Lucie Manette: Rumpelstiltskin’s “golden thread”

“As his eyes rested on a short, slight, pretty figure, a quantity of golden hair, a pair of blue eyes that met his own with an inquiring look, and a forehead with a singular capacity (remembering how young and smooth it was) of lifting and knitting itself into an expression that was not quite one of perplexity, or wonder, or alarm, or merely of a bright fixed attention, though it included all the four expressions..”

If one traces elements of the fairytale Charles Dickens skillfully knits into his works, one would find an abundance of references to monstrous villains (Bill Sikes), evil stepmothers (Miss Havisham) and fairy godmothers (or godfather, as seen with Magwitch). In ‘A Tale of Two Cities’, a tightly regulated historical narrative is softened by the innocent beauty and uncorrupted morality of Lucie Manette, whose “golden hair” is her defining characteristic, highlighted whenever she enters the picture. This reminded me of the Brothers Grimm classic 'Rumpelstiltskin', where an innocent girl is shut up in a tower and forced to spin straw into gold for the sake of her life. The parallel between this tale and Lucie Manette is resounding, as the young heroine becomes the “golden thread” binding her family together, selflessly “weaving the service of her happy influence through the tissue of all their lives”. It’s no coincidence that the entire second book of the novel is called “The Golden Thread”, paying testimony to the redemption and transformation brought forth by Lucie’s angelic influence, as well as the significance of this thread in tying the domestic sphere together with a power that is able to penetrate into the public (and eventually lead to a chain of events in the plot such as Charles Darnay’s classic escape). 

This ongoing metaphor is all the more symbolic as Lucie’s relationship with her father is analyzed; she willingly subjects herself to a lifetime of imprisonment by selflessly devoting herself to the service of her father. Her only note of protest comes from the apprehension of such imposed parenthood (“I have been free, I have been happy, yet his ghost has never haunted me!”), yet she becomes the saving grace guiding Doctor Manette’s path to recovery. Mr. Lorry sympathetically imagines her “flowing golden hair” to be “tinged with gray” upon her new-found responsibility, but she rises up to the challenge with a heroic morality quite novel in the ideal Victorian lady. She uses her golden thread to detach Doctor Manette from a monotonous cycle of weaving (via shoemaking), as she tells him, “If you touch, in touching my hair, anything that recalls a beloved head that lay on your breast when you were young and free, weep for it, weep for it!”.  Very explicitly, Lucie becomes “the golden thread that united him to a Past beyond his misery, and to a Present beyond his misery: and the sound of her voice, the light of her face, the touch of her hand, had a strong beneficial influence with him almost always".

When viewed from a broader, political context, Lucie’s hybrid entity is emphasized the second she is introduced to the reader; Mr Lorry contradictorily self-reflects, “This is Mam’selle!”, but sees her as a “young English lady” in her “adopted country”. This is developed as she becomes the device used to appropriate French values with English morality, making her a representation of the best of both worlds. One can see the virtue and redemptive goodness embodied by her golden hair as the perfect blend of Paris and London, consequently becoming the didactic novel’s subtle advocation of moderation through a new kind of feminine gender. She is not the fragile, invisible homemaker conventionally portrayed as the appropriate kind of womanhood of the age; she balances virtue with selfhood, and uses action versus passivity to carry forth salvation and change in the novel. 

Language and Imagery in "A Tale of Two Cities"

According to Bjorn Tysdahl’s “Europe is Not the Other: A Tale of Two Cities”, the figurative language employed by Charles Dickens is the kind that is fluid, boundless and all-embracing. I could not agree with the statement more because the imagery employed has several layers to it, and the reader slowly and cautiously peels one layer to discover the second layer of meaning, yet it is all connected and cannot be separated or compartmentalized.

For instance, when Darnay is taken to court, one would have expected clear distinctions between the people present and in the application of the law itself. However, when Darnay is taken to court in London, “all the human breath in the place, rolled at him, like a sea, or a wind, or a fire.” And Jerry’s ugly-smelling breath “mingles with the waves of other beer, and gin, and tea, and coffee, and what not, that flowed at him, and already broke upon the great windows behind him in an impure mist and rain.”

As quoted above, it seems that ‘life’ cannot be compartmentalized. Tsydahl states that the imagery of the sea, waves and wind merges the human race together, the way wine flowing in the Saint Antoine street brought together humankind. “BLOOD” is written on the wall with red wine, and one is reminded not only of the cry for blood that will be heard in the streets, but how it is blood itself that makes us all human and makes us a part of each other, and connects us; the way wine brings the young and the old together (and connects them) to drink.

Furthermore, the sea imagery is very evident in the novel when it comes to the streets of Paris and the streets of London. In fact, according to Tsydahl the sea imagery allows the two different cities to connect through waves, water and sea. For instance, when people gather to attack Bastille, “the living sea rose, wave on wave, depth on depth, and overflowed the city on that point.” On the other hand, when the Old Bailey trial is over in London, “the crowd came pouring out.”

It is interesting to note the sea imagery in the names of the chapters itself. Chapter 22 of Book 3 is called “The Sea Still Rises”, and Chapter 24 is called “Drawn to the Loadstone Rock.”

Week 7's submission

Y U SUFFOCATE US?!

It appears that while the 21^st century Pakistani dramas make special efforts to create a harsh binary between the male, female, the legitimate sphere of their interaction and their agency, the 20^th century drama made special efforts to blur them out precisely so that the nation could focus their concern on more consequential matters. 

This idea was manifested on a number of occasions in Dhoop Kinaray and Hamsafar. In the first episode we see Zoya going to Anji’s house by jumping over the walls and then even Fazilat does the same on one occasion. These macho stunts are hence not reserved for a gender, and even within that gender, for a particular age. This reflects on the fluidity of that era and the openness in accepting dynamic roles for women.

The exact opposite of this is showcased in Hamsafar where Ashar is seen gardening and in that scenario the only role of Khirad is to present him a fancy glasses of orange juice. Her roles are strictly domestic, where domestic is equaled to culinary tasks. Even though Ashar is the only child who has to handle his father’s magnificent business, the possibility of Khirad sharing in that economic agency is never evoked. In Dhoop Kinaray however the major concern in Anji’s life is that she doesn’t want to run her father’s business. The roles of male and female figures hence are not running parallel with annoying distinctions. They submerge into one and other elucidate their worth. Similarly we see Zoya driving herself to every place independently (although they do have a driver) while Khirad is always dropped off by Ashar to the university. The nuance here however is not only that the male/female roles are defined but the extent to which a female can be trusted beyond the boundaries of the household such that the husband literally guards her on every single step the wife takes outside home.

This male/female binary also echoes in the nature of relationships these two gender can have; forbidden and acceptable. The idea of friendship between them is beautifully exhibited in Dhoop Kinaray (Zoya and Dr. Irfan being the vigor and wine of the drama) while is frowned up on in Hamsafar. In Hamsafar in fact it is explicitly stated the girls and boys cannot be associated without a romantic association (Sarah for her best friend Ashar and Khizar for her cousin Sarah). The entire theme is terribly conservative to these gender roles and their interaction.

In Dhoop Kinaray Dr. Irfan makes several casual visits to Anji’s home and Dr. Ahmar to Zoya’s house whereas Ashar’s disapproval by demeanor and expression is reflected on occasions of Khizr’s visit (Yale graduate?!). The environment presented in Hamfasar is not only severely domestic in its definition of what domestic is, but also very suffocating. It points out only the limitations of in the framework of the home and directs that is the only safe and secure place for women. Outside is danger. Dhoop Kinaray is the exact opposite of this theme where Dr. Ahmar makes himself most vulnerable and available to Zoya when they are working outside in the village.

The concern of Hamsafar hence was who a man is and who a woman, and nothing beyond. While Dhoop Kinaray delved further and beyond in the characteristics and traits of either; the demons they withheld and the spark that originated within. 

Blog-post 7: The Ethical Love of Dhoop Kinaray VS. The Evil Love of Humsafar

When it comes to the concept of Love, Dhoop Kinaray takes the lead from Humsafar. The love depicted in Dhoop Kinaray is diametrically different from what has been shown in Humsafar. Dhoop Kinaray portrays a more ethical, rational and humorous love as compared to the mean love in Humsafar where personal priorities and affections are represented as ‘true love’.

On one hand in Dhoop Kinaray Zoya has been shown as a confident and intelligent woman who has a soft-corner for Dr.Ahmer and is never shy to express her feelings for him in front of anyone whereas on the other hand Khirat of Humsafar is shown as a dependent women who submits herself to her passive husband and considers him as her ‘muhafiz’. Similarly, the contrast of Sheena and Sara’s love is pretty evident. Sheena realizes that Dr. Ahmer will never have the same feelings for her as she does and therefore, decides to move on with her life by finding a partner who can give her security, wealth and everything. However, for Sara, Khizer is the reason for her existence and she can go to any extends to get her love, even if it involves evil doings.

The paternal love is also poles apart. Where on one hand Zoya shares this extremely friendly and supportive relationship with her father on the other hand Khizer’s mother destroys his life just to keep her son and hence showing a strange radical love. The humorous yet sicere love of Dr. Irfan and Anjji is also adorable which is missing in Humsafar. Hence, the true feelings and of love and companionship can be seen through various relationships in Dhoop Kinaray but not in Humsafar. In Humsafar the class, society and status defines love whereas in Dhoop Kinaray it is just the genuine feelings and ethical love that wins hearts of the viewers. 

Week 6 (late): The Protagonist in Jane Eyre

In the novel Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte the plurality of women's roles in the 19th century is represented through the upper-class, upper middle-class, lower middle-class, working class, impoverished, and racially "othered" women. In my blog I will be focusing on Jane herself as to how she was a challenge to the norms of the Victorian society.

As a governess, Jane occupies a position in the lower middle-class; she is not quite genteel and not quite a servant. Because she is too poor to be a valuable commodity in the marriage market, she must work to support herself, but given the nature of Victorian society she will inevitably be working for a man; in this case, Mr. Rochester. When he is out of the house, however, she is able to develop a close-knit female community spanning across three generations with Mrs. Fairfax the housekeeper, herself, and her young pupil Adelle. The fact that Mr. Rochester, a wealthy member of the upper middle-class, proposes to her was incredibly unlikely during that time. She asserts her financial independence through her desire to not be commodified by refusing the fine jewelry and clothes that he would give to the daughter of an aristocrat, and at the novel's end is an independent woman through inheriting money from her recently deceased uncle. 

Jane came out as the protagonist of the novel as a strong independent woman. The reason why Bronte chose Jane as the lead character was to make the novel more effective and make Jane this strong, passionate and rebellious character to challenge the Victorian society’s view on women. Her distinct point of view regarding religion is very interesting. One can see the how rational Jane is when she tries to find answers to her complicated life out of religion. Her take on religion makes her stand out from the second class citizens (women) of the Victorian era. Even though in the end Jane marries Rochester but she holds up her dignity and self respect in all aspects.

Blog 8: Sheena vs Sara/Khirad

The women of Dhoop Kinaare differ greatly from the women of Humsafar in the way they deal with tragedy. Let us compare Sheena with Khirad and Sara. Sheena faced tragedies similar to both of them, the poor soul and yet was able to come out of the whole ordeal better than either of the “modern” day women.

Sheena had a very Sara-esque tragedy where she was unable to get the man of her dreams but she dealt with it much better than the suicidal maniac, thank God for that.

Sheena did not let Ahmer’s refusal of her, which was very similar to Ashar’s
refusal to Sara (you’re my friend, main tumhare baare main us tarah nahin sochta and all), define her entire life. She walked away with grace and heck even got herself hitched to what seemed like a nice guy. She acts rationally and practically once she realizes that her love for Ahmer will remain unrequited “khwaabein ko peechay bhaagne se behtar hai, kisi aise aadmi ka haath thaam le jo baray shoq se batha raha ho”.
Sheena, for me at least, is more “modern” than Sara could even think possible. She lives on her own (the Khaala hardly counts), works in a predominantly male field without relying so heavily on any of the man in her life. This becomes really obvious when after she is betrayed by Nasir Jamal, she doesn’t run around looking for support and sympathy; “maine kabhi kisi se khairaat nahin li kisi” She deals with it on her own and even breaks under the pressure which leads to her attempted suicide but still doesn’t need Ahmer to help her; “Ahmer please tum chale jao is waqt...Mujhe kisi ki hamdardi ki zaroorat nahin hai. Mujhe tumhari bhi humdardi ki zaroorat nahin hai.” She resumes her life after this one moment of weakness and doesn't let it stop her from being the strong woman that she is.

Another interesting aspect is that, unlike Khirad, who relies heavily on God and the divine intervention, Sheena has no such expectations. This is again in line with how Sheena takes charge of her own own fate. She ends it with Nasir Jamal on her own terms and does not even consider taking him back, something which Khirad is more than happy to do. She, despite being alone and living on her own asks Nasir Jamal for a divorce and never once considers how the society will perceive her as a divorced woman or how she will deal with being alone. Although earlier, she is seen having those concerns “is muwashray main aurat ka akela rehna bohot mushkil hai”, she is seen breaking away from that idea after Nasir Jamal betrays her. Even earlier when she is contemplating accepting Nasir Jamal’s proposal, we see her trying to break away from the compulsion to marry “isi liye aurat ko mard ka sahara lena parta hai, lekin maine toh nahin aisa socha tha”. After her divorce, she tells Ahmer “main mutmaeen hun”.

Sheena basically embodies the possibility that being a single woman is not the end of the world. Whereas women in recent Pakistani dramas are on an eternal quest to find domestic bliss in form of a husband, Sheena represents a very progressive idea, progressive even by today’s standards that the ultimate fate of a woman is not to find a husband but be fulfilled and happy on her own terms. She is accepting of her refusal and learns to make the best of her situation“main jaanti hun main jo kuch chaahti hun mujhe nahin mil sakega”.

Week Six: Super Late Submission

There has been a tendency to depict Jane Eyre as an independent and empowered woman who is not afraid to speak her mind. The very first instance of this is when she blatantly tells John Reed that “you are like a murderer—you are like a slave-driver—you are like the Roman emperors!” after he hits her. Unlike other female protagonists she is not the one to perish at the hands of others.

However this analysis seems a bit problematic because there have been various instances where Jane’s outburst or “revolutionary” reactions could be seen as a mere production of an over disciplined body. She does not want she wants to do, or what she desires but responds to the way society would expect her to behave.

The scene where Jane paints her picture (with just a chalk) she thinks it ought to be labeled as “Portrait of a Governess, disconnected, poor and plain” which shows how Jane tries to produce herself in lieu with the culture of the society. Along with this Jane even challenges her belief that she would be somehow worthy of Mr Rochester.

“You,' I said, 'a favourite with Mr. Rochester? You gifted with the power of pleasing him? You of importance to him in any way? Go! Your folly sickens me”

This scene clearly illustrates the self-image Jane has of herself. She is not somehow who ‘deserves’ Mr Rochester only because it is not something deemed acceptable to the society. In comparison, she believes that Miss Ingram with her aristocratic wealth, charm and beauty is someone who would prove to be more compatible with Mr Rochester.  Here, it is shown that Jane narrative does not only show a movement from bondage to freedom but rather extreme forms of self-discipline that she exercises on herself.

Along with that her love for Rochester could also be challenged. Did she actually love him or it occurred given the circumstances created by Rochester. For instance, when she is leaving Rochester she remarks, “I looked at my love: the feeling which was my master’s-which he had created.” In such a scenario, could it be argued that her love was authentically hers?

Moreover, the scene when she discovers the truth about Rochester’s first marriage, he becomes almost desperate to attain her love and offers her the option of moving to France. But Jane refuses, not because she did not want to be with Rochester but the moral condemnation of this type of act. Jane wants to act in the “moral” or the ‘correct’ way because she symbolizes middle class values of the British society. Again she chooses to respond in the way society would expect her to react.