GULLIVER'S TRAVELS BY JONATHAN SWIFT.

1]  DO YOU AGREE THAT GULLIVER IS CRITICAL OF HIS OWN CULTURE?

Swift has at least two aims in Gulliver's Travels besides merely telling a good adventure story. Behind the disguise of his narrative, he is satirizing the pettiness of human nature in general and attacking the Whigs in particular. By emphasizing the six-inch height of the Lilliputians, he graphically diminishes the stature of politicians and indeed the stature of all human nature. And in using the fire in the Queen's chambers, the rope dancers, the bill of particulars drawn against Gulliver, and the inventory of Gulliver's pockets, he presents a series of allusions that were identifiable to his contemporaries as critical of Whig politics.

Why one might ask, did Swift have such a consuming contempt for the Whigs? This hatred began when Swift entered politics as the representative of the Irish church. Representing the Irish bishops, Swift tried to get Queen Anne and the Whigs to grant some financial aid to the Irish church. They refused, and Swift turned against them even though he had considered them his friends and had helped them while he worked for Sir William Temple. Swift turned to the Tories for political allegiance and devoted his propaganda talents to their services. Using certain political events of 1714-18, he described in Gulliver's Travels many things that would remind his readers that Lilliputian folly was also English folly — and, particularly, Whig folly. The method, for example, which Gulliver must use to swear his allegiance to the Lilliputian emperor parallels the absurd difficulty that the Whigs created concerning the credentials of the Tory ambassadors who signed the Treaty of Utrecht.

Within the broad scheme of Gulliver's Travels, Gulliver seems to be an average man in eighteenth-century England. He is concerned with family and with his job, yet he is confronted by the pigmies that politics and political theorizing make of people. Gulliver is utterly incapable of the stupidity of the Lilliputian politicians, and, therefore, he and the Lilliputians are ever-present contrasts for us. We are always aware of the difference between the imperfect (but normal) moral life of Gulliver, and the petty and stupid political life of emperors, prime ministers, and informers.

In the second book of the Travels, Swift reverses the size relationship that he used in Book I. In Lilliput, Gulliver was a giant; in Brobdingnag, Gulliver is a midget. Swift uses this difference to express a difference in morality. Gulliver was an ordinary man compared to the amoral political midgets in Lilliput. Now, Gulliver remains an ordinary man, but the Brobdingnagians are moral men. They are not perfect, but they are consistently moral.

Set against a moral background, Gulliver's "ordinariness" exposes many of its faults. Gulliver is revealed to be a very proud man and one who accepts the madness and malice of European politics, parties, and society as natural. What's more, he even lies to conceal what is despicable about them. The Brobdingnagian king, however, is not fooled by Gulliver. The English, he says, are "odious vermin."

.Swift praises the Brobdingnagians, but he does not intend for us to think that they are perfect humans. They are superhumans, bound to us by flesh and blood, just bigger morally than we are. Their virtues are not impossible for us to attain, but because it takes so much maturing to reach the stature of a moral giant, few humans achieve it

Brobdingnag is a practical, moral utopia. Among the Brobdingnagians, there is goodwill and calm virtue. Their laws encourage charity. Yet they are, underneath, just men who labor under every disadvantage to which man is the heir. They are physically ugly when magnified, but they are morally beautiful.

In Books I and II, Swift directs his satire more toward individual targets than firing a broadside at abstract concepts. In Book I, he is primarily concerned with Whig politics and politicians rather than with the abstract politician; in Book II, he elects to reprove immoral Englishmen rather than abstract immorality. In Book III, Swift's target is somewhat abstract — pride in reason — but he also singles out and censures a group of his contemporaries whom he believed to be particularly deprived in their exaltation of reason. He attacks his old enemies, the Moderns, and their satellites, the Deists and rationalists. In opposition to their credos, Swift believed that people were capable of reasoning, but that they were far from being fully rational. For the record, it should probably be mentioned that Swift was not alone in denouncing this clique of people. The objects of Swift's indignation had also aroused the rage of Pope, Arbuthnot, Dryden, and most of the orthodox theologians of the Augustan Age.

This love of reason that Swift criticizes derived from the rationalism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. John Locke's theories of natural religion were popularly read, as were Descartes' theories about the use of reason. Then a loosely connected group summarized these opinions, plus others, and a cult was born: They called themselves the Deists.

In general, the Deists believed that people could reason, observe the universe accurately, and perceive axioms intuitively. With these faculties, people could then arrive at religious truth; they did not need biblical revelation. Orthodox theology has always made reason dependent on God and morality, but the Deists refuted this notion. They attacked revealed religion, saying that if reason can support the God described by the Bible, it may also conclude that God is quite different from the biblical God. The answer depends upon which observations and axioms the reasoner choose to use.

In Book III, Laputan systematizing is exaggerated, but Swift's point is clear and concrete: Such systematizing is a manifestation of proud rationalism. The Laputans think so abstractly that they have lost their hold on common sense. They are so absorbed in their abstractions that they serve food in geometric and musical shapes. Everything is relegated to abstract thought, and the result is mass delusion and chaos. The Laputans do not produce anything useful; their clothes do not fit, and their houses are not constructed correctly. These people think — but only for abstract thinking's sake; they do not consider ends.

In a similar fashion, Swift shows that philology and scholarship betray the best interests of the Luggnaggians; pragmatic scientism fails in Balnibarbi, and accumulated experience does not make the Struldbruggs either happy or wise. In his topical political references, Swift demonstrates the viciousness and cruelty, as well as the folly, that arise from abstract political theory imposed by selfish politicians. The common people, Swift says, suffer. He also cites the folly of Laputan theorists and the Laputan king by referring to the immediate political blunders of the Georges.

 Man is an infinitely complex animal; he is many, many mixtures of intellect and reason, charity and emotion. Yet reason and intellect are not synonymous — even if they might profitably be; nor are emotion and charity necessarily akin to one another. But few people see Man as the grey mixture of varying qualities that he is. Man oversimplifies, and, in the last book of the Travels, Swift shows us the folly of people who advance such theories. In his time, it was a popular notion that a Reasonable Man was a Complete Man. Here, Swift shows us Reason exalted. We must judge whether it is possible or desirable for Man.

The Houyhnhnms are super-reasonable. They have all the virtues that the Stoics and Deists advocated. They speak clearly, they act justly, and they have simple laws. They do not quarrel or argue since each knows what is true and right. They do not suffer from the uncertainties of reasoning that afflict Man. But they are so reasonable that they have no emotions. They are untroubled by greed, politics, or lust. They act from undifferentiated benevolence. They would never prefer the welfare of one of their own children to the welfare of another Houyhnhnm simply on the basis of kinship.

Very simply, the Houyhnhnms are horses; they are not humans. And this physical difference parallels the abstract difference. They are fully rational, innocent, and depraved. Man is capable of reason, but never wholly or continuously, and he is — but never wholly or continuously — passionate, proud, and depraved.

In contrast to the Houyhnhnms, Swift presents their precise opposite: the Yahoos, creatures who exhibit the essence of sensual human sinfulness. The Yahoos are not merely animals; they are animals who are naturally vicious. Swift describes them in deliberately filthy and disgusting terms, often using metaphors drawn from dung. The Yahoos plainly represent Mankind depraved. Swift, in fact, describes the Yahoos in such disgusting terms that early critics assumed that he hated Man to the point of madness. Swift, however, takes his descriptions from the sermons and theological tracts of his predecessors and contemporaries. If Swift hated Man, one would also have to say that St. Francis and St. Augustine did, too. Swift's descriptions of depraved Man are, if anything, milder than they might be. Midway between the poles of the Houyhnhnms and the Yahoos, Swift places Gulliver. Gulliver is an average man, except that he has become irrational in his regard for reason. Gulliver is so disgusted with the Yahoos and so admires the Houyhnhnms that he tries to become a horse.

This aspiration to become a horse exposes Gulliver's grave weakness. Gullible and proud, he becomes such a devotee of the reason that he cannot accept his fellow humans who are less than totally reasonable. He cannot recognize virtue and charity when they exist. Captain Pedro de Mendez rescues Gulliver and takes him back to Europe, but Gulliver despises him because Mendez doesn't look like a horse. Likewise, when he reaches home, Gulliver hates his family because they look and smell like Yahoos. He is still capable of seeing objects and surfaces accurately, but he is incapable of grasping true depths of meaning.

Swift discriminates between people as they are idealized, people as they are damned, people as they possibly could be, and others as they are. The Houyhnhnms embody the ideal of the rationalists and stoics; the Yahoos illustrate the damning abstraction of sinful and depraved Man; and Pedro de Mendez represents virtue possible to Man. Gulliver, usually quite sane, is misled when we leave him, but he is like most people. Even dullards, occasionally, become obsessed by something or other for a while before lapsing back into their quiet, workaday selves. Eventually, we can imagine that Gulliver will recover and be his former unexciting, gullible self.

Swift uses the technique of making abstractions concrete to show us that super-reasonable horses are impossible and useless models for humans. They have never fallen and therefore have never been redeemed. They are incapable of the Christian virtues that unite passion and reason: Neither they nor the Yahoos are touched by grace or charity. In contrast, the Christian virtues of Pedro de Mendez and the Brobdingnagians (the "least corrupted" of mankind) are possible to humans. These virtues are the result of grace and redemption. Swift does not press this theological point, however. He is, after all, writing a satire, not a religious tract.

After discussing all aspects of Gulliver's Travels I  Agree with the sentence that "Gulliver is critical of his own culture."

Criticism

What is Literature?
Why learn/read literature? What use of it?
Didactic or Aesthetic
Entertainment, learn lesson for better life 


R.J.Rees: Introduction to Literature:  Any writing, where words / language is used is literature. For eg. Time-table, brochures, catalogues etc.
Customer to sales girl: “I wanna buy mobile. Please show me its literature.”
Thus in broader sense Wordsworth’s poem and book on surgery are literature.
Let us try to define Literature more specifically:

Literature is - holds the mirror up to nature – Shakespeare in Hamlet.
Is life enhancing.
Is criticism of life.
has aesthetic quality – emotions & motions, moving, feelings, thought provoking.
Life in fuller and deeper sense is expressed in literature.

Books are man’s best friend.
One should read books.
Reaidng of good books enrich knowledge of various fields.
Books give information about world, human beings etc etc etc…..
Safdar hashmi’s Kitaabe…

Life is but a walking shadow, Man a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then, is heard no more;
Its tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying  nothing.  (Macbeth)



What is Criticism?
How does it differ from Creativity? Who should criticize? 
Criticism (of life) > Art  > Criticism (of Art)
Definition of Criticism: 
The word criticism has been derived from the Greek word Kritikos, which means ‘able to discern and judge’ and whoever does the act of judging is called Critic.
Criticism is the art of judging the merits and demerits of creative composition. 
Literature: 
Literaedidactiese (Latin) – didactic literature – it aims to teach or to give information. (anti-literature)
Literaehumanieonare – literature – it aims to please, to move, to transport, to entertain…
De Quincey: 
Literature of knowledge: philosophy, economics, history, maths, physics, information brochure…etc
Literature of power: poetry, drama, novel, dance, painting, sculpture… etc.
Eg. Two drawings of house: Architecture’s design and painter’s painting.
All that is literature seeks to communicate power; all that is not literature, to communicate knowledge. – De Quincey.
Charles Lamb: 
Books: Poem or fine arts
No Books – Dictionary or guide book on poem. Though dictionary writing is art, its technical art.


Criticism and Creativity:
The Literature of Power as against the literature of knowledge:
Pope: “Both from Heaven derive their light
These born to judge, as well as those to write.”
Dryden: “ The corruption of a poet is the generation of a critic.”
Lessing: “Not every critic is born a genius, but every genius is born a critic of art. He has within himself the evidence of all rules.”
The relationship between Criticism and Creativity is a very close and it is very difficult to decide which of these two processes came first. This relationship is as illusive as that of the seed and the tree, and the egg and the hen. The seed grows out of a tree and tree grows out of a seed. In the same way a hen grows out of an egg and an egg grows out of a hen. Similarly, it is absolutely impossible to find out whether an artist came first or a critic.
 R.A. Scott James: To the critics of the arts and especially literature, custom has given an independent place. In this respect it differs from all other kind of criticism. [Critic of architecture, gardening, surgery, etc…… but that of poetry/drama/novel is not poet, novelist …]
Thus, since time immemorial, it has been customary to accept the criticism of art from a man who may or may not have been artist himself.
Some believe that artist should create its art and leave it for critic to pass judgment over it. Whereas Ben Jonson is of the view that to judge of poets is only the faculty of poets; and not of all poets, but the best. Only the best of poets have the right to pass judgments on the merit or defects of poetry, for they alone have experienced the creative process form beginning to end, and they alone can rightly understand it. 
Both the above given views are extreme. While it is true that the critic has understanding of poetry as well as analytical mind which proves dependable – the poets are not quite without the gift of analytical thinking. Moreover,  it cannot be said that the poet who creates does not understand his own creation, and that in order to understand he must approach the critic.  Thus, even Ben Jonson is also not quite fair. Most often, the poet who bursts out into spontaneous utterance has no critical awareness of it. He has a powerful experience, a vision of life which he wishes to communicate to others through his work, but whether it is adequately communicated or not, whether it has moving, transporting qualities or not, whether the writer has succeeded in expressing what he intended to express…etc… are the questions which a student of literature (critic) which balanced mind, poetic sensibility – though not poetic ability and capacity – has to reply.
Thus critics are distinguished person. They have qualified themselves for the task. A. pope has rightly said, it is a heavenly gift. Dr, Johnson – nature and learning has qualified them to judge.
But this does not mean that all the critics are fair and qualified critics. Sometimes we find purely professional who lack both sympathy and impartiality of an ideal critic. They do not render good service to literature, but they hinder the young and rising talent.  (Keats’ premature death, Hardy gave up writing novels). Oliver Goldsmith calls them eunuchs – themselves unable to create, and therefore they hinder creativity in others.  Dryden: corruption of poet is the generation of critic.
R.A.Scott James:  less gifted man would be certain to miss the significance of his drawing. If you show a dog a photograph of his master he will not recognize it. It will show more excitement at the photographs of dog next door.
Any student of literature who wishes to take some profitable use of the critical literature available to him will do well to keep the following words of Scott James in his mind before he goes on with the task that he has undertaken to accomplish: It may be a gain to attend to the writer of this critical literature precisely in so far as they are not standing aloof, like magistrate who were never guilty of crime pronouncing dispassionately upon the blamelessness or the misdemeanor of artist.
No critic can ever form accurate judgment unless he possesses the artist’s vision.
Criticism and creativity are inextricably missed up with each other.  Thus the artist is the critic of life and Critic, that of art. The artist must have the imagination and vision to critically imitate the life/nature; the Critic from beginning to end, relive the same experience.