IGNOU MEG-05 Solved Question Paper PDF Download

IGNOU MEG-05 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in Hindi

IGNOU MEG-05 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in English

Q1. One critic has described literature as “News which stays news.” Discuss with some examples.

Ans. This famous quote, attributed to the American poet and critic Ezra Pound , brilliantly captures the enduring nature and timeless relevance of literature. It establishes a fundamental distinction between literature and journalism. News, by its very nature, is ephemeral; it is vital today but obsolete tomorrow. Its value is tied to its immediacy. Literature, in stark contrast, even if written centuries or millennia ago, continues to resonate with and speak to successive generations of readers, thus “staying news.” The reason literature “stays news” is that it deals with universal human experiences and truths rather than superficial, fleeting events. It explores themes such as love, death, betrayal, ambition, justice, morality, and existential angst. These emotions and conflicts are a permanent part of the human condition, transcending the boundaries of time, geography, and culture. Some classic examples illustrate this point perfectly:

• Homer’s The Odyssey : Composed nearly three millennia ago, this epic tells the story of a long journey home, the struggle against overwhelming odds, and the virtue of loyalty. The archetype of the arduous journey back to a place of belonging, whether literal or metaphorical, remains profoundly resonant with modern readers.
• Shakespeare’s Hamlet : Written in the early 17th century, this play grapples with the dilemmas of revenge, procrastination, grief, and existential questioning. Hamlet’s soliloquy, “To be, or not to be,” remains the ultimate expression of human uncertainty and anguish in the face of suffering.
• Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice : Set in 19th-century England, the novel explores social pressures, class distinctions, and the human tendency to judge others based on first impressions. These social dynamics and personal foibles are as relevant in contemporary society as they were in Austen’s time.
• Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex : This ancient Greek tragedy deals with themes of fate versus free will, the painful search for truth, and the fall from grace. It explores the terrifying idea that knowledge can bring misery and that humans are often pawns of forces beyond their control.

In essence, Pound’s aphorism encapsulates the very essence of literature. Literature is not merely information or a record of facts, as news is. It is an artistic rendering of human experience that offers insight into the permanent aspects of human nature and society. Its formal artistry and thematic depth grant it a longevity that journalism cannot achieve, making it a form of ‘news’ that remains fresh and vital for every new age.

Q2. “The difference between Plato and Aristotle revolves around the social relevance of Art and Poetry.” Elaborate.

Ans. In classical literary criticism, the views of Plato and his student Aristotle represent two opposing poles, and the core of their disagreement indeed revolves around the function, effect, and ultimate social relevance of art and poetry. Plato’s View: Art as a Social Danger In his seminal work, The Republic , Plato launched a formidable attack on art and poetry, grounded in his ‘Theory of Forms’.

• Mimesis as an Imitation of an Imitation: According to Plato, the physical world we perceive is but an imperfect shadow of the ‘World of Ideal Forms,’ which is the realm of true reality. A carpenter makes a chair, which is an imitation of the Ideal Form of a chair. A painter then paints that chair, thereby creating a copy of a copy. Art is, therefore, twice removed from truth and is fundamentally deceptive.
• Emotion over Reason: Plato argued that poetry appeals to the emotional, irrational part of the soul, rather than to reason. By stirring up emotions like pity and fear, it weakens the rational faculty, making individuals less reasonable and more sentimental. For an ideal state, which must be governed by reason, this is dangerous.
• Negative Social Relevance: For these reasons, Plato concluded that poetry has a negative impact on society. It misleads citizens, makes them irrational, and corrupts them morally. He famously proposed to banish poets from his ideal republic, with the exception of those who would write hymns to the gods and praises of famous men.

Aristotle’s View: Art as a Social Good

In his work

Poetics

, Aristotle systematically refuted his master’s charges and offered a sophisticated defence of art, particularly tragedy.

• A Re-evaluation of Mimesis: Aristotle also agreed that art is mimesis or imitation, but he viewed it as a positive human instinct. For him, imitation is a natural way of learning and a source of pleasure.
• Poetry and Universal Truths: Aristotle argued that poetry is more philosophical and of a higher order than history. History merely relates “what has happened,” whereas poetry expresses “what may be”—the universal. It teaches us general truths about human nature.
• Catharsis: This is Aristotle’s most significant contribution. He contended that tragedy, by arousing “pity and fear,” does not agitate the audience but rather brings about a ‘purgation’ or ‘clarification’ of these very emotions. Through this emotional release, the spectator is left in a balanced and healthier state of mind.

The Core Difference:

The distinction is thus clear. For Plato, art is a danger to the social order because of its deceptive nature and its destabilizing emotional appeal. For Aristotle, art is a positive social force that provides emotional cleansing (catharsis), intellectual pleasure, and teaches universal truths, thereby benefiting both the individual and the state. Their disagreement is fundamentally about whether art corrupts and destabilizes society or whether it educates and strengthens it, making the question of social relevance the central axis of their debate.

Q3. “Emotions are integral to poetry.” Do Wordsworth and Coleridge differ on this view? Explain.

Ans. As the chief architects of the English Romantic movement, both William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge firmly agreed that emotions are integral to poetry. Romanticism itself was a revolt against the reason-centric Neoclassicism of the 18th century, championing emotion, imagination, and individualism. However, despite this shared ground, Wordsworth and Coleridge developed distinct and nuanced theories about the precise role of emotion in poetry and the nature of the poet’s creative process. Wordsworth’s Theory: “Emotion Recollected in Tranquillity” Wordsworth articulated his famous theory in the Preface to Lyrical Ballads (1802), defining poetry as “the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquillity.” For Wordsworth, poetic creation is a two-stage process:

1. First, the poet has a powerful emotional experience, often in response to nature or human life.
2. Second, at a later time, in a calm and contemplative mood (“tranquillity”), the poet reflects upon this experience. During this reflection, a new emotion, kindred to the original one, is gradually produced in the mind, and it is from this new, filtered emotion that the poem is born.

Thus, for Wordsworth, the poem is not an immediate outburst of passion but emotion mediated by memory and thought. The poet is a “man speaking to men,” but one with a more refined sensibility, and the purpose of the poem is to generate a similar emotional state in the reader.

Coleridge’s Theory: The Synthesizing Power of Imagination

Coleridge, in his

Biographia Literaria

, found Wordsworth’s theory to be somewhat mechanical and simplistic. He placed a much greater emphasis not on emotion itself, but on the role of the

Imagination

. Coleridge famously distinguished between two forms of imagination:

• Primary Imagination: The power of perception common to all human beings, through which we receive sense impressions and perceive the world as an ordered whole.
• Secondary Imagination: The poet’s unique creative faculty. It is an echo of the primary, but it “dissolves, diffuses, dissipates, in order to re-create.” It is a “magical, synthetic power.”

For Coleridge, a poem is not a mere overflow of feeling but a conscious act of creation. The secondary imagination fuses disparate and even opposite elements—emotion and thought, the subjective and the objective, the particular and the universal—into an organic, harmonious whole. Emotion is a key ingredient, but it is the imagination that is the active, transformative agent, the “esemplastic” power that shapes these materials into a new work of art.

Key Differences:

• Point of Focus: Wordsworth’s theory focuses on the origin of the emotion and the role of memory . Coleridge’s theory focuses on the creative process and the transformative power of the imagination .
• The Process: For Wordsworth, the process is more linear (experience -> memory -> composition). For Coleridge, it is more complex and “magical,” involving the synthesis of various elements by the imagination.
• The Poet’s Role: For Wordsworth, the poet is primarily a sensitive feeler who shares his emotions. For Coleridge, the poet is a conscious maker, a creator who reshapes the world through the power of imagination.

In conclusion, while both critics saw emotion as integral, Wordsworth viewed it as the origin and subject of poetry, whereas Coleridge saw it as one of the raw materials to be molded and transformed by the supreme faculty of imagination. Their difference is one of the primacy of emotion versus the primacy of imagination.

Q4. “ ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’ is indispensable reading for distinguishing between literature and journalistic writing.” Discuss T. S. Eliot as a critic.

Ans. T. S. Eliot’s 1919 essay, “Tradition and the Individual Talent,” is a landmark of 20th-century literary criticism. The proposition that it is indispensable for distinguishing between literature and journalistic writing is highly accurate, as the essay provides a robust framework for understanding what lends literature its permanence and separates it from the ephemeral nature of journalism. The Essay’s Distinction between Literature and Journalism: Journalistic writing is, by its very nature, topical and present-focused. It aims to report events, convey immediate information, or comment on current affairs. Its relevance is often exhausted with the passing of the moment it describes. Eliot’s essay explains how literature transcends this transience. 1. The Concept of Tradition: For Eliot, ‘tradition’ is not a blind adherence to the past but the acquisition of a “historical sense.” This sense involves a perception “not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence.” A great writer must be conscious of the entire literary tradition of Europe, from Homer to the present day, which forms a “simultaneous order.” Journalistic writing is devoid of this historical sense; it is a monologue rooted in the now. A literary work, however, enters into a dialogue with this vast tradition. It is judged by the standards of the past, and, in turn, its arrival slightly alters our understanding of the whole tradition. 2. The Theory of Impersonality: Eliot famously countered the Romantic notion of poetry as self-expression, declaring, “Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality.” The poet’s mind, he argued, acts as a “catalyst,” fusing feelings and experiences into a new artistic whole while remaining itself unaffected. This stands in direct opposition to much journalistic writing, which often thrives on the personality, opinions, and feelings of the writer (e.g., opinion columns, editorials). Literature, for Eliot, achieves a universal quality by transcending the purely personal. T. S. Eliot as a Critic: Eliot was one of the most influential critics of the 20th century, fundamentally redirecting the course of academic criticism.

• Forerunner of New Criticism: Though he did not label himself as such, his ideas laid the groundwork for the New Critics, who emphasized close reading of the text itself and eschewed external factors like authorial biography or historical context.
• Anti-Romantic Stance: His criticism was a powerful reaction against the subjective, impressionistic criticism of the 19th century. He championed an impersonal, intellectual, and craft-focused approach to poetry.
• Revaluation of the Canon: Eliot challenged the established hierarchy of English poetry. He was critical of poets like Milton and the Romantics and was instrumental in reviving the reputation of the 17th-century ‘Metaphysical poets’ (like John Donne). He praised in them a “unification of sensibility,” where thought and feeling were inextricably fused, a quality he felt had been lost in later poetry.
• Objective Correlative: In his essay on Hamlet , he introduced this influential concept: the idea that the only way of expressing a particular emotion in art is to find “a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that particular emotion.”

In conclusion, “Tradition and the Individual Talent” clarifies that literature is part of a vast cultural conversation and achieves permanence through impersonal artistry, whereas journalism remains transient and personal. As a critic, Eliot’s emphasis on text-centric analysis, a reconfigured literary history, and the importance of impersonality permanently altered the study of literature.

Q5. “Literature provides aesthetic pleasure not ‘purpose’.” Discuss.

Ans. This statement addresses a central and perennial debate in literary criticism: should art exist for its own beautiful sake, or must it serve a moral, social, or political purpose? This is the conflict between the doctrine of “art for art’s sake” (Aestheticism) and the didactic view of literature. The View of Aesthetic Pleasure (“Art for Art’s Sake”): This perspective was most famously championed by the Aesthetes of the late 19th century, such as Walter Pater and Oscar Wilde.

• Its core tenet is that the primary, and perhaps only, function of art is to be beautiful and to provide a refined sensory, intellectual, and emotional pleasure.
• Art is seen as autonomous, self-sufficient, and should not be subservient to any external end, be it moral, political, or social. Oscar Wilde’s famous declaration, “All art is quite useless,” meant precisely this. It is not ‘useful’ in a practical, utilitarian sense, and therein lies its glory.
• According to this view, the value of a literary work resides in its form, its style, the beauty of its language, and its structural perfection, not in any message it might convey.

The View of ‘Purpose’ (Didactic/Utilitarian):

This is a much older and more persistent view, which holds that literature must have a higher aim.

• Horace: The Roman poet Horace stated that the aim of the poet is both “to teach and to delight” ( aut prodesse aut delectare ). Literature should have a dual function: to be pleasurable and to be useful or instructive.
• Sir Philip Sidney: In his An Apology for Poetry , Sidney argued that the ultimate purpose of poetry is to move men to virtuous action. He claimed it was superior to both philosophy (which is too abstract) and history (which is tied to facts) because it can present ideal examples in a compelling and emotionally engaging way.
• Marxist and Feminist Criticism: Modern critical theories often demand a purpose from literature. Marxist critics believe literature should raise class consciousness and contribute to social revolution. Feminist critics see literature as a tool to challenge patriarchal ideologies and give voice to women’s experiences.

Discussion and Synthesis:

In reality, the two views are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The greatest literary works often manage to do both: serve a purpose and provide profound aesthetic pleasure.

• For example, Charles Dickens’ novels like Oliver Twist or Hard Times had a clear social reformist purpose—to expose the horrors of the workhouse or the dehumanizing effects of industrialization. Yet, they are also celebrated for their literary artistry, memorable characters, and powerful storytelling. The aesthetic pleasure they provide makes their social purpose all the more effective.
• Similarly, George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is a powerful political warning (purpose), but it is also a masterpiece of literary construction, symbolism, and narrative technique (aesthetic pleasure).

In conclusion, to claim literature provides only aesthetic pleasure and not purpose is an oversimplification. Literature that is purely “purpose-driven” can descend into mere propaganda, while literature that is purely “aesthetic” can become sterile and detached from human life. A more balanced view is that great literature often achieves its purpose

through

its aesthetic power. The pleasure of the art is the very vehicle that makes the message memorable, compelling, and transformative. Thus, pleasure and purpose are not opposites but are often deeply intertwined.

Q6. Examine A Room of One’s Own as a seminal text in Literary Theory.

Ans. Virginia Woolf’s 1929 extended essay, A Room of One’s Own , is unquestionably a seminal, or foundational, text of feminist literary criticism . It is a work that fundamentally changed the way we think about literature, society, and the relationship between them. Its seminal nature lies in its radical act of reframing the questions asked about women and fiction. Its Significance as a Seminal Text: 1. Reframing the Question: Instead of asking the old, essentialist question, “Why have there been no female Shakespeares?”, Woolf reframes it to: “What are the material and social conditions necessary for the creation of great art, and why have women been historically denied these conditions?” This shift moved criticism away from biological determinism and towards a sociological and materialist analysis. 2. Foundation of Materialist Feminism: The essay’s central thesis, “a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction,” introduces a materialist perspective into feminist criticism. Woolf details how women were denied education, property rights, legal identity, and personal privacy, making a creative life all but impossible. Her description of being barred from a university library becomes a powerful symbol of women’s exclusion from the world of knowledge. 3. The Beginning of Gynocriticism: Although the term was coined later by Elaine Showalter, the practice is evident in Woolf’s work. Woolf attempts to construct a female literary tradition by looking at past women writers like Aphra Behn, Jane Austen, and the Brontës. She sees them not as isolated anomalies but as part of a lineage, showing how they struggled and built upon each other’s work against immense odds. 4. A Critique of Patriarchy: Woolf analyzes how the literary and academic establishment is overwhelmingly male. She notes how women are represented in literature written by men (as muses, lovers, monsters) but are absent as creators themselves. She keenly observes how history has been written by and about men. 5. The Invention of Judith Shakespeare: Perhaps the most memorable part of the essay is the creation of ‘Judith Shakespeare,’ the Bard’s imaginary, equally gifted sister. Judith is denied education, forced into marriage, runs away, is mocked in the theatre world, and ultimately, pregnant and despairing, commits suicide. This powerful thought experiment vividly and tragically illustrates the social and material barriers that crushed female genius. 6. The Theory of the Androgynous Mind: Woolf puts forward the radical idea that the greatest creative minds are “androgynous”—they are able to unite the male and female aspects of the self. A purely masculine or purely feminine mind, she argues, cannot create great art. This was a forward-thinking idea suggesting a fusion, rather than a conflict, of genders is necessary for true creativity. In conclusion, A Room of One’s Own is seminal because it shifted the entire focus of literary analysis. It introduced a materialist and sociological perspective to the study of literary production, pioneered the recovery of a female literary tradition, and provided the foundational arguments, methods, and tone for much of the feminist criticism that would follow in the subsequent decades.

Q7. Write short notes on any two of the following: (i) Natyashastra (ii) Elaine Showalter (iii) An Introduction : Kamala Das (iv) Deconstruction (v) Psychoanalysis

Ans. (i) Natyashastra The Natyashastra is an ancient Indian treatise on the performing arts, attributed to the sage Bharata Muni . It is considered the foundational text of Indian aesthetics and dramaturgy. Its date of composition is uncertain, but it is generally placed between 200 BCE and 200 CE. It is a comprehensive, encyclopedic work that covers all aspects of theatre ( Natya ), including dramatic composition, stage design, acting, dance, music, costumes, makeup, and audience reception. Central to its theory is the concept of Rasa . Literally meaning ‘juice’ or ‘flavour’, in this context Rasa refers to the aesthetic flavour or sentiment that is the essence of an artistic experience. Bharata identifies eight primary Rasas: Shringara (Erotic), Hasya (Comic), Karuna (Pathetic), Raudra (Furious), Vira (Heroic), Bhayanaka (Terrible), Bibhatsa (Odious), and Adbhuta (Marvellous). A ninth, Shanta (Peaceful), was added by later commentators. According to the Rasa theory , the Rasa is not located in the performer or the text, but is evoked in the mind of the ‘sahridaya’ (the ideal, empathetic spectator). It is produced by the combination of Vibhavas (the determinants or causes of emotion), Anubhavas (the consequent physical reactions), and Vyabhichari Bhavas (transitory feelings), which work together to arouse the dominant underlying emotion, the Sthayi Bhava . The ultimate goal of a performance is to evoke this Rasa, leading to a state of aesthetic bliss that is impersonal and transcendental. It is India’s unique and most significant contribution to world literary theory. (iv) Deconstruction Deconstruction is a mode of critical reading and a philosophical theory primarily associated with the French philosopher Jacques Derrida . It is a key theory within post-structuralism. Contrary to popular misuse, deconstruction is not a method for “destroying” a text but is a way of reading that reveals the internal contradictions, instabilities, and underlying assumptions of language and meaning. Core concepts include:

• Logocentrism: Derrida critiques the entire Western philosophical tradition for its “logocentrism”—the belief in a stable, central ‘logos’ (meaning, truth, presence) that exists outside of and prior to language.
• Critique of Binary Oppositions: Deconstruction seeks to dismantle the hierarchical binary oppositions that structure Western thought (e.g., speech/writing, presence/absence, good/evil, man/woman). Derrida shows how the supposedly ‘inferior’ term (like writing) is in fact necessary for the ‘superior’ term (speech) to have any meaning.
• Différance: A key neologism coined by Derrida, combining the French words for “to differ” and “to defer.” It signifies that meaning is generated through a system of differences between signs (a ‘cat’ is a ‘cat’ because it is not a ‘bat’ or a ‘mat’). Simultaneously, final meaning is always deferred or postponed, as each signifier points only to other signifiers in an endless chain, never arriving at a final, present meaning or “transcendental signified.”
• “There is nothing outside the text”: This famous phrase does not deny the existence of a real world. It means that we can only access and understand reality through the structures of language (the “text”). We cannot step outside language to grasp a pure, unmediated reality.

In literary criticism, a deconstructive reading involves a close analysis that shows how a text subverts its own apparent meaning, focusing on paradoxes, gaps, and moments of ‘undecidability’.