks for "Indian" Pasts?” by Dipesh Chakrabarty. It problematized the idea of “Indians” representing themselves in history. In the academic discourse of history “Europe” remains the sovereign, theoretical subject of all histories. All other histories, Indian, Chinese, Kenyan etc., tend to become variations on a master narrative that could be call the history of Europe. In this sense, Indian history itself is in a position of subalternity. Europe works as a silent referent in historical knowledge itself becomes obvious in a highly ordinary way. There are at least two everyday symptoms of the subalternity of non-Western, third-world histories.
Third-world historians feel a need to refer to works in European history; historians of Europe do not feel any need to reciprocate.
The dominance of Europe as the subject of all histories is a part of a much more profound theoretical condition under which historical knowledge is produced in the third world. Our footnotes bear rich testimony to the insights we have derived from their knowledge and creativity.
For generations now, philosophers and thinkers shaping the nature of social science have produced theories embracing the entirety of humanity. These theories have been produced in relative and sometimes absolute ignorance of the majority of humankind i.e., those in non-Western cultures. The everyday paradox of third-world social science is that the third world intellectuals use these theories eminently useful in understanding their societies.
For example, following the western methodology of writing history on the basis of historical transition, the Indian history is also written. To prove this the writer takes Sumit Sarkar’s Modern India (regarded as one of the best textbooks on Indian history written primarily for Indian universities). The text opens with “The sixty years or so that lie between the foundation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 and the achievement of independence in August 1947 witnessed perhaps the greatest transition in our country’s long history. A transition, however, which in many ways remains grievously incomplete, and it is with this central ambiguity that it seems most convenient to begin our survey.”
Now the question arises, what kind of a transition was it remained? Answer is grievously incomplete. The study of such a failed history creates a lackness, absence or incompleteness. This history lead us to the British conquer and to the medieval period. This led to modernity. The terms have changed with time. The medieval was once called despotic and the modern is the rule of law. For example, Alexander Dow’s History of Hindostan, (1770) says: “this fundamental jurisprudence was the rule of law that contrasted with a past rule that was arbitrary and despotic ...Despotism was the opposite of English constitutional government.”
In the nineteenth and twentieth century’s, generations of elite Indian nationalists found Indian history between the two poles: despotic-constitutional, medieval-modern, feudal-capitalist. Within this narrative shared between imperialist and nationalist imaginations, the Indian was always a figure of lack. There was always the theme of inadequacy or failure.
This discussion led to Provincializing Europe. Here Chakrabarty is not dealing with "the region of the world we call 'Europe,'" but rather the "imaginary figure [of Europe] that remains deeply embedded in clichéd and shorthand forms in some everyday habits of thought." European thought is no longer the sole property of Europeans and can be used by postcolonialists to good effect, when revised for local conditions.
The Second presentation was based on the article “The Many worlds of Indian History” by Sumit Sarkar. It explores the idea of Indian History, its limitations and the development of history in the late colonial and contemporary times .Finally, the article concludes with a discussion on the how the gap between the writings of elite people on history and the teaching done by primary school teachers can be bridged in the academic arena. . In this article Sumit Sarkar first describes how Indian history failed to project reality. Our historigraphical essays tend to become bibliographies, surveys of trends or movements within the academic guild. Through the Ramjanmabhumi issue in Ayodhya, he gives a clear idea about how history is created because of faith and academic knowledge is sidelined. This, however, was very far from being a simple triumph of age-old popular faith over the alienated rationalism of secular intellectuals. Scholars and researchers have limited role here.
Sumit Sarkar says in his essay that the main aim of teaching history is limited to stimulating patriotism among students and to build in a quiz culture where the students should have by-hearted knowledge of various dates and events. Thereby we fail to imbibe in ourselves questioning attitudes and the ability of critical evaluation.
Impact and impositions of Western English education has affected Indian history. Two major changes occurred because of the influence of Western English education. British rule brought a notion of time as linear abstract and measurable. The other major change was they divided period into three phases. This led to the four yougas being replaced by three phases (i.e., Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Schema).
The focus of this essay, however, is not the history of India. Rather, the purpose of this piece is to explore very schematically some of the issues and examples for the abandonment of history and show what is the present stage of our history and how it can be effectively produced in future in the academic arena. Sumit Sarkar argues that the shift from late colonial history has produced one-sided accounts that artificially separate from pure history. As a result, the main essence/aim of Indian history and its basic purposes has been neglected altogether.
In the third part Sumit Sarkar compares two periods in Indian History i.e. late colonial Indian history and contemporary history. He says that, hierarchical division is more visible in late colonial period opportunities, for any kind of education was more restricted and therefore education and research was not sharp in the late colonial period. But in contemporary times, research and education has grown considerably. In late colonial period, absence of internal hierarchization is more visible. Sumit Sakar gives the example of Sir Jadunath Sarkar whose formal degrees were in English, and till retirement he combined research with the teaching of history.
In contemporary India very significant shifts in basic approaches and choice of research question has taken place. In 1950 the themes like social formation, debates about the existence and nature of Indian Feudalism, the possibilities of capital development in pre-colonial time were focused on, but in late colonial period the primary focus was on information about kings, dynasties or conquests. In 1960-1970 there were major changes happening in history. Firstly, there was the emergence of the Left. Secondly, the lower cast became more powerful due to peasant revolution. Thirdly, women participated in revolutionary activities. Sumit Sarkar says that, due to these changes Subaltern Studies and Women history came into existence. Meanwhile, there was a spate of research publications on tribal peasant and labour movements, as well as a few pioneering, sympathetic studies of lower-caste initiatives in large part independent of, or even hostile to, mainstream nationalism. The hierarchical divisions between scholars at research institute, university teachers, and those working in undergraduate colleges are visibly deepening in contemporary times. Sumit Sarkar gives the example of Ekalavya volunteer group who tried to bridge the gap between the primary school teachers and the elite researchers through teaching-cum-research seminar. They encouraged classroom discussion and creative assimilation.
Other questions that came up for discussion were, on Gramsci’s notion on common sense? How do the social and the political get connected to the education about which Sumit Sarkar has discussed in the later part of his essay? What does Partha Chatterjee say about the adoption of modern principle of European history in India?
For the further discussions the class invited Dr.Vageshwari SP, Christ University. She initiated the discussion on systematic breaking down of history. The problem in the study discourse is that we consider history as fixed not dynamic. We are not questioning the history. In India, the study of history is based on the methodology of imperialism and Geometry which provides a defined way of studying history.
The theory of relativity challenged the undisputable absolute truth of the past. Study of history is a truth making process.
One of the problems is how to convert the cultural practices to academic. Here many times form takes over content and we fail to bring up tools for the analysis.
Rewriting history is always a part of society. Here, why the history is rewritten is important, not what is rewritten. What is the agenda behind it?
The syllabus of the history in higher education should be re-worked. It should be based on facts as well as issue based.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
English Education and Cultural Hegemony in India
Report of Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
The topic which my group took for cultural studies paper presentation was literary theory and cultural studies. In this major topic we focused on two essays, one is Gouary Viswanathan’s Introduction to Masks Conquests and Susie Tharu’s and K Lalita’s Empire, Nation, and the Literary Text. Through these essays we are tried to focus how literary studies and cultural studies are related.
Gouari Viswanathan in her essay talks about the introduction, and development of English education in India. In the essay the author says that the colonial rulers introduced English education as a weapon for the domination over colonized, India.
Using the story of Bangalore Nagaratnamma’s reprinting of the eighteenth century Telugu text Radhika Santwanam by Muddupalani, Sisie Taru and Lalita introduce the rationale behind the effort to collect the materials which have been seised by the people who have power. The main intention of the writers is to show how power controlled the literary work and how the literary production was always subject to gender, class, empire, and nation prejudices.
Presentations and classroom discussions on Literary and Cultural Studies were on the second week of November. For the general discussion of the module our group called Ms. Sreelatha from English and Media Studies Department. The main questions and arguments which came during discussions were, how is the notion of discipline linked with cultu re andhow language works within the discipline of cultural studies. The main argument which Ms Sreelatha proposed was, when we discuss literary studies with cultural studies, first we need to discuss with literature. Another question which came was, how culture is portrayed in literature. Other questions that came up for discussion were, is epistemological basis necessary to begin a study? Is cultural Studies having a philosophical basis? How discussion in literature and literary studies slips into question of language, identity, nation etc… andwhy Indianness? In attempting an answer one needs to acknowledge that, Cultural studies inculcates a questioning attitude which is absent in many other disciplines. Does learning a literature from a culture means one is influenced by that particular culture? The main argument for this question was based on the presumption that one culture being influenced by another and that it is not just an individual influence. Cultural influences are not very obvious. It’s in the psyche. Why should there be a division on national cultures? What is the problem in learning national cultures?
The final argument about the discipline and literature came was, we are still following the traditions of colonial rulers and what we are trying to do is just imitate them because the rules are not changing. To change this we need to raise questions and theoretical discussions which will help to create our own cultural basis in literature and in the discipline of English Studies.
Discussion on Philosophy and cultural Studies II MA English
Report of the Presentation on Philosophy and Cultural Studies
For the module on Philosophy and Cultural Studies, two seminal works were discussed in the class; 1) Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences by Derrida and 2) Can the Subaltern Speak by Gayathri Spivak. This report is based on the presentation on the second text and the subsequent discussion on it in the II MA English Literature with Communication Studies as well as the lecture of Mr. Sunder Sarukkai on Experience and Cognition based on his article, Dalit Experience and Theory.
Gayathri Spivak’s essay problematises three central theories of experience; 1) the postcolonial theories, 2) the subaltern concern and 3) the subalternised woman. She argues that the intellectuals are complicit in silencing the experiences of the colonised, the subaltern and the woman by appropriating their experiences inaccurately in the narratives. She questions the authority of the intellectuals to speak of the experience of these oppressed. Theorisation on the subaltern experience is palimpsestic in nature because even as the intellectual tries to construct a history/experience of the subaltern, the authentic history/experience undergoes erasure. The intellectual’s attempts to essentialise the subaltern experience actually cancels out the multifarious entity of the subaltern experience. She argues that the intellectual should constantly question one’s own ground of argument. All the subalterns, be it the postcolonial countries or the women who belong to innumerable backgrounds and conditions, cannot be put under one monolithic categorisation. Citing a couple examples of women suicide in India during the colonial period she argues how the British understanding legal explanations under the pretext of supporting women’s cause, overlooked the actual reasons for their suicide. What then is the intellectual capable of theorising? The possibility is to form a strategic solidarity with the subalterns for the sake of an argumentative support and buying their own space in the debate all the while being aware of the intellectual’s shaky ground on which one stands to argue. This she calls strategic essentialism.
The crux of the argument is, that the personal lived experience cannot be in any way generalised. The humans are in need of an unmediated channel to share one another’s experience in totem. However the unmediated experience does not take place and what is transferred to others is only partial and makes the other incapable of making the experience for theorising.
Establishing the relationship between culture and philosophy is fundamental in proceeding any further on this module. Sarukkai considered experience as the basic stratum of culture while an argument was brought to establish culture as the substratum of philosophy or the latter as the product of culture. Further arguments are required to establish both the syllogisms. For example, is it possible for anyone to have an experience outside one’s culture? Or, is culture the common fund of experiences of a group of people? As the understanding goes now the linear progression of experience-culture-philosophy is the paradigm to work with.
The question on the emergence of different philosophies at different historical junctures deserves an attention. How will one account for the emergence of Platonian idealism and Aristotelian empiricism as the product of the Greek culture while the existentialists and phenomenologists appeared only hundreds of years later in another culture. A vague attempt at answering this question was that a certain political climate is responsible for the emergence of certain types of philosophies. It was monarchy that gave conducive atmosphere for philosophies that were centred around the analysis of matter and the world. With the emergence of democracy and other people-participative forms of government the discussion on the subject of experience shifted to the human person, the meaning of his existence and experience and thereby giving rise to the existentialist philosophies. The emergence of the nihilist philosphies can be attributed to the disillusionment caused by the world wars. Going into the depth of this argument one finds that the mode of exercising power influences heavily if not being the deciding factor on the emergence of different philosophies.
This further shifted the questions on the difference between what is generalisation and essentialisation. They are to be differentiated as two different logical procedures of argument. In the process of essentialisation a general principle is arrived at by observing the experiences of A, B , C and so on. The generalisation is the reverse process of applying a principle or a personal experience as a general principle to a larger category without actually observing all of them. The former is called induction and the latter deduction.
Sarukkai explores the quintessential difference between the subjective lived experience and the mediated experience. The mediated experience has primarily a certain freedom to choose to undergo or not a certain experience, secondly one has the freedom to leave from the experience if it is not satisfactory and thirdly he has the freedom to modify that experience.
While exploring the lines of argument of Sarukkai and Spivak the philosophies could be accused of complicity in essentialising the diverse human experiences. The question itself is heavily loaded with the nuances of the individualistic turn the capitalistic philosophy of the west has taken. This question arises only when individual is possible despite the social. But the society has not been always so. In the earlier cultures which privileged the social over the individual, the subjective experiences do not take significant discussions at all. When the society is essential to make the individual possible the focus of the discussion can centre only on the society. Society being a common institution, the individual variances are shed to create minimum common identities or the essential. To treat such essentialisation as a malady could arise from subaltern, post colonial or postsructuralist perspectives in social sciences. But natural or physical sciences cannot be held accountable for such essentialsiation. If these sciences fail to draw similarities and essentialise the nature of human bodies, every body has to become a ground of experiment at the cost of its life. The question then extends to what can be essentialised and what cannot be on the basis of empirical proofs.. Such normative approaches are still unacceptable to a postcolonial reading. The arguments go in infinite regression ad infinitum.
Monday, November 30, 2009
World Literature
The idea of word literature was represented in a very glorified manner until the emergence of comparative literature. World literature itself had a very English connotation. Roman, French and the English literature dominated the world scenario. Anthologies of world literature had often been used to market the European cannons. Comparative literature to a certain extent created a binary. Literature from South America, Asia, and Africa which were something “outside the imaginations” started being accommodated in world literature.
Edward Saied’s book “Orientilism” made major inroads towards transforming the outlook of world literature. Said’s book “began to travel” and was used for various political reasons. Mr. Pinto said that, it’s how well one put forward their ideas to communicate that makes a work successful. Said was able to do that. On his lecture, he said that “world literature” does not change the syllabus instead, follows a politics of accommodation. The radical questioning the system as a whole is absent. Edward Said’s orientilism started creating ripples in India from 1981 and it affected women the most. Names like Gauri Vishwanathan and Rajeshwari Vishwanathen were put forward, whose ideas were not accepted in Indian institution, and they had to take refuge westward. One of the first institutions to radically question the system in India was Bangalore University in 1996.
On the development ideas in technology, Mr. Pinto commented on Mr. Shah’s essay on ‘internet and women’. Mr. Shah had argued on the relationship between technology and women. He illustrated this idea by focusing on the role played by women when computers were being introduced in the 1970’s and when the gramophones were invented in 1902 (till about a decade only women recorded). Mr. Pinto then emphasized on the use of the word “world” on how it was used to make a statement. He also said that the world “world does not have any materiality”. Taking off from the book called the “World is flat” by Thomas L. Friedman and the optical illusion that prevailed, he traced back to the fall of Constantinople when the two thousand year old silk route was blocked resulting in an attempt to find a new sea route to south Asia. History saw explorers like Vasco Da Gama and Christopher Columbus who stretched the horizon a bit further with their successful attempts in discovering new routes to different parts of the world. With the discoveries of various new places various dimensions of cultures and expression could be witnessed, sparking off the “process of accommodation” in world literature.
Edward Saied’s book “Orientilism” made major inroads towards transforming the outlook of world literature. Said’s book “began to travel” and was used for various political reasons. Mr. Pinto said that, it’s how well one put forward their ideas to communicate that makes a work successful. Said was able to do that. On his lecture, he said that “world literature” does not change the syllabus instead, follows a politics of accommodation. The radical questioning the system as a whole is absent. Edward Said’s orientilism started creating ripples in India from 1981 and it affected women the most. Names like Gauri Vishwanathan and Rajeshwari Vishwanathen were put forward, whose ideas were not accepted in Indian institution, and they had to take refuge westward. One of the first institutions to radically question the system in India was Bangalore University in 1996.
On the development ideas in technology, Mr. Pinto commented on Mr. Shah’s essay on ‘internet and women’. Mr. Shah had argued on the relationship between technology and women. He illustrated this idea by focusing on the role played by women when computers were being introduced in the 1970’s and when the gramophones were invented in 1902 (till about a decade only women recorded). Mr. Pinto then emphasized on the use of the word “world” on how it was used to make a statement. He also said that the world “world does not have any materiality”. Taking off from the book called the “World is flat” by Thomas L. Friedman and the optical illusion that prevailed, he traced back to the fall of Constantinople when the two thousand year old silk route was blocked resulting in an attempt to find a new sea route to south Asia. History saw explorers like Vasco Da Gama and Christopher Columbus who stretched the horizon a bit further with their successful attempts in discovering new routes to different parts of the world. With the discoveries of various new places various dimensions of cultures and expression could be witnessed, sparking off the “process of accommodation” in world literature.
introductory class on translation studies
What is translation?
Translation of text from one language to another.
Translation of literary texts.
Translation can hardly match up to the original. rewriting the text which is written in some other language Word to word / sense to sense. It is not losing the mood and meaning of the original work.
Putting content from one language to another language atleast semantically.
Converting work from its primary language to its target language.
Trans- change. Translating a written text keeping content intact.
“Translatum” similar to anuvadam or rupantaram – going closer to the word.
Original meaning of translatum to exhume a body from its grave and bury it in another place.
Concerns with grammar, cultural contexts , expressions, meaning.
Rewriting a work from one language to another.
From regional language to a global language.
What is translation studies?
Study of the different theories and issues related to trans
Trends and shifts in translation, translated texts.
Problems one encounters while translation
Trans studies is a discipline, methods, problems theories and concepts
Applicability of the theory of translation. Looking at different aspects of translation.
Studying the process of translation.
Studying something self reflectively and critically.
What are the issues a translator should be aware of while translating?
Culture and author’s idea. Language, audience, syntax and semantics. market , proverbs. Dialectical issues. Aesthetics, meaning of original text. Writer’s viewpoint. Text always comes to you with its cultural context(Gadamer).
Translation and change of form, self translation.
Writer’s viewpoint and translator’s reading of it.
Translators make shift knowingly and unknowingly.
In selftranslation you participate in two language systems and question the previous theories of translation.
Bible translation – ppl will be trained to write similarly and they come back and write similarly. Finding terms of Bible in the respective colloquial languages.
Essence should not be lost.
Literary aspects
Translator should be aware of his attitude towards translation
Fairly good vocabulary of the source and target languages.
Should know about the author
Know the text in all its aspects and should try and collect what has already been said about the text
Should be aware of the translated words before him
Two issues :
Ideal translator is a literary translator
Hierarchization of terms: appropriation, adaptation, translation, transcreation, transliteration
Gender translation, power translation.
Why do people translate?
Ideas and sharing of ideas. All texts go through the socio political dimensions before getting translated. Market forces also play a significant role in translation.
To know about different cultures. Why translated into dominant languages? Why specific texts get translated into other languages and not others?
Tragedies and comedies. Tragedies are in conformity with the authority and comedies challenge the authority.
Translating one of the ways to prove the lack within a culture. Creating a lack.
To get more audience for the text.
Global recognition and fame.
To make the text accessible to others. Individual pleasure, popularity, understand the culture and governance and administration(imperial necessity). The problem with the mediator facilitates translation. Dictionary comes in this context. To make the original text accessible to others who do not know the language.
To understand the nature of the language and also its culture. To create interest in the culture. Making readers more inquisitive about the language in which the work is written.
What kind of words gets translated? It is always nouns. Issues of secularism and words with heavy cultural and communal issues.
Issue of originality. Who makes a work more original translator or the writer. It problematises some of the notions we have of translation.
Trans- movement – creating a replica. any movement is transcreation.
Much of the assumptions we have of translation today are continued from the translation of bible. (word to word, faithful – word of God). INFIDEL
Bring to light certain specific problems faced by a community.
Creativity. Ethics. Communication specially for administrative reasons.
Translation of text from one language to another.
Translation of literary texts.
Translation can hardly match up to the original. rewriting the text which is written in some other language Word to word / sense to sense. It is not losing the mood and meaning of the original work.
Putting content from one language to another language atleast semantically.
Converting work from its primary language to its target language.
Trans- change. Translating a written text keeping content intact.
“Translatum” similar to anuvadam or rupantaram – going closer to the word.
Original meaning of translatum to exhume a body from its grave and bury it in another place.
Concerns with grammar, cultural contexts , expressions, meaning.
Rewriting a work from one language to another.
From regional language to a global language.
What is translation studies?
Study of the different theories and issues related to trans
Trends and shifts in translation, translated texts.
Problems one encounters while translation
Trans studies is a discipline, methods, problems theories and concepts
Applicability of the theory of translation. Looking at different aspects of translation.
Studying the process of translation.
Studying something self reflectively and critically.
What are the issues a translator should be aware of while translating?
Culture and author’s idea. Language, audience, syntax and semantics. market , proverbs. Dialectical issues. Aesthetics, meaning of original text. Writer’s viewpoint. Text always comes to you with its cultural context(Gadamer).
Translation and change of form, self translation.
Writer’s viewpoint and translator’s reading of it.
Translators make shift knowingly and unknowingly.
In selftranslation you participate in two language systems and question the previous theories of translation.
Bible translation – ppl will be trained to write similarly and they come back and write similarly. Finding terms of Bible in the respective colloquial languages.
Essence should not be lost.
Literary aspects
Translator should be aware of his attitude towards translation
Fairly good vocabulary of the source and target languages.
Should know about the author
Know the text in all its aspects and should try and collect what has already been said about the text
Should be aware of the translated words before him
Two issues :
Ideal translator is a literary translator
Hierarchization of terms: appropriation, adaptation, translation, transcreation, transliteration
Gender translation, power translation.
Why do people translate?
Ideas and sharing of ideas. All texts go through the socio political dimensions before getting translated. Market forces also play a significant role in translation.
To know about different cultures. Why translated into dominant languages? Why specific texts get translated into other languages and not others?
Tragedies and comedies. Tragedies are in conformity with the authority and comedies challenge the authority.
Translating one of the ways to prove the lack within a culture. Creating a lack.
To get more audience for the text.
Global recognition and fame.
To make the text accessible to others. Individual pleasure, popularity, understand the culture and governance and administration(imperial necessity). The problem with the mediator facilitates translation. Dictionary comes in this context. To make the original text accessible to others who do not know the language.
To understand the nature of the language and also its culture. To create interest in the culture. Making readers more inquisitive about the language in which the work is written.
What kind of words gets translated? It is always nouns. Issues of secularism and words with heavy cultural and communal issues.
Issue of originality. Who makes a work more original translator or the writer. It problematises some of the notions we have of translation.
Trans- movement – creating a replica. any movement is transcreation.
Much of the assumptions we have of translation today are continued from the translation of bible. (word to word, faithful – word of God). INFIDEL
Bring to light certain specific problems faced by a community.
Creativity. Ethics. Communication specially for administrative reasons.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
WHAT MAKES US THINK: CONVERSATIONS ON CONSCIOUSNESS
WHAT MAKES US THINK: CONVERSATIONS ON CONSCIOUSNESS
CERTIFICATE COURSE FOR EVEN SEMESTER 2009-10
CERTIFICATE COURSE FOR EVEN SEMESTER 2009-10
Conducted by
DEPT. OF PSYCHOLOGY, CHRIST UNIVERSITY
IN COLLABORATION WITH
CUSP@CSCS, BANGALORE
Saturdays: 2 pm – 6 pm (Dec 2009 – Mar 2010)
Venue: Room No. 303 (Dept. of Psychology- PG Unit)
Concept:
What makes us think: Conversations on Consciousness will look once again at the veracity of the mind-body divide. Will minds get collapsed to bodies/brains? Will understanding our brains help us know our minds? Or is there an unbridgeable distance between the work of neuroscience and the workings of human consciousness? What is the relation between the facts (or "what is") of natural science, the ‘interpretations’ of social science and the prescriptions (or "what ought to be") of ethics? Can neuroscience throw light on ethics? What are the relations between brain states and psychological experience? What is a mental representation? How does a sign relate to what it signifies? How might subjective experience be constructed rather than discovered? Can biological or cultural evolution be considered progressive? Can we be optimistic about the prospects of connecting matters of the mind to matters of the brain? Would we have one perspective – the perspective of materiality? Or would there be a splitting and a duality of perspectives on human affairs? How does one negotiate between transcendental idealism and mechanical materialism? How does one connect the in vitro and the in vivo? How does one work through objective/subjective, 1st person/3rd person accounts?
Continuum of Disciplines:
Physics
Biology
Perceptual and Cognitive Psychology
Cultural Studies (including anthropology and semiotics)
Ethics, Religion, and Morality approached from humanistic perspectives
At another level, this course will look at the continuum of disciplines and would try to place psychology as an uncanny in-between in this continuum. This in-between-ness will be seen by the course as the promise of the discipline of psychology (and not its problem). The promise lies in offering us a possible methodology for negotiating between apparently incommensurable disciplinary regimes like philosophy and neurobiology, and historically separated knowledge registers like the human and the natural sciences.
What makes us think: Conversations on Consciousness will look once again at the veracity of the mind-body divide. Will minds get collapsed to bodies/brains? Will understanding our brains help us know our minds? Or is there an unbridgeable distance between the work of neuroscience and the workings of human consciousness? What is the relation between the facts (or "what is") of natural science, the ‘interpretations’ of social science and the prescriptions (or "what ought to be") of ethics? Can neuroscience throw light on ethics? What are the relations between brain states and psychological experience? What is a mental representation? How does a sign relate to what it signifies? How might subjective experience be constructed rather than discovered? Can biological or cultural evolution be considered progressive? Can we be optimistic about the prospects of connecting matters of the mind to matters of the brain? Would we have one perspective – the perspective of materiality? Or would there be a splitting and a duality of perspectives on human affairs? How does one negotiate between transcendental idealism and mechanical materialism? How does one connect the in vitro and the in vivo? How does one work through objective/subjective, 1st person/3rd person accounts?
Continuum of Disciplines:
Physics
Biology
Perceptual and Cognitive Psychology
Cultural Studies (including anthropology and semiotics)
Ethics, Religion, and Morality approached from humanistic perspectives
At another level, this course will look at the continuum of disciplines and would try to place psychology as an uncanny in-between in this continuum. This in-between-ness will be seen by the course as the promise of the discipline of psychology (and not its problem). The promise lies in offering us a possible methodology for negotiating between apparently incommensurable disciplinary regimes like philosophy and neurobiology, and historically separated knowledge registers like the human and the natural sciences.
PRIMARY READINGS:
Blackmore, Susan (2006). Conversations on Consciousness: What the best minds think about the brain, free will, and what it means to be human. NY: OUP.
Changeux, Jean-Pierre & Ricoeur, Paul (2000). What makes us think? A neuroscientist and a philosopher argue about ethics, human nature, and the brain. (Translated by M.B. Debevoise). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS:
Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Changeux, J. P. (1985/1983). Neuronal man: The biology of mind. New York: Pantheon. (original publication 1983).
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston: Little Brown.
Dreyfus, H. (1972). What computers can't do: A critique of artificial reason. New York: Harper and Row.
Nagel, T. (1979). What is it like to be a bat? Moral questions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Popper, K. and Eccles, J. (1078). The self and its brain. London: Springer Verlag.
Searle, J. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
For more information contact: Sonia Soans ( sonjasoans@gmail.com ) or Diptarup Chowdhury ( diptarup.chowdhury@christuniversity.in )
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Monday, November 02, 2009
SEMINARS
I know its been really long and that I was supposed to write all this long ago.. But I've decided to write about it today. So, here's a little abstract of how classes work here.
I'm a postgraduate student doing MA Critical Theory and Cultural Studies. I have six hours of classes per week. Well, actually four hours per week, with one two hour seminar per week per module.
I'm doing two modules this semester, one titled Material Cultures and Subject and Sign after Freud and Saussure. The second one is the most exciting part of the course, and is also the toughest. It's so interesting to see how the curve moves from Saussure, to Barthes, to Freud, to Lacan. I can actually see how each theorist and philosopher laid the foundation for the next one to come, and so on... Its a beautiful progression of thought. And it's so interesting to see how each person belongs to their time, and that they could not, obviously think beyond their time.
I was talking about the structure of the seminars when I got carried away... We have, as I said, two modules per semester, and the last two hours is this series of lectures called Tradition of Critique, which is pretty awesome, because we get an overview of the key theorists of the 19th and 20th Century. For the man module classes, we have quite a bit of reading to do... These reading last somewhere between 50-100 pages, but this s just the essential reading... There's also the secondary reading, which I've never managed to actually get around.
This week is reading week, which means we don't have classes at all. I know that sounds like a blast, but its really hard because you have to get off your back and sit and focus and read, and figure out what you want to with your essay, which I'm finding quite difficult at the moment.
Till I have more,
In typical Brit Style,
Cheers
Kanasu
I'm a postgraduate student doing MA Critical Theory and Cultural Studies. I have six hours of classes per week. Well, actually four hours per week, with one two hour seminar per week per module.
I'm doing two modules this semester, one titled Material Cultures and Subject and Sign after Freud and Saussure. The second one is the most exciting part of the course, and is also the toughest. It's so interesting to see how the curve moves from Saussure, to Barthes, to Freud, to Lacan. I can actually see how each theorist and philosopher laid the foundation for the next one to come, and so on... Its a beautiful progression of thought. And it's so interesting to see how each person belongs to their time, and that they could not, obviously think beyond their time.
I was talking about the structure of the seminars when I got carried away... We have, as I said, two modules per semester, and the last two hours is this series of lectures called Tradition of Critique, which is pretty awesome, because we get an overview of the key theorists of the 19th and 20th Century. For the man module classes, we have quite a bit of reading to do... These reading last somewhere between 50-100 pages, but this s just the essential reading... There's also the secondary reading, which I've never managed to actually get around.
This week is reading week, which means we don't have classes at all. I know that sounds like a blast, but its really hard because you have to get off your back and sit and focus and read, and figure out what you want to with your essay, which I'm finding quite difficult at the moment.
Till I have more,
In typical Brit Style,
Cheers
Kanasu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)