English

Project Work

Made by: Anshul Yadav

Roll No.: 11206
Class: XI-B
Biographical
Details Of
Indian writers

Arundhati Roy

R.K. Narayan
 Arundhati Roy
Suzanna Arundhati Roy (born 24 November 1959) is
an Indian author who is best known for her novel The God
of Small Things(1997), which won the Man Booker Prize for
Fiction in 1997. This novel became the biggest-selling
book by a nonexpatriate Indian author. She is also
a political activist involved in human
rights and environmental causes.

Arundhati Roy, full name Suzanna Arundhati Roy

(born Nov. 24, 1961, Shillong, Meghalaya, India), Indian
author, actress, and political activist who was best
known for the award-winning novel The God of Small
Things (1997) and for her involvement in environmental
and human rights causes.
Roys father was a Bengali tea planter, and her mother
was a Christian of Syrian descent who challenged
Indias inheritance laws by successfully suing for the
right of Christian women to receive an equal share of
their fathers estates. Though trained as an architect,
Roy had little interest in design; she dreamed instead of
a writing career. After a series of odd jobs, including
artist and aerobics instructor, she wrote and costarred in
the film In Which Annie Gives It to Those Ones (1989)
and later penned scripts for the film Electric
Moon (1992) and several television dramas.
The films earned Roy a devoted following, but her
literary career was interrupted by controversy. In 1995
she wrote two newspaper articles claiming that Shekhar
Kapurs film Bandit Queen exploited Phoolan Devi, one
of Indias most wanted criminals in the early 1980s and
a heroine of the oppressed. The columns caused an
uproar, including a court case, and Roy retreated from
the public and returned to the novel she had begun to
write.
In 1997 Roy published her debut novel, The God of
Small Things to wide acclaim. The semiautobiographical
work departed from the conventional plots and light
prose that had been typical among best-sellers.
Composed in a lyrical language about South Asian
themes and characters in a narrative that wandered
through time, Roys novel became the biggest-selling
book by a nonexpatriate Indian author and won the
1998 Man Booker Prize for Fiction.
Roys subsequent literary output consisted mainly of
politically oriented nonfiction. She published a collection
of essays, The Algebra of Infinite Justice (2002), and
several books, including Power Politics(2001), War
Talk (2003), and Public Power in the Age of
Empire (2004). In recognition of her outspoken
advocacy of human rights, Roy was awarded the
Lannan Cultural Freedom Award in 2002, the Sydney
Peace Prize in 2004, and the Sahitya Akademi Award
from the Indian Academy of Letters in 2006.
In addition to her literary work, Roy was active in various
environmental and human rights causes. She led efforts
to prevent the construction of dams in Narmada, and her
work was chronicled in the documentary DAM/AGE
(2002). Roy later drew criticism for her vocal support
of Maoist-supported Naxalite insurgency groups.

Early life
Arundhati Roy was born in Shillong, Meghalaya, India, to Rajib
Roy, a Bengali Hindu tea plantation manager
from Calcutta and Mary Roy, a Malayali Syrian
Christian women's rights activist from Kerala. When she was
two, her parents divorced and she returned with her mother and
brother to Kerala. For a time, the family lived with Roy's
maternal grandfather in Ooty, Tamil Nadu. When she was 5, the
family moved back to Kerala, where her mother started a
school.
Roy attended school at Corpus Christi, Kottayam, followed by
the Lawrence School, Lovedale, in Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu. She
then studied architecture at the School of Planning and
Architecture, Delhi, where she met architect Gerard da Cunha.
The two lived together in Delhi, and then Goa, before they
broke up.

Personal life
Roy returned to Delhi, where she obtained a position with
the National Institute of Urban Affairs. In 1984 she met
independent filmmaker Pradip Krishen, who offered her a role
as a goatherd in his award-winning movie Massey Sahib. The
two later married. They collaborated on a television series on
India's independence movement and on two
films,Annie and Electric Moon. Disenchanted with the film
world, Roy worked various jobs, including running aerobics
classes. Roy and Krishen eventually split up. She became
financially secure by the success of her novel The God of
Small Things, published in 1997.
Roy is a cousin of prominent media personality Prannoy Roy,
the head of the leading Indian TV media group NDTV.] She
lives in Delhi.
 Arundhati Roy

Arundhati Roy in 2013

Born Suzanna Arundhati Roy

24 November 1959 (age 55)
Shillong, Assam (present-dayMeghalaya), India

Occupation Writer, essayist, activist

Nationality Indian

Period 1997present

Notable works The God of Small Things

Notable awards
Man Booker Prize (1997)

Sydney Peace Prize (2004)

Signature
Career
Early career: screenplays
Early in her career, Roy worked for television and movies. She wrote
the screenplays for In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones (1989), a movie
based on her experiences as a student of architecture, in which she also
appeared as a performer, and Electric Moon (1992), both directed by her
then husband Pradip Krishen. Roy won the National Film Award for Best
Screenplay in 1988 for In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones. She
attracted attention in 1994, when she criticised Shekhar Kapur's
film Bandit Queen, based on the life of Phoolan Devi. In her film review
entitled, "The Great Indian Rape Trick", she questioned the right to
"restage the rape of a living woman without her permission", and
charged Kapur with exploiting Devi and misrepresenting both her life and
its meaning.

The God of Small Things

Roy began writing her first novel, The God of Small Things, in 1992,
completing it in 1996. The book is semi-autobiographical and a major
part captures her childhood experiences in Aymanam.
The publication of The God of Small Things catapulted Roy to
international fame. It received the 1997 Booker Prize for Fiction and was
listed as one of the New York TimesNotable Books of the Year for 1997.
It reached fourth position on the New York Times Bestsellers list for
Independent Fiction. From the beginning, the book was also a
commercial success: Roy received half a million pounds as an advance;
It was published in May, and the book had been sold to eighteen
countries by the end of June.
The God of Small Things received stellar reviews in major American
newspapers such as The New York Times (a "dazzling first novel,"
"extraordinary", "at once so morally strenuous and so imaginatively
supple" ) and the Los Angeles Times ("a novel of poignancy and
considerable sweep" ), and in Canadian publications such as the Toronto
Star ("a lush, magical novel" ). By the end of the year, it had become one
of the five best books of 1997 by TIME. Critical response in the United
Kingdom was less positive, and that the novel was awarded the Booker
Prize caused controversy; Carmen Callil, a 1996 Booker Prize judge,
called the novel "execrable", and The Guardian called the contest
"profoundly depressing". In India, the book was criticised especially for
its unrestrained description of sexuality by E. K. Nayanar, then Chief
Minister of Roy's home state Kerala, where she had to answer charges
of obscenity.

Later career
Since the success of her novel, Roy has written a television
serial, The Banyan Tree, and the documentary
DAM/AGE: A Film with Arundhati Roy (2002).
In early 2007, Roy stated that she was working on a second
novel.

Arundhati Roy, Man Booker Prize winner

She contributed to We Are One: A Celebration of Tribal

Peoples, a book released in 2009 that explores the culture of
peoples around the world, portraying their diversity and the
threats to their existence. The royalties from the sale of this
book go to the indigenous rights organisation Survival
International.
She has written numerous essays on contemporary politics and
culture. They have been collected by Penguin India in a five-
volume set.

Advocacy and
controversy
Since publishing The God of Small Things in 1997, Roy has
spent most of her time on political activism and nonfiction (like
collections of essays about social causes). She is a
spokesperson of the anti-globalization/alter-
globalization movement and a vehement critic of neo-
imperialism and U.S. foreign policy. She opposes India's
policies towards nuclear weapons as well
as industrialization and economic growth (which she describes
as "encrypted with genocidal potential" in Listening to
Grasshoppers: Field Notes on Democracy).[28]

Support for Kashmiri separatism

In an August 2008 interview with the Times of India, Arundhati
Roy expressed her support for the independence of
Kashmir from India after the massive demonstrations in 2008 in
favour of independence took placesome 500,000 separatists
rallied in Srinagar in the Kashmir part of Jammu and
Kashmir state of India for independence on 18 August 2008,
following the Amarnath land transfer controversy.[29] According
to her, the rallies were a sign that Kashmiris desire secession
from India, and not union with India.[30] She was criticised by
the Indian National Congress (INC) and Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) for her remarks.[31][32]
AICC member and senior Congress party leader Satya Prakash
Malaviya asked Roy to withdraw her "irresponsible" statement
saying it was "contrary to historical facts".[32]
"It would do better to brush up her knowledge of history and
know that the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir had
acceded to the Union of India after its erstwhile ruler Maharaja
Hari Singh duly signed the Instrument of Accession on October
26, 1947. And the state, consequently has become as much an
integral part of India as all the other erstwhile princely states
have."[32]

Sardar Sarovar Project

Roy has campaigned along with activist Medha Patkar against
the Narmada dam project, saying that the dam will displace half
a million people, with little or no compensation, and will not
provide the projected irrigation, drinking water, and other
benefits.[33] Roy donated her Booker prize money as well as
royalties from her books on the project to theNarmada Bachao
Andolan. Roy also appears in Franny Armstrong's Drowned
Out, a 2002 documentary about the project.[34] Roy's opposition
to the Narmada Dam project was criticised as "maligning
Gujarat" by Congress and BJP leaders in Gujarat.[35]
In 2002, Roy responded to a contempt notice issued against
her by the Indian Supreme Court with an affidavit saying the
court's decision to initiate the contempt proceedings based on
an unsubstantiated and flawed petition, while refusing to inquire
into allegations of corruption in military contracting
deals pleading an overload of cases, indicated a "disquieting
inclination" by the court to silence criticism and dissent using
the power of contempt.[36] The court found Roy's statement,
which she refused to disavow or apologise for, constituted
criminal contempt and sentenced her to a "symbolic" one day's
imprisonment and fined Roy Rs. 2500.[37] Roy served the jail
sentence for a single day and opted to pay the fine rather than
serve an additional three months' imprisonment for default.[38]
Environmental historian Ramachandra Guha has been critical
of Roy's Narmada dam activism. While acknowledging her
"courage and commitment" to the cause, Guha writes that her
advocacy is hyperbolic and self-indulgent,[39] "Ms. Roy's
tendency to exaggerate and simplify, her Manichaean view of
the world, and her shrill hectoring tone, have given a bad name
to environmental analysis".[40] He faulted Roy's criticism of
Supreme Court judges who were hearing a petition brought by
the Narmada Bachao Andolan as careless and irresponsible.
Roy counters that her writing is intentional in its passionate,
hysterical tone: "I am hysterical. I'm screaming from the bloody
rooftops. And he and his smug little club are going 'Shhhh...
you'll wake the neighbours!' I want to wake the neighbours,
that's my whole point. I want everybody to open their eyes".[41]
Gail Omvedt and Roy have had fierce yet constructive
discussions, in open letters, on Roy's strategy for the Narmada
Dam movement. The activists disagree on whether to demand
stopping the dam building altogether (Roy) or searching for
intermediate alternatives (Omvedt).[42]
United States foreign policy, the War in
Afghanistan

Arundhati Roy delivering a talk "Can We Leave the Bauxite in the

Mountain? Field Notes on Democracy" at theHarvard Kennedy
School on April 1, 2010.[43]

In a 2001 opinion piece in the British newspaper The Guardian,

Arundhati Roy responded to the U.S. military invasion of
Afghanistan, finding fault with the argument that this war would
be a retaliation for the September 11 attacks: "The bombing of
Afghanistan is not revenge for New York and Washington. It is
yet another act of terror against the people of the world."
According to her, U.S. PresidentGeorge W. Bush and British
Prime Minister Tony Blair were guilty of a Big Brother kind
of doublethink: "When he announced the air strikes, President
George Bush said: 'We're a peaceful nation.' America's
favourite ambassador, Tony Blair, (who also holds the portfolio
of prime minister of the UK), echoed him: 'We're a peaceful
people.' So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War
is peace."
She disputes U.S. claims of being a peaceful and freedom-
loving nation, listing China and nineteen 3rd World "countries
that America has been at war withand bombedsince
the second world war", as well as previous U.S. support for the
Taliban movement and support for the Northern Alliance (whose
"track record is not very different from the Taliban's"). She does
not spare the Taliban: "Now, as adults and rulers, the Taliban
beat, stone, rape and brutalise women, they don't seem to
know what else to do with them."
In the final analysis, Roy sees American-style capitalism as the
culprit: "In America, the arms industry, the oil industry,
the major media networks, and, indeed, U.S. foreign policy, are
all controlled by the same business combines". She puts the
attacks on the World Trade Center and on Afghanistan on the
same moral level, that of terrorism, and mourns the
impossibility of imagining beauty after 2001: "Will it be possible
ever again to watch the slow, amazed blink of a
newborn gecko in the sun, or whisper back to the marmot who
has just whispered in your earwithout thinking of the World
Trade Centre and Afghanistan?"[44]
In May 2003 she delivered a speech entitled "Instant-Mix
Imperial Democracy (Buy One, Get One Free)" at the Riverside
Church in New York City, in which she described the United
States as a global empire that reserves the right to bomb any of
its subjects at any time, deriving its legitimacy directly from
God. The speech was an indictment of the U.S. actions relating
to the Iraq War.[45][46] In June 2005 she took part in the World
Tribunal on Iraq, and in March 2006, Roy criticised U.S.
President George W. Bush's visit to India, calling him a "war
criminal".[47]

India's nuclear weaponisation

In response to India's testing of nuclear
weapons in Pokhran, Rajasthan, Roy wrote The End of
Imagination (1998), a critique of the Indian
government's nuclear policies. It was published in her
collection The Cost of Living (1999), in which she also
crusaded against India's massive hydroelectric dam projects in
the central and western states ofMaharashtra, Madhya
Pradesh, and Gujarat.

Criticism of Israel
In August 2006, Roy, along with Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn,
and others, signed a letter in The Guardian called the 2006
Lebanon War a "war crime" and accused Israel of "state terror".
[48]
In 2007, Roy was one of more than 100 artists and writers
who signed an open letter initiated by Queers Undermining
Israeli Terrorism and the South West Asian, North African Bay
Area Queers and calling on the San Francisco International
LGBT Film Festival "to honor calls for an international boycott
of Israeli political and cultural institutions, by
discontinuing Israeli consulate sponsorship of the LGBT film
festival and not cosponsoring events with the Israeli consulate".
[49]

2001 Indian Parliament attack

Roy has raised questions about the investigation into the 2001
Indian Parliament attack and the trial of the accused. She had
called for the death sentence of Mohammad Afzal to be stayed
while a parliamentary enquiry into these questions are
conducted and denounced press coverage of the trial.
[50]
The BJP spokesperson Prakash Javadekar criticised Roy for
calling convicted terrorist Mohammad Afzal a "prisoner-of-war"
and called Arundhati a "prisoner of her own dogma".[51]
He further said,
"No country has ever witnessed such kind of defense of a
terrorist. They have gone beyond an academic discussion on
capital punishment."[51]
Afzal was hanged in 2013.[52]
The Muthanga incident
In 2003, the Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha, a social movement
for Adivasi land rights in Kerala, organised a major land
occupation of a piece of land of a former Eucalyptus plantation
in the Muthanga Wildlife Reserve, on the border of Kerala and
Karnataka. After 48 days, a police force was sent into the area
to evict the occupantsone participant of the movement and a
policeman were killed, and the leaders of the movement were
arrested. Arundhati Roy travelled to the area, visited the
movement's leaders in jail, and wrote an open letter to the
then Chief Minister of Kerala, A. K. Antony, saying "You have
blood on your hands."[53]
Comments on 2008 Mumbai attacks
In an opinion piece for The Guardian (13 December 2008), Roy
argued that the November 2008 Mumbai attacks cannot be
seen in isolation, but must be understood in the context of
wider issues in the region's history and society such as
widespread poverty, the Partition of India ("Britain's final,
parting kick to us"), the atrocities committed during the2002
Gujarat violence, and the ongoing Kashmir conflict. Despite this
call for context, Roy states clearly in the article that she
believes "nothing can justify terrorism" and calls terrorism "a
heartless ideology". Roy warns against war with Pakistan,
arguing that it is hard to "pin down the provenance of a terrorist
strike and isolate it within the borders of a single nation state",
and that war could lead to the "descent of the whole region into
chaos".[54] Her remarks were strongly criticised by Salman
Rushdie and others, who condemned her for linking
the Mumbai attacks with Kashmir and economic injustice
against Muslims in India;[55] Rushdie specifically criticised Roy
for attacking the iconic status of the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower.
[56]
Indian writer Tavleen Singh called Roy's comments "the
latest of her series of hysterical diatribes against India and all
things Indian".[57]

Criticism of Sri Lankan government

In an opinion piece, once again in The Guardian (1 April 2009),
Roy made a plea for international attention to what she called a
possible government-sponsored genocide ofTamils in Sri
Lanka. She cited reports of camps into which Tamils were being
herded as part of what she described as "a brazen, openly
racist war".[58] She also mentioned that the "Government of Sri
Lanka is on the verge of committing what could end up
being genocide"[58] and described the Sri Lankan IDP
camps where Tamil civilians are being held as concentration
camps.[59] Ruvani Freeman, a Sri Lankan writer called Roy's
remarks "ill-informed and hypocritical" and criticised her for
"whitewashing the atrocities of theLTTE".[60] Roy has said of
such accusations: "I cannot admire those whose vision can only
accommodate justice for their own and not for everybody.
However I do believe that the LTTE and its fetish for violence
was cultured in the crucible of monstrous, racist, injustice that
the Sri Lankan government and to a great extent Sinhala
society visited on the Tamil people for decades".[61]

Views on the Naxalites

Roy has criticised the Indian government's armed
actions against the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency in India, calling
it "war on the poorest people in the country". According to her,
the Government has "abdicated its responsibility to the
people"[62] and launched the offensive against Naxals to aid the
corporations with whom it has signed Memoranda of
Understanding.[63] While she has received support from various
quarters for her views,[64] Roy's description of the Maoists as
"Gandhians" raised a controversy.[65][66] In other statements, she
has described Naxalites as "patriot of a kind"[67] who are
"fighting to implement the Constitution, (while) the government
is vandalising it".[62]

Sedition charges
In November 2010, Roy, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, and five others
were brought up on charges of sedition by the Delhi Police. The
filing of the First Information Report came following a directive
from a local court on a petition filed by Sushil Pandit who
alleged that Geelani and Roy made anti-India speeches at a
conference on "Azadi-the Only Way" on 21 October 2010. In
the words of Arundhati Roy "Kashmir has never been an
integral part of India. It is a historical fact. Even the Indian
government has accepted this".[68][69][70][71] A Delhi city court
directed the police to respond to the demand for a criminal case
after the central government declined to charge Roy, saying
that the charges were inappropriate.[72][73]
Criticism of Anna Hazare
On 21 August 2011, at the height of Anna Hazare's anti-
corruption campaign, Arundhati Roy criticised Hazare and his
movement in an opinion piece published in The Hindu.[74] In the
course of the article, she questioned Hazare's secular
credentials, pointing out the campaign's corporate backing, its
suspicious timing, Hazare's silence on private-sector corruption
and on other critical issues of the day, expressing her fear that
the Lokpal will only end up creating "two oligarchies, instead of
just one". She states that while "his means maybe Gandhian,
his demands are certainly not", and alleges that by "demonising
only the Government they" are preparing to call for
"more privatisation, more access topublic infrastructure and
India's natural resources", satirically adding that it "may not be
long before Corporate Corruption is made legal and renamed
a Lobbying Fee". Roy also accuses the electronic media of
blowing the campaign out of proportion. In an interview
with Kindle Magazine, Roy pointed out the role of media hype
and target audience in determining how well hunger
strikes work as a tool of political mobilization by noting the
disparity in the attention Hazares fast has received in contrast
to the decade-long fast ofIrom Sharmila to demand the
repealing of a law that allows non-commissioned officers to kill
on suspiciona law that has led to so much suffering.[75] Roy's
comparison of theJan Lokpal Bill with the Maoists: claiming
both sought "the overthrow of the Indian State" met with
resentment from members of Team Anna. Medha Patkar
reacted sharply calling Roy's comments "highly misplaced" and
chose to emphasise the "peaceful, non-violent" nature of the
movement.[76] Roy has also stated that an Anti-corruption
campaign is a catch-all campaign. It includes everybody from
the extreme left to the extreme right and also the extremely
corrupt. No ones going to say they are for corruption after all
Im not against a strong anti-corruption bill, but corruption is just
a manifestation of a problem, not the problem itself.[75]

Views on Narendra Modi

In 2013, Roy described Narendra Modi's nomination for
the prime ministerial candidate as a "tragedy". She further said
that the business houses are also supporting his candidature
because he is the "most militaristic and aggressive" candidate.
[77]

Awards
Arundhati Roy was awarded the 1997 Booker Prize for her
novel The God of Small Things. The award carried a prize
of about US$30,000[78] and a citation that noted, "The book
keeps all the promises that it makes".[79] Prior to this, she
won the National Film Award for Best Screenplay in 1989,
for the screenplay of In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones,
in which she captured the anguish among the students
prevailing in professional institutions.[9]

In 2002, she won the Lannan Foundation's Cultural

Freedom Award for her work "about civil societies that are
adversely affected by the world's most powerful
governments and corporations", in order "to celebrate her
life and her ongoing work in the struggle for freedom,
justice and cultural diversity".
 In 2003, she was awarded "special recognition" as a
Woman of Peace at the Global Exchange Human Rights
Awards in San Francisco with Bianca Jagger, Barbara
Lee, and Kathy Kelly.

Roy was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize in May 2004

for her work in social campaigns and her advocacy of non-
violence.

In January 2006, she was awarded the Sahitya Akademi

Award, a national award from India's Academy of Letters,
for her collection of essays on contemporary issues, The
Algebra of Infinite Justice, but she declined to accept it "in
protest against the Indian Government toeing the US line
by 'violently and ruthlessly pursuing policies of
brutalisation of industrial workers,
increasing militarisation and economic neo-liberalisation'".

In November 2011, she was awarded the Norman Mailer

Prize for Distinguished Writing.

Roy was featured in the 2014 list of Time 100, the 100
most influential people in the world.
R.K. Narayan

R.K. Narayan is one of the most famous and widely read Indian
novelists. His stories were grounded in a compassionate humanism and
celebrated the humour and energy of ordinary life.

R.K. Narayan was born on October 10, 1906 in Madras. His father was a
provincial head master. R.K. Narayan spent his early childhood with his
maternal grandmother, Parvathi in Madras and used to spend only a few
weeks each summer visiting his parents and siblings. R.K. Narayan
studied for eight years at Lutheran Mission School close to his
grandmother's house in Madras, also for a short time at the CRC High
School. When his father was appointed headmaster of the Maharaja's
High School in Mysore, R.K. Narayan moved back in with his parents.
He obtained his bachelor's degree from the University of Mysore.
R.K. Narayan began his writing career with Swami and Friends in 1935.
Most of his work including Swami and friends is set in the fictional town
of Malgudi which captures everything Indian while having a unique
identity of its own. R.K. Narayan's writing style was marked by simplicity
and subtle humour. He told stories of ordinary people trying to live their
simple lives in a changing world.

R.K. Narayan's famous works include The Bachelor of Arts (1937), The
Dark Room (1938), The English Teacher (1945), The Financial Expert
(1952), The Guide (1958), The Man-Eater of Malgudi (1961), The Vendor
of Sweets (1967), Malgudi Days (1982), and The Grandmother's Tale
(1993).

R.K. Narayan won numerous awards and honors for his works. These
include: Sahitya Akademi Award for The Guide in 1958; Padma Bhushan
in 1964; and AC Benson Medal by the Royal Society of Literature in
1980; R.K. Narayan was elected an honorary member of the American
Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters in 1982. He was nominated to
the Rajya Sabha in 1989. Besides, he was also conferred honorary
doctorates by the University of Mysore, Delhi University and the
University of Leeds.

R. K. Narayan (10 October 1906 13 May 2001), full name Rasipuram

Krishnaswami Iyer Narayanaswami, was an Indian writer, best known
for his works set in the fictional South Indian town of Malgudi. He is one
of three leading figures of early Indian literature in
English (alongside Mulk Raj Anand and Raja Rao), and is credited with
bringing the genre to the rest of the world.
Narayan broke through with the help of his mentor and friend, Graham
Greene, who was instrumental in getting publishers for Narayans first
four books, including the semi-autobiographical trilogy of Swami and
Friends, The Bachelor of Arts and The English Teacher. Narayans
works also include The Financial Expert, hailed as one of the most
original works of 1951, and Sahitya Akademi Award winner The Guide,
which was adapted for film and for Broadway.
The setting for most of Narayan's stories is the fictional town of Malgudi,
first introduced in Swami and Friends. His narratives highlight social
context and provide a feel for his characters through everyday life. He
has been compared to William Faulkner, who also created a fictional
town that stood for reality, brought out the humour and energy of
ordinary life, and displayed compassionatehumanism in his writing.
Narayan's short story writing style has been compared to that of Guy de
Maupassant, as they both have an ability to compress the narrative
without losing out on elements of the story. Narayan has also come in for
criticism for being too simple in his prose and diction.
In a writing career that spanned over sixty years, Narayan received
many awards and honours. These include the AC Benson Medalfrom the
Royal Society of Literature, the Padma Bhushan and the Padma
Vibhushan, India's third and second highest civilian awards. [1] He was
also nominated to the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of India's
parliament.
 R. K. Narayan

Born Rasipuram Krishnaswami Iyer

Narayanaswami
10 October 1906
Madras, British India

Died 13 May 2001 (aged 94)

Chennai

Occupation Writer

Nationality Indian

Genre Fiction, mythology and non-fiction

Notable Padma Vibhushan, Sahitya Akademi

awards Award, AC Benson Medal

Relatives R. K. Laxman (brother)

Early days[edit]
R. K. Narayan was born in Madras (now
Chennai), British India.[2] His father was a school
headmaster, and Narayan did some of his studies
at his father's school. As his father's job entailed
frequent transfers, Narayan spent part of his
childhood under the care of his maternal
grandmother, Parvati.[3] During this time his best
friends and playmates were a peacock and a
mischievous monkey.[4][5][6]
His grandmother gave him the nickname
of Kunjappa, a name that stuck to him in family
circles.[7] She taught him arithmetic, mythology,
classical Indian music and Sanskrit.[8]According to
his youngest brother R. K. Laxman, the family
mostly conversed in English, and grammatical
errors on the part of Narayan and his siblings were
frowned upon.[9]While living with his grandmother,
Narayan studied at a succession of schools in
Madras, including the Lutheran Mission School
in Purasawalkam,[10] C.R.C. High School, and
theChristian College High School.[11] Narayan was
an avid reader, and his early literary diet
included Dickens, Wodehouse, Arthur Conan
Doyle and Thomas Hardy.[12] When he was twelve
years old, Narayan participated in a pro-
independence march, for which he was
reprimanded by his uncle; the family was apolitical
and considered all governments wicked.[13]
Narayan moved to Mysore to live with his family when
his father was transferred to the Maharajah's College
High School. The well-stocked library at the school, as
well as his father's own, fed his reading habit, and he
started writing as well. After completing high school,
Narayan failed the university entrance examination and
spent a year at home reading and writing; he
subsequently passed the examination in 1926 and
joined Maharaja College of Mysore. It took Narayan four
years to obtain his bachelor's degree, a year longer than
usual. After being persuaded by a friend that taking a
master's degree (M.A.) would kill his interest in
literature, he briefly held a job as a school teacher;
however, he quit in protest when the headmaster of the
school asked him to substitute for the physical training
master. The experience made Narayan realise that the
[10]

only career for him was in writing, and he decided to

stay at home and write novels. His first published
[14][15]

work was a book review of Development of Maritime

Laws of 17th-Century England. Subsequently, he
[16]

started writing the occasional local interest story for

English newspapers and magazines. Although the
writing did not pay much (his income for the first year
was nine rupees and twelve annas), he had a regular life
and few needs, and his family and friends respected and
supported his unorthodox choice of career. In 1930, [17]

Narayan wrote his first novel, Swami and Friends, an [16]

effort ridiculed by his uncle and rejected by a string of

[18]

publishers. With this book, Narayan created Malgudi, a

[9]

town that creatively reproduced the social sphere of the

country; while it ignored the limits imposed by colonial
rule, it also grew with the various socio-political changes
of British and post-independence India. [19]
Turning point[edit]
While vacationing at his sister's house in Coimbatore, in
1933, Narayan met and fell in love with Rajam, a 15-
year-old girl who lived nearby. Despite many astrological
and financial obstacles, Narayan managed to gain
permission from the girl's father and married her.
Following his marriage, Narayan became a reporter
[20]

for a Madras-based paper called The Justice, dedicated

to the rights of non-Brahmins. The publishers were
thrilled to have a Brahmin Iyer in Narayan espousing
their cause. The job brought him in contact with a wide
variety of people and issues. Earlier, Narayan had sent
[21]

the manuscript of Swami and Friends to a friend

at Oxford, and about this time, the friend showed the
manuscript to Graham Greene. Greene recommended
the book to his publisher, and it was finally published in
1935. Greene also counseled Narayan on shortening
[4]

his name to become more familiar to the English-

speaking audience. The book was semi-
[22]

autobiographical and built upon many incidents from his

own childhood. Reviews were favourable but sales
[23]

were few. Narayan's next novel The Bachelor of

Arts (1937), was inspired in part by his experiences at
college, and dealt with the theme of a rebellious
[24]

adolescent transitioning to a rather well-adjusted adult;

it was published by a different publisher, again at the
[25]

recommendation of Greene. His third novel, The Dark

Room(1938) was about domestic disharmony,
showcasing the man as the oppressor and the woman
[26]

as the victim within a marriage, and was published by

yet another publisher; this book also received good
reviews. In 1937, Narayan's father died, and Narayan
was forced to accept a commission from the government
of Mysore as he was not making any money. [27]

In his first three books, Narayan highlights the problems

with certain socially accepted practices. The first book
has Narayan focusing on the plight of students,
punishments of caning in the classroom, and the
associated shame. The concept of horoscope-matching
in Hindu marriages and the emotional toll it levies on the
bride and groom is covered in the second book. In the
third book, Narayan addresses the concept of a wife
putting up with her husband's antics and attitudes. [28]

Rajam died of typhoid in 1939. Her death affected

[29]

Narayan deeply and he remained depressed for a long

time; he was also concerned for their daughter Hema,
who was only three years old. The bereavement brought
about a significant change in his life and was the
inspiration behind his next novel, The English Teacher.
This book, like his first two books, is autobiographical,
[16]

but more so, and completes an unintentional thematic

trilogy following Swami and Friends and The Bachelor of
Arts. In subsequent interviews, Narayan
[30][31]

acknowledges that The English Teacher was almost

entirely an autobiography, albeit with different names for
the characters and the change of setting in Malgudi; he
also explains that the emotions detailed in the book
reflected his own at the time of Rajam's death. [32]

Bolstered by some of his successes, in 1940 Narayan tried his

hand at a journal, Indian Thought. With the help of his uncle, a
[33]

car salesman, Narayan managed to get more than a thousand

subscribers in Madras city alone. However, the venture did not
last long due to Narayan's inability to manage it, and it ceased
publication within a year. His first collection of short
[34]

stories, Malgudi Days, was published in November 1942,

followed by The English Teacher in 1945. In between, being cut
off from England due to the war, Narayan started his own
publishing company, naming it (again) Indian Thought
Publications; the publishing company was a success and is still
active, now managed by his granddaughter. Soon, with a
[14]

devoted readership stretching from New York to Moscow,

Narayan's books started selling well and in 1948 he started
building his own house on the outskirts of Mysore; the house
was completed in 1953. [35]

The busy years[edit]

After The English Teacher, Narayan's writings took a more
imaginative and creative external style compared to the semi-
autobiographical tone of the earlier novels. His next effort, Mr.
Sampath, was the first book exhibiting this modified approach.
However, it still draws from some of his own experiences,
particularly the aspect of starting his own journal; he also
makes a marked movement away from his earlier novels by
intermixing biographical events. Soon after, he published The
[36]

Financial Expert, considered to be his masterpiece and hailed

as one of the most original works of fiction in 1951. The
[37][38]

inspiration for the novel was a true story about a financial

genius, Margayya, related to him by his brother. The next
[39]

novel, Waiting for the Mahatma, loosely based on a fictional

visit to Malgudi by Mahatma Gandhi, deals with the
protagonist's romantic feelings for a woman, when he attends
the discourses of the visiting Mahatma. The woman, named
Bharti, is a loose parody of Bharati, the personification of India
and the focus of Gandhi's discourses. While the novel includes
significant references to the Indian independence movement,
the focus is on the life of the ordinary individual, narrated with
Narayan's usual dose of irony. [40]
Lyle Blair of Michigan State University Press(Narayan's U.S. publisher),
Narayan and Anthony West of The New Yorker

In 1953, his works were published in the United States

for the first time, by Michigan State University Press,
who later (in 1958), relinquished the rights to Viking
Press. While Narayan's writings often bring out the
[41]

anomalies in social structures and views, he was himself

a traditionalist; in February 1956, Narayan arranged his
daughter's wedding following all orthodox Hindu rituals.
After the wedding, Narayan began travelling
[42]

occasionally, continuing to write at least 1500 words a

day even while on the road. The Guide was written
[35]

while he was visiting the United States in 1956 on the

Rockefeller Fellowship. While in the U.S., Narayan
maintained a daily journal that was to later serve as the
foundation for his book My Dateless Diary. Around this [43]

time, on a visit to England, Narayan met his friend and

mentor Graham Greene for the first time. On his return
[29]

to India, The Guide was published; the book is the most

representative of Narayan's writing skills and elements,
ambivalent in expression, coupled with a riddle-like
conclusion. The book won him the Sahitya Akademi
[44]

Award in 1958. [45]

Occasionally, Narayan was known to give form to his
thoughts by way of essays, some published in
newspapers and journals, others not. Next
Sunday (1960), was a collection of such conversational
essays, and his first work to be published as a book.
Soon after that, My Dateless Diary, describing
[46]

experiences from his 1956 visit to the United States,

was published. Also included in this collection was an
essay about the writing of The Guide. [43][47]

Narayan's next novel, The Man-Eater of Malgudi, was

published in 1961. The book was reviewed as having a
narrative that is a classical art form of comedy, with
delicate control. After the launch of this book, the
[41]

restless Narayan once again took to travelling, and

visited the U.S. and Australia. He spent three weeks
[14]

in Adelaide, Sydney andMelbourne giving lectures on

Indian literature. The trip was funded by a fellowship
from the Australian Writers' Group. By this time
[48]

Narayan had also achieved significant success, both

literary and financial. He had a large house in Mysore,
and wrote in a study with no fewer than eight windows;
he drove a new Mercedes-Benz, a luxury in India at that
time, to visit his daughter who had moved
to Coimbatore after her marriage. With his success, both
within India and abroad, Narayan started writing
columns for magazines and newspapers including The
Hindu and The Atlantic.[49]

In 1964, Narayan published his first mythological

work, Gods, Demons and Others, a collection of
rewritten and translated short stories from Hindu epics.
Like many of his other works, this book was illustrated
by his younger brother R. K. Laxman. The stories
included were a selective list, chosen on the basis of
powerful protagonists, so that the impact would be
lasting, irrespective of the reader's contextual
knowledge. Once again, after the book launch,
[50]

Narayan took to travelling abroad. In an earlier essay, he

had written about the Americans wanting to understand
spirituality from him, and during this visit, Swedish-
American actress Greta Garbo accosted him on the
topic, despite his denial of any knowledge.[4]

Narayan's next published work was the 1967 novel, The

Vendor of Sweets. It was inspired in part by his
American visits and consists of extreme
characterizations of both the Indian and American
stereotypes, drawing on the many cultural differences.
However, while it displays his characteristic comedy and
narrative, the book was reviewed as lacking in depth.
This year, Narayan travelled to England, where he
[51]

received the first of his honorary doctorates from

the University of Leeds. The next few years were a
[52]

quiet period for him. He published his next book, a

collection of short stories, A Horse and Two Goats, in
1970. Meanwhile, Narayan remembered a promise
[53]

made to his dying uncle in 1938, and started translating

the Kamba Ramayanam to English. The Ramayana was
published in 1973, after five years of work. Almost
[54]

immediately after publishing The Ramayana, Narayan

started working on a condensed translation of the
Sanskrit epic, the Mahabharata. While he was
researching and writing the epic, he also published
another book, The Painter of Signs (1977). The Painter
of Signs is a bit longer than a novella and makes a
marked change from Narayan's other works, as he deals
with hitherto unaddressed subjects such as sex,
although the development of the protagonist's character
is very similar to his earlier creations. The
Mahabharata was published in 1978.
The later years[edit]
Narayan was commissioned by the government
of Karnataka to write a book to promote tourism in the
state. The work was published as part of a larger
government publication in the late 1970s. He thought it
[56]

deserved better, and republished it as The Emerald

Route (Indian Thought Publications, 1980). The book [57]

contains his personal perspective on the local history

and heritage, but being bereft of his characters and
creations, it misses his enjoyable narrative. The same
[47]

year, he was elected as an honorary member of

the American Academy of Arts and Letters and won
the AC Benson Medal from the Royal Society of
Literature. Around the same time, Narayan's works
[58]

were translated to Chinese for the first time. [59]

In 1983, Narayan published his next novel, A Tiger for

Malgudi, about a tiger and its relationship with humans.
His next novel, Talkative Man, published in 1986, was
[60]

the tale of an aspiring journalist from Malgudi. During [61]

this time, he also published two collections of short

stories: Malgudi Days (1982), a revised edition including
the original book and some other stories, and Under the
Banyan Tree and Other Stories, a new collection. In [62]

1987, he completed A Writer's Nightmare, another

collection of essays about topics as diverse as the caste
system, Nobel prize winners, love, and monkeys. The
collection included essays he had written for
newspapers and magazines since 1958. [63][64]

Living alone in Mysore, Narayan developed an interest

in agriculture. He bought an acre of agricultural land and
tried his hand at farming. He was also prone to walking
[65]

to the market every afternoon, not so much for buying

things, but to interact with the people. In a typical
afternoon stroll, he would stop every few steps to greet
and converse with shopkeepers and others, most likely
gathering material for his next book.
[66]

In 1980, Narayan was nominated to the Rajya Sabha,

the upper house of the Indian Parliament, for his
contributions to literature. During his entire six-year
[67]

term, he was focused on one issuethe plight of school

children, especially the heavy load of school books and
the negative effect of the system on a child's creativity,
which was something that he first highlighted in his
debut novel, Swami and Friends. His inaugural speech
was focused on this particular problem, and resulted in
the formation of a committee chaired by Prof. Yash Pal,
to recommend changes to the school educational
system. [68]

In 1990, he published his next novel, The World of

Nagaraj, also set in Malgudi. Narayan's age shows in
this work as he appears to skip narrative details that he
would have included if this were written earlier in his
career. Soon after he finished the novel, Narayan fell ill
[69]

and moved to Madras to be close to his daughter's

family. A few years after his move, in 1994, his
[65]

daughter died of cancer and his granddaughter

Bhuvaneswari (Minnie) started taking care of him in
addition to managing Indian Thought Publications. [4]

Narayan then published his final book, Grandmother's

[14]

Tale. The book is an autobiographical novella, about his

great-grandmother who travelled far and wide to find her
husband, who ran away shortly after their marriage. The
story was narrated to him by his grandmother, when he
was a child.[70]

During his final years, Narayan, ever fond of

conversation, would spend almost every evening with N.
Ram, the publisher of The Hindu, drinking coffee and
talking about various topics until well past midnight.
Despite his fondness of meeting and talking to people,
[71]

he stopped giving interviews. The apathy towards

interviews was the result of an interview with Time, after
which Narayan had to spend a few days in the hospital,
as he was dragged around the city to take photographs
that were never used in the article.
[33]

In May 2001, Narayan was hospitalised. A few hours

before he was to be put on a ventilator, he was planning
on writing his next novel, a story about a grandfather. As
he was always very selective about his choice of
notebooks, he asked N. Ram to get him one. However,
Narayan did not get better and never started the novel.
He died on 13 May 2001, in Chennai at the age of 94. [11][72]

Literary review[edit]
Writing style[edit]
Narayan's writing technique was unpretentious with a
natural element of humour about it. It focused on
[73]

ordinary people, reminding the reader of next-door

neighbours, cousins and the like, thereby providing a
greater ability to relate to the topic. Unlike his national
[74]

contemporaries, he was able to write about the

intricacies of Indian society without having to modify his
characteristic simplicity to conform to trends and
fashions in fiction writing. He also employed the use of
[75]

nuanced dialogic prose with gentle Tamilovertones

based on the nature of his characters. Critics have
[76]

considered Narayan to be the Indian Chekhov, due to

the similarities in their writings, the simplicity and the
gentle beauty and humour in tragic situations. Greene [77]

considered Narayan to be more similar to Chekhov than

any Indian writer. Anthony West of The New
[2]

Yorker considered Narayan's writings to be of the

realism variety of Nikolai Gogol.[78]

According to Pulitzer Prize winner Jhumpa Lahiri,

Narayan's short stories have the same captivating
feeling as his novels, with most of them less than ten
pages long, and taking about as many minutes to read.
She adds that between the title sentence and the end,
Narayan provides the reader something novelists
struggle to achieve in hundreds more pages: a complete
insight to the lives of his characters. These
characteristics and abilities led Lahiri to classify him as
belonging to the pantheon of short-story geniuses that
include O. Henry, Frank O'Connor and Flannery
O'Connor. Lahiri also compares him to Guy de
Maupassant for their ability to compress the narrative
without losing the story, and the common themes of
middle-class life written with an unyielding and unpitying
vision.[12]

Critics have noted that Narayan's writings tend to be

more descriptive and less analytical; the objective style,
rooted in a detached spirit, providing for a more
authentic and realistic narration. His attitude, coupled
[79]

with his perception of life, provided a unique ability to

fuse characters and actions, and an ability to use
[80]

ordinary events to create a connection in the mind of the

reader. A significant contributor to his writing style was
[81]

his creation of Malgudi, a stereotypical small town,

where the standard norms of superstition and tradition
apply.[82]

Narayan's writing style was often compared to that

of William Faulkner since both their works brought out
the humour and energy of ordinary life while displaying
compassionate humanism. The similarities also
[83]

extended to their juxtaposing of the demands of society

against the confusions of individuality. Although their
[84]

approach to subjects was similar, their methods were

different; Faulkner was rhetorical and illustrated his
points with immense prose while Narayan was very
simple and realistic, capturing the elements all the
same. [85]

Malgudi[edit]
Main article: Malgudi
Malgudi is a fictional, semi-urban town in southern India,
conjured by Narayan. He created the town in
[86]

September 1930, on Vijayadashami, an auspicious day

to start new efforts and thus chosen for him by his
grandmother. As he mentioned in a later interview to
[87]

his biographers Susan and N. Ram, in his mind, he first

saw a railway station, and slowly the
name Malgudi came to him. The town was created with
[88]

an impeccable historical record, dating to

the Ramayana days when it was noted that Lord
Rama passed through; it was also said that
the Buddha visited the town during his travels. While
[89]

Narayan never provided strict physical constraints for

the town, he allowed it to form shape with events in the
various stories, becoming a reference point for the
future. Dr James M. Fennelly, a scholar of Narayan's
[90]

works, created a map of Malgudi based on the fictional

descriptors of the town from the many books and
stories. [12]

Malgudi evolved with the changing political landscape of

India. In the 1980s, when the nationalistic fervor in India
dictated the changing of British names of towns and
localities and removal of British landmarks, Malgudi's
mayor and city council removed the long-standing statue
of Frederick Lawley, one of Malgudi's early residents.
However, when the Historical Societies showed proof
that Lawley was strong in his support of the Indian
independence movement, the council was forced to
undo all their earlier actions. A good comparison to
[91]

Malgudi, a place that Greene characterised as "more

familiar than Battersea or Euston Road", is
Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County. Also, like
[83]
Faulkner's, when one looks at Narayan's works, the
town gets a better definition through the many different
novels and stories.[92]

Critical reception[edit]
Narayan first broke through with the help of Graham
Greene who, upon reading Swaminathan and Tate, took
it upon himself to work as Narayan's agent for the book.
He was also instrumental in changing the title to the
more appropriate Swami and Friends, and in finding
publishers for Narayan's next few books. While
Narayan's early works were not commercial successes,
other authors of the time began to notice him. Somerset
Maugham, on a trip to Mysore in 1938, had asked to
meet Narayan, but not enough people had heard of him
to actually effect the meeting. Maugham subsequently
read Narayan's The Dark Room, and wrote to him
expressing his admiration. Another contemporary
[93][94]

writer who took a liking to Narayan's early works was E.

M. Forster, an author who shared his dry and
[95]

humorous narrative, so much so that Narayan was

labeled the "South Indian E. M. Forster" by critics.
Despite his popularity with the reading public and
[96]

fellow writers, Narayan's work has not received the

same amount of critical exploration accorded to other
writers of his stature. [97]

Narayan's success in the United States came a little

later, when Michigan State University Press started
publishing his books. His first visit to the country was on
a fellowship from the Rockefeller Foundation, and he
lectured at various universities including Michigan State
University and the University of California, Berkeley.
Around this time, John Updikenoticed his work and
compared Narayan to Charles Dickens. In a review of
Narayan's works published in The New Yorker, Updike
called him a writer of a vanishing breedthe writer as a
citizen; one who identifies completely with his subjects
and with a belief in the significance of humanity. [98]

Having published many novels, essays and short

stories, Narayan is credited with bringing Indian writing
to the rest of the world. While he has been regarded as
one of India's greatest writers of the twentieth century,
critics have also described his writings with adjectives
such as charming, harmless and benign. Narayan has
[99]

also come in for criticism from later writers, particularly

of Indian origin, who have classed his writings as having
a pedestrian style with a shallow vocabulary and a
narrow vision. According to Shashi Tharoor, Narayan's
[14]

subjects are similar to those of Jane Austen as they both

deal with a very small section of society. However, he
adds that while Austen's prose was able to take those
subjects beyond ordinariness, Narayan's was not. A [100]

similar opinion is held by Shashi Deshpande who

characterizes Narayan's writings as pedestrian and
naive because of the simplicity of his language and
diction, combined with the lack of any complexity in the
emotions and behaviours of his characters. [101]

A general perception on Narayan was that he did not

involve himself or his writings with the politics or
problems of India, as mentioned by V. S. Naipaul in one
of his columns. However, according to Wyatt
Mason of The New Yorker, although Narayan's writings
seem simple and display a lack of interest in politics, he
delivers his narrative with an artful and deceptive
technique when dealing with such subjects and does not
entirely avoid them, rather letting the words play in the
reader's mind. Srinivasa Iyengar, former vice-
[99]

chancellor of Andhra University, says that Narayan

wrote about political topics only in the context of his
subjects, quite unlike his compatriot Mulk Raj
Anand who dealt with the political structures and
problems of the time. Paul Brians, in his book Modern
[102]

South Asian Literature in English, says that the fact that

Narayan completely ignored British rule and focused on
the private lives of his characters is a political statement
on its own, declaring his independence from the
influence of colonialism. [97]

In the west, Narayan's simplicity of writing was well

received. One of his biographers, William Walsh, wrote
of his narrative as a comedic art with an inclusive vision
informed by the transience and illusion of human action.
Multiple Booker nominee Anita Desai classes his
writings as "compassionate realism" where the cardinal
sins are unkindness and immodesty. According to
[103]

Wyatt Mason, in Narayan's works, the individual is not a

private entity, but rather a public one and this concept is
an innovation that can be called his own. In addition to
his early works being among the most important
English-language fiction from India, with this innovation,
he provided his western readers the first works in
English to be infused with an eastern and Hindu
existential perspective. Mason also holds the view
that Edmund Wilson's assessment of Walt Whitman, "He
does not write editorials on events but describes his
actual feelings", applies equally to Narayan. [99]

Awards and honours[edit]

Narayan won numerous awards during the course of his
literary career. His first major award was in 1958,
[104]

the Sahitya Akademi Award for The Guide. When the [105]

book was made into a film, he received the Filmfare

Award for the best story. In 1964, he received
the Padma Bhushan during the Republic Day honours.
In 1980, he was awarded theAC Benson Medal by the
[106]

(British) Royal Society of Literature, of which he was an

honorary member. In 1982 he was elected an
[107]

honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and

Letters. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize in
[75]

Literature multiple times, but never won the honour. [108]

Recognition also came in the form of honorary

doctorates by the University of Leeds (1967),
the University of Mysore (1976) and Delhi
[109] [110]

University (1973). Towards the end of his career,

[111]

Narayan was nominated to the upper house of the

Indian Parliament for a six-year term starting in 1989, for
his contributions to Indian literature. A year before his
[67]

death, in 2001, he was awarded India's second-highest

civilian honour, the Padma Vibhushan. [112]

Legacy[edit]
Narayan's greatest achievement was making India
accessible to the outside world through his literature. He
is regarded as one of the three leading English language
Indian fiction writers, along with Raja Rao and Mulk Raj
Anand. He gave his readers something to look forward
to with Malgudi and its residents and is considered
[101][113]

to be one of the best novelists India has ever produced.

He brought small-town India to his audience in a manner
that was both believable and experiential. Malgudi was
not just a fictional town in India, but one teeming with
characters, each with their own idiosyncrasies and
attitudes, making the situation as familiar to the reader
as if it were their own backyard. In
[83][114]

2014, Google commemorated Narayan's 108th birthday

by featuring a doodle showing him behind a copy
of Malgudi Days. [115]

"Whom next shall I meet in Malgudi? That is the thought

that comes to me when I close a novel of Mr Narayan's.
I do not wait for another novel. I wait to go out of my
door into those loved and shabby streets and see with
excitement and a certainty of pleasure a stranger
approaching, past the bank, the cinema, the haircutting
saloon, a stranger who will greet me I know with some
unexpected and revealing phrase that will open a door
on to yet another human existence."
Graham Greene

List of works
Novels
 Swami and Friends (1935, Hamish Hamilton)
The Bachelor of Arts (1937, Thomas Nelson)
The Dark Room (1938, Eyre)
The English Teacher (1945, Eyre)
Mr. Sampath (1948, Eyre)
The Financial Expert (1952, Methuen)
Waiting for the Mahatma (1955, Methuen)
The Guide (1958, Methuen)
The Man-Eater of Malgudi (1961, Viking)
The Vendor of Sweets (1967, The Bodley
Head)
The Painter of Signs (1977, Heinemann)
A Tiger for Malgudi (1983, Heinemann)
Talkative Man (1986, Heinemann)
The World of Nagaraj (1990, Heinemann)
Grandmother's Tale (1992, Indian Thought
Publications)

Non-fiction
 Next Sunday (1960, Indian Thought
Publications)
My Dateless Diary (1960, Indian Thought
Publications)
My Days (1974, Viking)
Reluctant Guru (1974, Orient Paperbacks)
The Emerald Route (1980, Indian Thought
Publications)
A Writer's Nightmare (1988, Penguin Books)
A Story-Teller's World (1989, Penguin Books)
The Writerly Life (2002, Penguin Books India)
Mysore (1944, second edition, Indian Thought
Publications)

Mythology
Gods, Demons and Others (1964, Viking)
The Ramayana (1973, Chatto & Windus)
The Mahabharata (1978, Heinemann)

Short story collections

 Malgudi Days (1942, Indian Thought
Publications)
An Astrologer's Day and Other Stories (1947,
Indian Thought Publications)
Lawley Road and Other Stories (1956, Indian
Thought Publications)
A Horse and Two Goats (1970)

Appreciation of
Walt Whitmans
poems

Whitmans poetry is democratic in both its subject

matter and its language. As the great lists that make up a
large part of Whitmans poetry show, anythingand
anyoneis fair game for a poem. Whitman is
concerned with cataloguing the new America he sees
growing around him. Just as America is far different
politically and practically from its European
counterparts, so too must American poetry distinguish
itself from previous models. Thus we see Whitman
breaking new ground in both subject matter and diction.
In a way, though, Whitman is not so unique. His
preference for the quotidian links him with both
Dante, who was the first to write poetry in a
vernacular language, and with Wordsworth, who
famously stated that poetry should aim to speak in the
language of ordinary men. Unlike Wordsworth,
however, Whitman does not romanticize the
proletariat or the peasant. Instead he takes as his
model himself. The stated mission of his poetry was,
in his words, to make [a]n attempt to put a Person, a
human being (myself, in the latter half of the 19th
century, in America) freely, fully, and truly on
record. A truly democratic poetry, for Whitman, is
one that, using a common language, is able to cross
the gap between the self and another individual, to
effect a sympathetic exchange of experiences.
This leads to a distinct blurring of the boundaries
between the self and the world and between public
and private. Whitman prefers spaces and situations
like journeys, the out-of-doors, citiesthat allow for
ambiguity in these respects. Thus we see poems like
Song of the Open Road and Crossing Brooklyn
Ferry, where the poet claims to be able to enter into
the heads of others. Exploration becomes not just a
trope but a mode of existence.
For Whitman, spiritual communion depends on
physical contact, or at least proximity. The body is the
vessel that enables the soul to experience the world.
Therefore the body is something to be worshipped
and given a certain primacy. Eroticism, particularly
homoeroticism, figures significantly in Whitmans
poetry. This is something that got him in no small
amount of trouble during his lifetime. The erotic
interchange of his poetry, though, is meant to
symbolize the intense but always incomplete
connection between individuals. Having sex is the
closest two people can come to being one merged
individual, but the boundaries of the body always
prevent a complete union. The affection Whitman
shows for the bodies of others, both men and women,
comes out of his appreciation for the linkage between
the body and the soul and the communion that can
come through physical contact. He also has great
respect for the reproductive and generative powers of
the body, which mirror the intellects generation of
poetry.
The Civil War diminished Whitmans faith in
democratic sympathy. While the cause of the war
nominally furthered brotherhood and equality, the
war itself was a quagmire of killing. Reconstruction,
which began to fail almost immediately after it was
begun, further disappointed Whitman. His later
poetry, which displays a marked insecurity about the
place of poetry and the place of emotion in general
(see in particular When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard
Bloomd), is darker and more isolated.
Whitmans style remains consistent throughout,
however. The poetic structures he employs are
unconventional but reflect his democratic ideals. Lists
are a way for him to bring together a wide variety of
items without imposing a hierarchy on them.
Perception, rather than analysis, is the basis for this
kind of poetry, which uses few metaphors or other
kinds of symbolic language. Anecdotes are another
favored device. By transmitting a story, often one he
has gotten from another individual, Whitman hopes to
give his readers a sympathetic experience, which will
allow them to incorporate the anecdote into their own
history. The kind of language Whitman uses
sometimes supports and sometimes seems to
contradict his philosophy. He often uses obscure,
foreign, or invented words. This, however, is not
meant to be intellectually elitist but is instead meant
to signify Whitmans status as a unique individual.
Democracy does not necessarily mean sameness. The
difficulty of some of his language also mirrors the
necessary imperfection of connections between
individuals: no matter how hard we try, we can never
completely understand each other. Whitman largely
avoids rhyme schemes and other traditional poetic
 devices. He does, however, use meter in masterful
and innovative ways, often to mimic natural speech.
In these ways, he is able to demonstrate that he has
mastered traditional poetry but is no longer
subservient to it, just as democracy has ended the
subservience of the individual.

Walt Whitman: Poems Themes

The Democratic Self
Whitman celebrates the common man by creating a
unified, overarching concept of the self that applies
to individuals as well. Whitman often casts himself as
the main character in his poems, but the Walt
Whitman he refers to is only partially representative
of Whitman's own opinions and experiences. He also
uses "I" (or himself) to represent the archetypal
American man. This technique, known as "an all-
powerful I," allows Whitman to draw all Americans
into a unified identity with the poet himself as the
figurehead. The idea of the Democratic Self is
common in the work of Transcendentalist writers like
Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Individualism
The ideology of individualism is very prevalent in
Whitman's work. This concept thrived in America
during the early nineteenth century - a democratic
response to the new class of industrial wage-workers.
Like Whitman, many powerful thinkers, politicians,
and writers encouraged everyday Americans to
exercise self-ownership and value original thought.
Whitman's poetry often addresses the role of the
individual within a collective society while
simultaneously emphasizing the importance of self
expression.
Democratic Nature of Poetry
Whitman saw his poems as more than words on a
page - he frequently points out the democratic power
of poetry. He felt that form called for vocalization and
sharing rather than private, silent consumption of the
words - he wrote poetry that he intended to be
spoken aloud. In addition to writing inherently
communal poetry, he used the medium to celebrate
the struggles of the common man. He felt that both
the form and the content of his work could sow the
democratic spirit in his readers' hearts and minds.

The Body and Soul

Whitman emphasizes the connection between
the body and the soulrepeatedly in his poetry.
According to Whitman, the human soul consists of
two parts - mind and body. The body is the vessel
through which the soul experiences the world, and is
therefore sacred. Whitman does not search for
divinity within abstract concepts but rather, he finds
God in nature and in the human body.
The Natural World
Walt Whitman often draws his readers' attention to
the everyday miracles of the natural world. He
believed that nature facilitated connections between
human beings over time, distance, and superficial
differences. All human beings, no matter who they
are or where they are from, interact with the same
elements of nature - the water under a boat or the
grass growing around a grave. Whitman portrays
nature as all powerful because it can form a uniting
bridge across any chasm - ideological or physical.
War
Whitman's career coincided with the Civil War.
Therefore, many of his poems address themes of war
and the loss of humanity that results from physical
conflict. Although Whitman was a patriotic man, he
was also a pacifist. He believed that war was useless
and that fighting was never an effective solution. He
worked as a nurse during the Civil War and during
that time, he developed many personal relationships
with wounded soldiers. He felt that it was his
personal responsibility to humanize these brave
individuals and honor their sacrifice. "Ashes of
Soldiers," in particular, was inspired by soldiers that
Whitman met during the war.
Eroticism
Whitman's fascination with the human body drove
him to explore themes of both romantic and sexual
love in his poetry. Whitman believed that humans
should never be ashamed of their physical desires,
because the human body is a sacred vessel of the
soul. Whitman wrote more freely about eroticism and
sex than most of his contemporaries. As a result,
poems like "I Sing the Body Electric" sparked
controversy within the public and some of the more
conservative literary critics of Whitman's era.

1. "O Captain! My
Captain!"
Summary
The poem is an elegy to the speaker's
recently deceased Captain, at once
celebrating the safe and successful return
of their ship and mourning the loss of its
great leader. In the first stanza, the
speaker expresses his relief that the ship
has reached its home port at last and
describes hearing people cheering.
Despite the celebrations on land and the
successful voyage, the speaker reveals
that his Captain's dead body is lying on
the deck. In the second stanza, the
speaker implores the Captain to "rise up
and hear the bells," wishing the dead man
could witness the elation. Everyone adored
the captain, and the speaker admits that
his death feels like a horrible dream. In the
final stanza, the speaker juxtaposes his
feelings of mourning and pride.

Analysis
Whitman wrote this poem shortly after
President Abraham Lincoln was
assassinated. It is an extended metaphor
intended to memorialize Lincoln's life and
work. The Captain represents the
assassinated president; the ship
represents the war-weathered nation
following the Civil War; the "prize won"
represents the salvaged union. The
speaker, torn between relief and despair,
captures America's confusion at the end of
the Civil War. It was a time of many
conflicting sentiments, and Whitman
immortalizes this sense of uncertainty in
"O Captain! My Captain!"
Whitman's poetry places a lot of emphasis
on the individual. This particular poem
explores a variation on that theme: the
self vs. the other. The speaker struggles
with balancing his personal feelings of loss
with the celebratory mood resulting from
the successful voyage. While the Civil War
claimed many lives, it led to the
reunification of the Union, so many
Americans felt similarly divided. In
Whitman's poem, the speaker believes
that he should be part of the "other"
group, celebrating the return to safety.
However, his inner thoughts set him apart
from the crowd as he tries to reconcile his
emotional reaction to the Captain's death.
"O Captain! My Captain!" is the only Walt
Whitman poem that has a regular meter
and rhyme scheme. Often hailed as "the
father of free verse," Whitman tended to
write his poems without following any kind
of ordered poetic form. However, "O
Captain! My Captain!" is organized into
three eight-line stanzas, each with an
AABBCDED rhyme scheme. Each stanza
closes with the words "fallen cold and
dead," and the first four lines of each
stanza are longer than the last four lines.
Because this poem is an elegy to the
dead, the more traditional format adds to
its solemnity. Additionally, the regular
meter is reminiscent of a soldier marching
across the battlefield, which is fitting for a
poem that commemorates the end of the
Civil War.
Whitman uses an all-encompassing "I"
throughout Leaves of Grass. It is an
inclusive first-person narrator. Whitman's
own opinions and experiences often
intersect with the all-encompassing "I"
because Whitman often described himself
as the archetypal American man.
Whitman's use of the all-encompassing "I"
is an effective technique in actualizing the
concept the democratic self and
establishing poetry as a democratizing
medium.
2. "The Voice of the
Rain"
Summary:
In this poem, the speaker recounts a
conversation he had with the falling
raindrops. He asks the rain, "And who art
thou?" and strangely, the rain answers,
calling itself "the poem of the Earth." The
rain goes on to describe how it rises
intangibly (as vapor) out of the land and sea
and floats up to heaven, where it changes
form and becomes a cloud. Then it falls back
to Earth to refresh the drought-filled land,
allowing seeds to grow into something vital
and beautiful. The speaker the equates the
role of the rain to a poet's role in crafting this
"song" (or poem, because Whitman refers to
his poems as songs throughout Leaves of
Grass). He goes on to write that the "song"
is born in the poet's heart. It leaves the
poet's soul and and changes form, but is
always the same at its core and eventually
returns to the poet as love from his readers.

Analysis:
Similar to most of Whitman's poems, "The
Voice of the Rain" does not follow any
specific form, rhyme scheme, or meter; it is
written in free verse. It is made up of one
stanza with nine distinct lines, but some of
the lines are so long that they bleed into the
next. The first two lines contain the
speaker's question to the rain ("And who art
thou?"). The rain's response makes up the
remaining six lines. Whitman places the final
line in parenthesis in order to separate the
speaker's words from the rain's.
At the end of the poem, the speaker
compares poetry to the rain - equating art
with Earth's most essential element. Here,
Whitman reveals the high level of
importance he put on his poems (and poetry
in general). Whitman treated his poems like
his children. He put all of his emotional
energy into his work and then released his
poems into the world like water evaporating
into the air. Each reader then has a different
relationship with Whitman's words, which
changes the effect of the poem while
maintaining its spirit. Then, the readers rain
praise, criticism, love, and hate back down
onto Whitman. After that, the poem occupies
a different role in the poet's life.
Whitman's comparison between poems and
rain is demonstrative of his transcendental
beliefs. Rather than associate his poetry with
something modern and manmade, he
instead chooses to associate it with the
eternal cycles of the natural world. He did
not write poetry for the purpose of making a
splash. He wanted his work to be affecting,
vital, and eternal - just like nature. He
describes his audience as "drouths, atomies,
dust-layers of the globe" as if reading
Whitman's poetry is all they need to flourish
and grow.

3. "One's-Self I
Sing"
Summary
The poem directly addresses the successive
themes in Whitman's poems. The speaker
begins by claiming that the poem is an ode to
"One's-Self" - an individual. He then
immediately expands the scope of the poem by
applying it to individuals "en-masse,"
emphasizing the democratic nature of the
work. According to this poem, Whitman's
ensuing poetry will encompass both the
individual and the collective, democratic mass,
drawing many parallels between them. The
speaker further asserts that he "sings" (or, as a
poet, writes) about the body, about both men
and women, about life and passion. The poem
concludes with the idea of The Modern Man,
an ideal of American society that Whitman
hopes to attain through his poetry.

Analysis
"One's-Self I Sing" is the first poem
in Inscriptions, which is the first book of
Whitman's Leaves of Grass. The poem sets
the tone for the rest of the volume because
Whitman introduces the themes that he, the
poet, will "sing" about. The poem delves into
themes of the self, the all-encompassing "I,"
sexuality, democracy, the human body, and
what it means to live in the modern world.
Though this poem is short, it alludes to the
broad scope of ideas that Whitman will explore
in the rest of the poems
in Inscriptions and Leaves of Grass.
Whitman speaks to a general idea of self, a
commonality between his personal identity
the Walt Whitman he so often casts as the
protagonist in his poemsand the Democratic
self, which is the collective identity that
everyone shares. Whitman explains that the
self is a shared experience between the poet
and the reader. As members of a democratic
society, all selves are intertwinedbut
conversely, each of these intertwined "selves"
still retains his or her individuality.
The human body is also a common theme in
Whitman's poetry. Here, it forms the crucial link
that connects each individual self to the
communal Democratic self. At the same time,
the body is inextricably tied to Whitman's
image of the soul. He believes that without the
physical body, there is no soul. This is because
the human body is the vessel through which
the soul interacts with and experiences the
world. Therefore, in Whitman's poetry, the
human body is sacred and every individual
human is divine.
Whitman goes on to introduce the theme of
gender, specifying that he treats men and
women equally in his poems. "The Female
equally with the Male I sing," he declares.
Whitman considers the woman equal to the
man because his view of gender is tied to his
definition of the soul. To Whitman, women are
just as sacred as men because despite their
physical differences, they are all human (and
souls are free from gender). In later poems,
particularly in "I Sing the Body Electric,"
Whitman delves deeper into his ideas about
gender.
4. "Thoughts"
Summary:
"Thoughts" is a collection of Whitman's thoughts on
several different subjects, separated into numbered
sections. In the first section, Whitman considers
people. He thinks about digging deeper and getting
to know things better, rather than just glancing at
their "visages." He thinks about ugliness, because he
believes (and accepts) that ugliness is just as
important as beauty. He wonders about "detected
persons" and criminals, stating his belief that
everyone has the potential to become a criminal,
including the President.
The second section is about nature. The speaker
ponders water, forests, hills and beautiful sights, in
addition to all of the innovations human beings have
added to the planet. In the third section, he reflects
on people whom society honors, and argues that
prizes do not affect the nature of a
person's body or soul. He observes that these
"persons of high positions" often live in false realities,
which he proclaims to be "sad." He also describes
them as perpetually "walking in the dusk."
In the fourth stanza, the speaker reflects on
ownership and equality and wonders why society
deems it fair for certain individuals to have more
rights than others. In the fifth section, the speaker
describes sitting at a feast when suddenly, he starts
thinking about an a shipwreck in the ocean and all
the people drowning. He wonders whether the soul
can survive after death, or if it dies with the physical
body. In the sixth section, he ponders the act of
writing - both his own and others'. He wonders if
written history is as "complete" and "lasting" as his
own poems, as "shreds" of recorded incidents could
end up representing the narrative of an entire nation.
In the final section, he wonders why human beings
are so inclined to follow leaders who do not care
about their followers' individual livelihoods.

Analysis:
Per Whitman's typical style, this poem is in free verse
and does not follow a specific meter or rhyme
scheme. It is organized into seven stanzas, or
sections, each of a different length. This poem is
another example of Whitman's beloved list format.
The whole poem is a list; each section deals with a
different issue that Whitman is currently pondering.
Most of the opening lines begin with "of," as the
speaker describes the subject that weighs most
heavily in his mind at that moment. Whitman does
not specify the context in which he is thinking about
these topics, except in section five. Here, he starts
imagining a shipwreck while at a feast where music is
playing. It is possible that the revelers at the feast
inspired Whitman's questions about humanity and
the soul.
These musings are not particularly cohesive. Instead,
Whitman provides his readers with small, disjointed
glimpses into his mind. He poses questions without
answers, forcing the reader to consider the same
quandaries that occupy his own thoughts. Many of
the thoughts in this poem refute certain societal
conventions. For example, in the first stanza,
Whitman claims that everyone has the potential to
become a criminal, even the President.
In section three, Whitman denounces people in high
positions. He espouses the opinion that material
wealth rots the "core of life," and that people who
strive for these external markers of success are living
in false realities, distanced from their humanity.
Whitman stresses his belief that happiness comes
from truth and reflection and not from money or
social status.
Whitman wanted his poems to speak to the human
condition and universal truth, and he is hardly the
first poet to declare his own work immortal
(Shakespeare did it, too). However, Whitman goes so
far as to claim that his poems are more important
than recorded history. He supports his claim by
calling history "shreds, the records of nations," while
his poems are universal and apply to any person from
any nation - without any omissions.

5. "Ashes of
Soldiers"
Summary
"Ashes of Soldiers" is a tribute to the soldiers who
died fighting in the American Civil War. The speaker
begins by addressing the spirits of all the deceased
soldiers, from both the North (the Union) and South
(the Confederacy). He describes the soldiers' ghosts
rising from their graves and gathering around him.
He requests the trumpeters to refrain from playing
any music. He celebrates the soldiers' lives, which
were filled with joy and pride, and commends them
for enduring such peril. He asks that the drummers
make no sound either, as there is no need for a
reveille, an alarm, nor a burial drumroll.
He calls the soldiers his comrades and clarifies that
this "chant" is to draw attention to these "lost" and
"voiceless" souls. He observes their "faces so pale
with wondering eyes," but since they cannot speak,
he must speak for them. He promises them that "love
is not over" and for the rest of his life, he will "exhale
[the] love" arising from their ashes.

Analysis
Whitman wrote "Ashes of Soldiers" after the end of
the Civil War. He actually served as a nurse during
the war, so Whitman felt a special connection to the
soldiers. He knew several men who went on to die in
the line of duty. In the poem, Whitman emphasizes
his role in the war by referring to the soldiers as his
"comrades" and promises them that he will keep the
memories of them alive for as long as he can. While
history only memorializes battles won and lost,
Whitman is writing this poem for the soldiers who
died in order to create these outcomes. As if it is his
patriotic duty, he gives a voice to those who did not
survive to tell their own tales.
Whitman wrote "Ashes of Soldiers" in his typical free
verse, without a rhyme scheme or set meter. It
consists of twelve stanzas of varying lengths,
although he uses anaphora to unite certain clusters
of lines. Anaphora, or the repetition of the same word
or phrase at the beginning of each sentence, was one
of Whitman's favorite poetic devices. The shortest
stanzas are those in which Whitman describes the
physical features of the dead soldiers, as if picturing
them around him makes him pause for a moment
before. The shortest stanza in the poem is: "Faces so
pale with wondrous eyes, very dear, gather closer
yet/Draw close, but speak not." By placing a break in
the stanzas at this point, Whitman forces
the reader to pause, perhaps to consider the
individual faces who made up the two sides of this
conflict.
He speaks about them as if they were his friends and
family, which undoubtedly stems from his
experiences as a wartime nurse. The final stanza is
his most passionate proclamation of devotion: "Give
me exhaustless, make me a fountain/That I exhale
love from me wherever I go like a moist perennial
dew/For the ashes of all dead soldiers South or
North." Dew represents morning, and the dawn of a
new day. A "perennial dew" invokes the image of
something temporary (dew) recurring or lasting
forever. Therefore, Whitman's poem is his way of
immortalizing these soldiers even though they
perished on the battlefield.
Although this poem first and foremost serves as a
tribute to soldiers who died during the Civil War, it
inherently poses an anti-war message. Whitman
found fighting and violence to be ineffective solutions
for the world's problems. In this poem, he does not at
all celebrate the North's victory or mourn the South's
loss, but rather, he focuses on the soldiers who died
for this result to come about. He distances the dead
soldiers from the act of war, sending away the
drummers and the trumpeters who would play at a
military funeral. He even goes so far as to describe
the drumbeats as "warlike."By doing this, Whitman
crafts his tribute to the individual lives cut short by
war instead of portraying them as heroic cannon
fodder (which is how the rows of "countless unnamed
graves" make them appear).
Whitman casts himself as the subject of several of his
poems. As both the poet and a character, he presents
himself as an archetype of the American everyman.
phantom
The otherworldly specter who visits the narrator in
"As I Ponder'd in Silence" and demands to know what
he, as a poet, "sings" about. Whitman meant the
phantom to represent the ancient poets, whom he
saw as his creative equals.
soul
Whitman often refers to the soul as if it were a
tangible, interactive entity. He believed that all
human souls are connected, and a person's soul is
what enables love, spirituality, and ultimately,
humanity.
body
Whitman believed that the body is the vehicle
through which a human soul can experience the
world. Because of this, his work emphasizes
cherishing the body and keeping it sacred.
Additionally, Whitman frequently writes that male
bodies and female bodies are equally important.
Him
The subject of the poem "For Him I Sing" is an
unidentified "him" - a representation of Whitman's
ideal self.
mechanics
In "I Hear America Singing," Whitman describes the
mechanics singing as they do their work. They are an
integral part of America's collective voice.
carpenter
In "I Hear America Singing," the carpenter sings as he
measures his beams. Whtiman saw the working man
as an archetypal American.
mason
In "I Hear America Singing," the mason sings as he
leaves for work. A mason is a worker or a builder
working with stone.
boatman
In "I Hear America Singing," the boatman is singing
about his boat.
shoemaker
In "I Hear America Singing," the shoemaker is singing
while he sits on his bench and works on shoes.
deckhand
In "I Hear America Singing," the deckhand is singing
on the steamboat deck. On a ship, a deckhand is
responsible for maintenance, cargo handling,
mooring, and other jobs that require manual labor.
hatter
In "I Hear America Singing," the hatter is singing as
he stands. A hatter is a craftsman and a salesman of
hats.
wood-cutter
In "I Hear America Singing," the wood-cutter sings as
song as he works. He is likely cutting down trees or
branches, perhaps to be used as fuel.
ploughboy
In "I Hear America Singing," the ploughboy sings on
his way to work. He is responsible for leading the
animals to plough a field.
mother
A major figure in many of Whitman's poems;
Whitman believed the female body was incredible in
part because of its capacity to carry a child.
girl
In "I Hear America Singing," Whitman describes a girl
who sings as she does her sewing and laundry.
You
The stranger to whom Whitman addresses the poem
"To You." Unlike the "Stranger" from "To A Stranger,"
Whitman has no connection to this "You." He is
simply wondering why it is unacceptable for two
complete strangers to greet each other for no reason.
reader
Whitman addresses many of his poems in Leaves of
Grass to his reader. The obvious example is "Thou
Reader." Whitman felt a strong connection to his
readers and hoped that his poetry would have an
impact on their lives.
patriarchal farmer
Whitman dedicates a section of "I Sing the Body
Electric" to a patriarchal farmer whose body he
admired when he visited him. A patriarch is a man
who is the leader of a family, group, or society.
male slave
Whitman describes the body of a male slave in "I
Sing the Body Electric." He insists that slavery is
wrong because the same blood runs through the
veins of this man as in every other man - regardless
of race.
female slave
Whitman also describes a female slave who is
standing on an auction block in "I Sing the Body
Electric." Her body is just as beautiful, strong, and
capable as any other woman's - black or white.
a Stranger
In "To a Stranger," The speaker feels as if he's seen
and interacted with this stranger before, perhaps in a
past life. Since they are not acquainted in this life,
however, societal conventions dictate that all the
speaker can do is walk past the stranger and hope
they meet again in another life.
Pioneers
The pioneers were the brave explorers who went out
to settle the American West. Whitman admired them
greatly for their courage to face the unknown in
search of a better life. He celebrates them in
"Pioneers! O Pioneers!"
sordid crowds
In "O Me! O Life!" the speaker counts himself among
the "sordid crowds" who wander and are constantly
seeking something better than what they have. They
are forever faithless and therefore not taking full
advantage of life.
Captain
The subject of "O Captain! My Captain!" is dead on
the dock of the boat as it pulls into shore. The
speaker of the poem laments the Captain's death
even though the crowds on shore are celebrating the
soldiers' victories on the battlefield. Whitman wrote
this poem about President Abraham Lincoln, who was
assassinated after the Civil War.
Drums
In "Beat! Beat! Drums!" the speaker personifies the
drums and speaks to them, asking them to play as
loud as they can and disturb everyone's peace. The
drums are a symbol of war.
bugles
The speaker of "Beat! Beat! Drums!" addresses the
bugles directly, asking them to blow loudly across the
nation. They are also a symbol of war.
astronomer
The titular astronomer in "When I Heard the Learn'd
Astronomer" tries to teach the speaker about
astronomy using charts and maps, but the speaker
feels bored and disconnected.
soldiers
Whitman felt a particularly strong connection to the
soldiers who died in the American Civil War because
he served as a nurse in war hospitals. Whitman
celebrates their sacrifice and tries to immortalize
their bravery in his poetry.
commuters
The people in "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry" who make
the commute from Brooklyn to work in Manhattan by
ferry each day, just like the speaker. The speaker
knows that many have made this commute in the
past and thousands more will follow in the future. He
uses this shared experience to forge a connection
across generations.
voice of the rain
The rain speaks to the speaker in "The Voice of the
Rain." It refers to itself as the "poem of the earth"
because it makes the journey from the sea to the
clouds and then back down to nourish the earth, just
like a poem (in Whitman's opinion).
spider
In "A Noiseless Patient Spider," the speaker observes
a spider patiently weaving its web.
Walt Whitman:
Poems Glossary
accoutrements
(n. pl.) a soldier's outfit other than weapons and
clothing; additional items of dress or equipment
aplomb
(n.) self-confidence or assurance, especially in a
demanding situation
apparition
(n.) a ghost or ghostlike image of a person
carbine
(n.) a light, automatic rifle
contrariety
(n.) opposition or inconsistency between two or
more things
corpulent
(adj.) fat (to describe a person)
corroborate
(v. trans.) to confirm or give support to (a
statement, theory or finding)
delectation
(n.) pleasure and delight
disintegrated
(v. intrans.) weakened or broken apart
expostulation
(n.) strong disapproval or disagreement
foetor
(n.) (also fetor) a strong, foul smel
foundry
(n.) a workshop or factory for casting metal
frivolous
(adj.) carefree and not serious (to describe a
person)
frolicsome
(adj.) lively and playful
fructify
(v. trans.) to make something fruitful or productive
illustrious
(adj.) well known, respected, and admired for past
achievements
impalpable
(adj.) unable to be felt by touch; not easily
comprehended
insatiate
(adj.) never satisfied
lamentable
(adj.) full of or expressing sorrow or grief;
unfortunate; regrettable
meanness
(n.) lack of quality or good appearance;
shabbiness; inferiority
novice
(n.) a person new to or inexperienced in a field or
situation
oscillating
(v. intrans.) wavering between extremes of
opinion, action, or quality
plodding
(v. intrans.) walking slowly with heavy steps;
working slowly at a dull task
promenade
(n.) a paved public walk
retrospective
(adj.) looking back on or dealing with past events
or situations
reveille
(n.) a signal sounded to wake personnel in the
armed forces, usually played on a bugle or drum
robust
(adj.) strong and healthy; vigorous (to describe a
person)
serpentine
(adj.) of or like a serpent or snake; winding and
twisting like a snake
sinewy
(adj.) well-muscled
sordid
(adj.) involving ignoble actions and motives;
arousing moral distaste and contempt; dirty or
squalid
tremulous
(adj.) shaking or quivering slightly; timid, nervous
trestle
(n.) a framework consisting of a horizontal beam
supported by two pairs of sloping legs, used in
pairs to support a flat surface - like a tabletop
tympanum
(n.) a drum
unmitigated
(adj.) absolute, unqualified
wharves
(n. pl.) level quayside areas to which ships may be
moored to load and unload