Russian Formalism: The Art of Literary Structure

Russian Formalism: The Art of Literary Structure

We are going to start a new series after a long time…

I have been focusing on history for a long time, from Rome to the Ottoman Empire, and from Ancient Egypt... Now, we come back to literature. In my Theory and Criticism of Literature class, we will study a variety of theories, including Russian Formalism, New Criticism, Archetypal Criticism, Reader-Response Criticism, Structuralism, Post-structuralism and Deconstruction, Postmodernism, Psychoanalytic Criticism, Feminist Criticism, Marxist Criticism, New Historicism, and Cultural Materialism. These theories are not only related to literature, they are also related to psychology, philosophy, history, and more. In this series, we will explore each of these theories in detail.

Literary theory is a set of concepts and ideas used to explain or interpret literary texts. It is sometimes called "critical theory" or "theory" and is now evolving into "cultural theory." Literary theory includes principles from analyzing texts internally or using external knowledge. It is the body of ideas and methods we use to read and understand literature practically.

Literary criticism involves studying, evaluating, and interpreting literary works. While literary theory provides a broader framework for analyzing literature, literary criticism offers readers new ways to understand an author's work. It helps to delve deeper into the text, uncovering layers of meaning and providing insights into the author's intentions and the work's impact.

Why do we criticise literary works? What Is the Purpose of Literary Criticism?

Literary criticism aims to improve a reader's understanding of an author's work by summarizing, interpreting, and evaluating its significance. After closely reading the text, a critic creates a detailed analysis that can inform or challenge another reader's perspective. This practice allows readers to appreciate the beauty and complexity of the world through literature.

Russian Formalism emerged in the early 20th century in Russia as a literary theory movement. This theory was developed by a group of literary scholars and linguists seeking new ways to analyse literature. At that time, traditional approaches to literary analysis focused on content and meaning, primarily emphasizing what literary works conveyed. However, the Russian Formalists aimed to change this perspective.

W

hen you write a story, how you tell that story is very important. Russian Formalists were interested not only in what a story says but also in how it is told. Just like when you draw a picture, it’s not just the colours that matter, but also how the lines and shapes are made. These people tried to understand the structure of stories. To them, the words, sounds, and rhythm of a story are just as important as the story itself.  That is: Russian Formalism is a literary theory that focuses not just on the content of literary works but on how language and structure are used. Formalists argue that the meaning of a work is determined not by what the author says, but by how they say it. According to this theory, the purpose of literature is to disrupt our usual ways of seeing and make us think in new ways. So, to understand the aesthetic value of a work, we should focus more on its narrative techniques, linguistic play, and formal structure rather than just the plot. In the rest of the article, I will analyse this theory with a literary work. 

• The name of the author is not important.
• The time in which the author lived is not important.
• Any cultural impact on the author’s life is not important.
• The political beliefs of the author are not important.
• The actual reader is not important.

Then, if we comprehend this theory, we may go into detail a bit.

There were two schools of Russian Formalism. The Moscow Linguistic Circle, led by Roman Jakobson, was formed in 1915; this group also included Osip Brik and Boris Tomashevsky. The second group, the Society for the Study of Poetic Language (Opoyaz), was founded in 1916, and its leading figures included Victor Shklovsky, Boris Eichenbaum, and Yuri Tynyanov. Other important critics associated with these movements included Leo Jakubinsky and the folklorist Vladimir Propp. Habib, M. A. R. (2005). A History of Literary Criticism: From Plato to the present (p. 603). Blackwell Publishing.

In the 1910s, figures like Viktor Shklovsky and Roman Jakobson proposed a new way of examining literature. According to them, literature could not be evaluated solely based on the subject matter, characters, or messages of a work. What was crucial was how the author used language and how the structure of the narrative was shaped. Shklovsky's concept of "defamiliarization" (ostranenie) was central to this movement. He defends that the power of literature lies in presenting ordinary things in unusual and new ways, providing people to see the world differently.

The emergence of this theory was influenced by the belief that literary art could be analysed on a scientific basis. The Russian Formalists believed that literature should be examined through objective methods like science. Therefore, they focused on formal elements such as narrative structures, rhythm, sound, and the structure of language, drawing attention to the formal characteristics of literary works. This perspective marked a significant departure from traditional literary criticism, emphasizing not only the "what" but also the "how" of storytelling.

Shklovsky was a founding member of one of the two schools of Russian Formalism, the Society for the Study of Poetic Language, formed in 1916. His essay “Art as Technique” (1917) was one of the central statements of formalist theory. Like others in his group, he was denounced by Leon Trotsky for his formalist views. Habib, M. A. R. (2005). A History of Literary Criticism: From Plato to the Present (p. 603). Blackwell Publishing.

Defamiliarization…

Shklovsky introduces a new concept of Russian Formalism.

Shklovsky indicates that over time, we get so used to the things around us that we stop really noticing them. For instance, you might see a tree every day and get so used to it that you do not pay attention to it anymore. Shklovsky explains this as remembering only a small part of something. That’s why, to truly understand something, we need to look at it in a new way as if we were seeing it for the first time. Then everything seems interesting again. To sum up, defamiliarization is one of the most important things in literature and art. Art and literature help us see the world in a new way. Literature shows us those familiar things again, in a different and interesting way. This way, we look at them carefully again and discover things we did not notice before.

Roman Jakobson played an important role in helping us understand literature and language. Along with Victor Shklovsky, he founded a group in 1916 that studied the language of poetry. This group aimed to teach how to analyse poems and writings. In 1926, Jakobson established another group in Czechoslovakia that focused on studying how language works. Later, he fled from Nazi danger and moved to America in 1941. There, he met another important scholar named Claude Lévi-Strauss, and in 1943, they co-founded a linguistic study group in New York. His ideas became significant first in France and then in America.

The term ‘literariness’ was first introduced by the Russian Formalist Roman Jacobson in 1921. He declared in his work Modern Russian Poetry that ‘the object of literary science is not literature but literariness, i.e. what makes a given work a literary work’ (Das 2005, p. 78).

Literariness is a feature that shows that a book or story is special. This feature separates that book from ordinary texts. For instance, in a song, artists use some special things like rhythm, rhyme, and repetition. That's why these features make a story or book more interesting.

Jakobson states: “Poetry and stories are about the beautiful use of words. Linguistics, on the other hand, is a science that studies how words are structured. Therefore, the art of writing poetry and stories is a part of language.” He also mentions that literary criticism (which involves personal opinions about books) is based on subjective views, whereas literary studies (which focus on carefully examining books) use more accurate information. In other words, to understand books, it’s important to analyse them carefully and focus on the words.

Mikhail Bakhtin is recognized as one of the most important literary thinkers of the 20th century. One of his best-known ideas is about the different and interesting ways language is used. He has some important concepts that explain how novels are written. These concepts include “dialogue,” which is how people talk to each other; “polyphony,” which means hearing different voices from different people in a story; and “carnival,” which refers to times when everyone is having fun and there are different rules. All of these ideas help us understand how people communicate with different languages and voices.

Bakhtin borrows the term "polyphony" from music to describe the different narrative voices in novels. In his book Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, he illustrates how multiple voices can work together, including the author's voice and the voices of the characters.

Another important term is "heteroglossia," which also refers to "polyphony." Bakhtin discusses this concept in his essay "Discourse in the Novel." This term expresses the idea that there are many different ways of speaking in society.

Additionally, "dialogism" is significant. It explains how meaning is created through the interactions between the writer, the characters in a novel, and the readers. According to Bakhtin, nothing exists meaningfully on its own; everything is understood through its relationships and interactions with other things. In other words, what everyone says to each other is very important.

A Checklist of Formalist Critical Questions

Structure and Organization

• How is the work structured or organized?
• How does it begin, progress, and end?
• What is the work’s plot, and how does the plot relate to its structure?

Characters

• Who are the major and minor characters, and what do they represent?
• What is the relationship of each part of the work to the whole?
• How are the parts related to one another?

Narration:

• Who is narrating or telling the story?
• How is the narrator, speaker, or character revealed to the readers?
• How do we come to know and understand this figure?

Setting

• What are the time and place of the work—its setting?
• How does the setting relate to the characters and their actions?
• To what extent is the setting symbolic?

Language and Imagery

• What kind of language does the author use to describe, narrate, explain, or create the literary world?
• Specifically, what images, similes, metaphors, and symbols appear in the work?
•  What is their function, and what meanings do they convey?

These questions can help readers analyse a literary work through a formalist lens, focusing on its structure, characters, narration, setting, and use of language.

Language and Structure

• The language of the sonnet is rich with imagery. It uses elements of summer and nature to discuss the nature of love. The comparison to a summer's day serves as a tool to emphasize the beauty.
• The poem is structured as a Shakespearean sonnet, consisting of 14 lines divided into three quatrains and a final couplet. The rhyme scheme is ABABCDCDEFEFGG, which is typical for Shakespearean sonnets.

Sound and Rhythm

• The sonnet is written in iambic pentameter. This rhythm creates a sense of fluidity for the reader and enhances its emotional impact.
• Alliteration and assonance within the poem strengthen the emotional tone. For instance, the sound similarity between "more" and "fair" enhances the musicality of the expression.

Defamiliarization

• The comparisons and images in the poem offer the reader a chance to think about the beloved's beauty in an unconventional way. For example, the phrase "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" reminds us that the warmth of summer is temporary, prompting a reflection on the permanence of love.

 

Meaning and Themes

Immortality and Beauty

• Shakespeare highlights the beloved's beauty while also stressing that this beauty can fade over time. However, through his works, this beauty becomes eternal.
• The expression "eternal summer" symbolizes the power of art and literature to make the ephemeral permanent.

Transience of Time

• The poem questions the transience of time and the permanence of love, offering the reader a profound opportunity for reflection. In this context, it reminds us of the value of time.

Sultan Abdülaziz's Grand European Tour: Paris, London, and Beyond

O

ttoman sultans did not travel to any city, except for Bursa, İstanbul, Manisa, Amasya, and Edirne. Despite being caliphs, they did not even perform the pilgrimage. This remained the case until the 19th century when Sultan Abdülaziz made an exceptional journey in 1867. His travel to Europe, especially France, England, and Austria, was the first and only event in Ottoman history. This journey, which lasted for 47 days, significantly affected Ottoman society. The Sultan's return was great, with celebrations lasting three days and three nights across the Ottoman lands. The apparent reason for Abdülaziz's trip was his desire to attend the International Paris Exhibition, to which he had been invited by French Emperor Napoleon III. However, the trip also extended to Britain.

The portrait of Sultan Abdülaziz, who was deposed on the night of May 30, 1876, and murdered by having his veins cut, at the Malta Pavilion.

Sultan Abdülaziz was the 32nd Ottoman sultan and the 97th caliph of Islam. He was born in 1830 as the second son of Sultan Mahmud II. His mother was Pertevniyal Sultan. At the age of 32, he ascended to the throne in 1861 following the death of Sultan Abdülmecid I.

One of the most important matters he focused on was the reorganization and modernization of the army and navy. A significant portion of the loans obtained from Europe was spent on these efforts. The Ottoman Navy became one of the most strong in the world. He prepared a military force of over 700,000 soldiers, categorized as regulars, reserves, militia, and home guards. To meet their artillery and rifle needs, he also established modern facilities.

Sultan Abdülaziz, who was intelligent, perceptive, and well-versed in global politics, visited Egypt in the second year of his reign (1863). This trip, accompanied by a large entourage, was highly ceremonial. Sultan Abdülaziz toured Cairo on horseback. This journey strengthened the Egyptian people's loyalty to the caliphate.

In 1867, Sultan Abdülaziz accepted an invitation from Emperor Napoleon III to visit France in order to see the grand exhibition held in Paris. From there, he returned home via England, Belgium, Germany, Austria, and Hungary. During these travels, he met with several prominent leaders, including Napoleon III of France, Queen Victoria of England, King Leopold II of Belgium, King Wilhelm I of Prussia, Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria and Hungary, and Prince Carol I of Romania. He visited eight countries and met with five rulers.

Abdulaziz Imperial Yacht “La Reine Hortense” in Le Havre Harbor 1856.

On July 10, Abdülaziz departed from Paris, accompanied by Napoleon III, and headed to England as the second stop of his journey. After boarding ships again in Boulogne, he landed at Dover Port in England, where he was greeted by Prince Edward. After travelling by train to London, he met with Queen Victoria and settled into Buckingham Palace, which had been allocated for his stay. During his 11-day visit to London, Abdülaziz attended several official receptions and meetings, including a session in the House of Commons. Together with the Queen, he observed a naval drill of the British fleet, toured the shipyards of Portsmouth, and other dockyards, and accepted the honorary citizenship of London at City Hall.

According to one story, at a ball held at Buckingham Palace by Queen Victoria, Prince Murat danced with the Queen's granddaughter for a while. This prompted Sultan Abdülaziz to call Mehmet Emin Ali Pasha over and tell him, "Go tell him to leave the girl alone. What are we here for, to look like cuckolded p*mp?"

Reception by the Corporation of the City of London for His Imperial Majesty Sultan Abdülaziz Khan at the Guildhall.

 

On Tuesday, July 18, 1867.

Storming the Isles: Caesar's Invasion of Britain

Storming the Isles: Caesar's Invasion of Britain

 

In 55 and 54 BCE, Julius Caesar launched two military campaigns against Britain. Although Caesar achieved only limited success and failed to establish a permanent Roman presence in the British Isles, he forged treaty relations with numerous British tribes. He brought Britain into the sphere of Roman political ambitions.

A

 nti-Roman revolt by the Veneti of Armorica (modern Brittany) in 56 BCE, which likely received some support from Britain, prompted Julius Caesar to shift his focus northward. Venturing into Britain, an island seen as impossibly distant beyond “the bounds of the ocean,” would have earned him immense prestige. However, political difficulties delayed his invasion plans for a year. Finally, in 55 BCE, Caesar prepared to cross the Channel with a small expeditionary force. His main adversary was Cassivellaunus, probably the king of the Catuvellauni, a tribe expanding from its base at Wheathampstead in Hertfordshire to dominate much of southern England.

Preparation

Caesar received envoys from several British tribes eager to show their submission and avoid having their lands invaded. He dispatched a small reconnaissance force under the tribune Volusenus to scout suitable landing beaches and sent a diplomatic mission under the Gallic chieftain Commius to rally pro-Roman opinion. Unfortunately, both missions failed—Volusenus was unable to locate a sheltered harbour for the Roman fleet, and Commius was promptly arrested.

On August 26, Caesar set sail with a force composed of the Seventh and Tenth Legions. The cliffs and beaches around Dover were occupied by British defenders, forcing the Roman ships to run aground near Deal in Kent. The legionaries had to disembark in relatively deep waters under a constant hail of missiles. Although the legions managed to establish a beachhead, disaster struck four days later when a severe storm scattered the ships bringing over 500 cavalry reinforcements, and badly damaging many of the landing craft. Deprived of cavalry support, Caesar was vulnerable, and after the Seventh Legion was severely mauled in an ambush, he chose to declare the expedition a success and returned to Gaul, accompanied by a number of British hostages.

A New Campaign

Preparations soon began for a new expedition, as Caesar had learned valuable lessons from the relative failure of his first invasion into Britain. This time, he brought five legions—amounting to over 30,000 men—and around 2,000 cavalry. The cavalry was a critical component in countering the battle tactics of the Britons, who, unlike their counterparts in mainland Europe, still used chariots in battle to harass infantry units lacking mounted support.

On July 6, 54 BCE, Caesar set off for Britain once more. His navy of 800 ships landed near Deal, this time unopposed, apparently because the Britons were so intimidated by the size of the force that they chose not to resist. However, the Roman fleet was again battered by a serious storm. The ten-day delay in building a rampart extensive enough to beach their remaining naval force encouraged the Britons, who then offered a more effective defending under the leadership of Cassivellaunus.

The Romans won a series of engagements, capturing a hillfort at Bigbury near Canterbury, overcoming an attempt to entrap a Roman foraging force, and pushing on toward the Thames. Diplomatic pressure also began to tell, as Caesar had with him Mandubracius of the Trinovantes, one of Cassivellaunus’s arch-enemies. Some British chieftains, fearing that Cassivellaunus might use success against Caesar to increase his power, began to waver in their support for the campaign against the Romans. The capture of Cassivellaunus’s chief stronghold—likely the oppidum at Wheathampstead—led to a desperate attempt to stir the Kentish tribes into a final uprising against Caesar. This attempt was to no avail, and Cassivellaunus sued for peace. Caesar readily accepted, having already decided not to overwinter in Britain, fearing a revolt might break out in Gaul during his absence. He accepted British hostages and fixed a tribute to be paid by Cassivellaunus before returning across the Channel in mid-September. The Trinovantes became, in effect, a client kingdom of Rome, and Cassivellaunus was forbidden to interfere in their territory. Whatever his intentions regarding a third and more decisive invasion of Britain might have been, Julius Caesar was distracted from taking any action until 51 BCE by a major uprising in Gaul and later by his involvement in the Roman civil wars, which led to his appointment as Dictator in Rome in 47 BCE.

… Britons dye themselves with woad… and as a result their appearance in battle is all the more daunting.”

JULIUS CAESAR, THE GALLIC WARS, .47 BCE

 

Attempts by Augustus

Augustus, Caesar’s adoptive son and successor and the first Roman emperor, made plans to invade Britain at least twice, in 34 BCE and 26 BCE. However, suspected revolts elsewhere in the Empire caused him to call off both expeditions. Instead, the Romans, who regarded "the whole of the island as Roman property" according to the historian Strabo, supported client-kings like Tincommius and Verica, who ruled over a Belgic kingdom in southern England. This support was aimed at countering the growing power of the Catuvellauni, who overran the Trinovantian capital of Camulodunum (Colchester) around 9 CE. By involving themselves in British politics, the Romans maintained their influence on the island.

Conquest and Resistance

The Romans began their conquest of Britain in 43 CE. After initial successes, they faced persistent and bitter resistance in Wales and the north, as well as revolts in the south. Forty years after the landing, however, their armies stood on the borders of the Scottish Highlands, the furthest north they would reach.

The immediate pretext for the Roman invasion of Britain was the appeal by Verica, the exiled king of the Atrebates, to Emperor Claudius for help in restoring him to power. In response, four Roman legions—comprising more than 20,000 men—embarked for England in late April 43 CE. Under the command of Aulus Plautius, the Claudian invasion force established its main base at the sheltered harbor of Richborough in eastern Kent and began advancing westward. The Britons, led by Caratacus and Togodumnus, leaders of the Catuvellauni tribe, resisted the Roman advance but were eventually pushed back to the Thames. Finding a crossing point, the Romans engaged in fierce fighting, resulting in the death of Togodumnus. A pause in the campaign allowed for the arrival of Emperor Claudius himself, who took personal command. With Claudius leading, the Romans captured the capital of Camulodunum (Colchester). Following this success, Claudius returned to Rome, celebrating the glory of his new conquest.

Roman Expansion in Britain

Over the next four years following the Claudian invasion, the Romans expanded their control over Britain. They absorbed the remnants of the Catuvellaunian kingdom, while future Roman emperor Vespasian subdued resistance in the south and southwest. By around 47 CE, the Romans had secured a defensive line roughly along the future Fosse Way, extending from the Devon coast to Lincolnshire. They established a network of forts to solidify their control.

The Romans then turned their attention westward into Wales, where they encountered vigorous opposition from Caratacus, who had escaped and was leading renewed British resistance. In 51 CE, Caratacus was finally captured after seeking refuge with Cartimandua, queen of the Brigantes, who subsequently handed him over to Roman authorities.

Crossing the Rubicon

Crossing the Rubicon: A Journey into the Unknown

Caesar, near the end of his nearly decade-long Gallic Campaign, was recalled by the Senate, instigated by Pompey. Caesar, sensing that accepting this would mean the end of his political career, arrived at the banks of the Rubicon River with his army. As Caesar advanced, Pompey retreated. Then he set sail towards Greece. The two armies met on June 6, 48 BC, at Pharsalus. Defeated, Pompey fled to Egypt. However, he was caught there and beheaded. Thus, the first triumvirate period was coming to an end. As I stood at the edge of the Rubicon, the ancient river that separated the known from the unknown, I felt a surge of anticipation and fear. This was no ordinary river; it was a boundary, a line in the sand that once crossed, would change everything. The phrase "crossing the Rubicon" has come to symbolize a point of no return, a decision or action that irreversibly changes the course of events. As I contemplated my own metaphorical Rubicon, I couldn't help but draw parallels to Caesar's bold move. Like him, I was faced with a decision that would alter the trajectory of my life. It was a moment of reckoning, a test of courage and conviction.

 César Franchit le Rubicon
Adolphe Yvon

The Rubicon represents the threshold between safety and uncertainty, familiarity and novelty, conformity and rebellion. It is the point where we confront our fears and embrace the unknown. Crossing it requires faith in our abilities and a willingness to embrace change. For some, crossing the Rubicon may mean leaving behind a stable career to pursue a passion, starting a new chapter in life after a significant loss, or making a daring choice that defies societal norms. It is an act of defiance against complacency and a declaration of independence. As I waded into the river, I felt the weight of history and the burden of responsibility. The waters were swift and unforgiving, much like the currents of change that awaited me on the other side. But I was determined to press on, propelled by the belief that great rewards awaited those who dared to challenge the status.

Crossing the Rubicon is not without its perils. The unknown is rife with uncertainty, and the path ahead is shrouded in mystery. Doubt and hesitation gnaw at our resolve, tempting us to retreat to the safety of familiar shores. But as Caesar himself proclaimed, "The die is cast." Once we take that leap of faith, there is no turning back. As I emerged on the other side of the Rubicon, I felt a sense of liberation and empowerment. The landscape before me was uncharted and full of possibilities. I had shed the shackles of doubt and embraced my newfound freedom with open arms. In crossing the Rubicon, I had discovered a reservoir of inner strength and resilience that I never knew existed. I had proven to myself that I was capable of defying convention and forging my own path. The journey had transformed me, and I emerged as a bolder, more self-assured version of myself. The Rubicon is not merely a physical boundary; it is a state of mind. It is a symbol of our capacity for bravery and audacity in the face of uncertainty. It reminds us that true growth lies beyond our comfort zones and that embracing change is essential for personal evolution.

As I reflect on my journey across the Rubicon, I am filled with a profound sense of gratitude for the experience. It has taught me that taking risks and embracing the unknown is not just about reaching new destinations; it is about discovering our true potential and living life to its fullest. So, dear reader, I urge you to seek out your own Rubicon, whatever form it may take. Embrace the uncertainty, defy convention, and dare to cross into uncharted territory. In those transformative moments, we truly come alive and discover the boundless potential within us.

As Caesar famously said, "Alea iacta est"– the die is cast. Are you ready to cross your Rubicon?

 

 

Pope Joan: The Female Pope Who Defied History

Pope Joan: The Female Pope Who Defied History

The story of Pope Joan, a woman who supposedly ascended to the papal throne in the 9th century, has captivated the imaginations of historians, theologians, and storytellers for centuries. Despite its roots in medieval folklore, the tale of Pope Joan raises intriguing questions about gender, power, and the nature of historical truth. While some dismiss her as a just legend or myth, others argue that there is compelling evidence to suggest that she was a real historical figure who defied the norms of her time. Our first encounter with Pope Joan was in a document. At the beginning of the year, I studied Top Girls by Caryl Churchill, which presents the evolution of the status of women from the past to the present from a female writer’s objective perspective. At the same time, it points out the weaknesses in their struggle. In the first scene of the play, there are plenty of women who have been wronged. One of them is Pope Joan. This was the second encounter. In this blog, I will strive to comprehend her story. Let's start!

The story of Pope Joan first came up in the Middle Ages, with various accounts claiming that she was a highly educated woman who disguised herself as a man to pursue a career in the male-dominated world of the clergy. According to these accounts, she rose through the ranks of the church hierarchy and eventually became pope, only to be exposed when she gave birth during a papal procession. This sensational tale has captured the imagination of countless people over the centuries, and it continues to be a subject of fascination and debate to this day. While there is no definitive proof of Pope Joan's existence, there are several historical sources that mention her, including chronicles, papal records, and medieval manuscripts. One of the most famous accounts of her reign comes from the writings of Martin of Opava, a 13th-century chronicler who claimed that Pope Joan's true identity was revealed when she went into labor during a procession and subsequently died. Other sources, including the Sponheim Chronicle and the writings of Jean de Mailly, also mention Pope Joan and her alleged pontificate.

Despite these accounts, many historians remain dubious about Pope Joan's existence, pointing out significant gaps and inconsistencies in the historical record. Some argue that the story of Pope Joan was fabricated by anti-papal writers as a means of discrediting the papacy, while others believe that it may have originated as a cautionary tale about the dangers of women assuming positions of power within the church. In the absence of concrete evidence, the question of Pope Joan's existence continues to be a matter of speculation and debate.

Regardless of whether Pope Joan was a real historical figure or a fictional creation, her story has had a lasting impact on popular culture and has inspired numerous works of art, literature, and scholarship. She has been depicted in paintings, plays, novels, and films, with each interpretation offering its take on her life and legacy. In addition, her presumed reign has sparked discussions about gender equality, women's rights, and the role of women in religious leadership, making her a symbol of defiance against traditional gender norms and institutional barriers. The legend of Pope Joan also serves as a reminder of the complex and often enigmatic nature of history. Whether she was a historical figure or a product of myth and legend, Pope Joan continues to captivate our imagination and challenge our understanding of the past. Her story raises important questions about the ways in which history is recorded, interpreted, and remembered, and it serves as a powerful example of how narratives can shape our understanding of the world around us.

In conclusion, the story of Pope Joan is a fascinating and controversial chapter in the history of the Catholic Church. Whether she was a real historical figure or a mythical creation, her alleged reign as pope has captured the imagination of people for centuries and continues to be a subject of debate and speculation. As we continue to explore and reinterpret historical narratives, Pope Joan stands as a potent symbol of the enduring struggle for women's recognition and empowerment.

PHOTO IV

References

1. Martin of Opava. "Chronicon Pontificum et Imperatorum."
2. Schmitz, M. (2021). Pope Joan: A Historical Exploration. Historical Insights Press.
3. Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press.

Further Reading

1. The Mystery of Pope Joan by Peter Stanford
2. Pope Joan: The Legend of a Woman Pope by Alain Boureau
3. The Female Pope: The Mystery of Pope Joan by Rosemary and Darroll Pardoe

The Grapes of Wrath

John Steinbeck's 'The Grapes of Wrath: A Tale of Hardship and Hope

 

I am so excited to write this blog because I have been eagerly waiting to share my thoughts on The Grapes of Wrath. In my previous blog, I discussed the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. To fully understand this blog, I suggest you read that post first, as it outlines some factors that influenced the novel. America is one of the most dominant countries in the world, but its rise to power was fraught with disasters. The path to achieving this power was not easy for America. In The Grapes of Wrath, we witness the adventure and hope of the Joad family. John Steinbeck depicts the Joads as an ordinary American family facing extraordinary hardships. Through their story, we experience the struggles and troubles that many poor families in America endured on their journey to a better life. Sometimes, we will find ourselves in a dilemma, and sometimes, even when we wish otherwise, we will have to do things we do not prefer. The author provides us with a different perspective, and I hope you will gain new insights when reading this novel.

The Grapes of Wrath was written by John Steinbeck, and was set during the period of the Great Depression in the United States. In this novel, we will focus on the Joad family who represent families experiencing the Great Depression. Through the Joads, Steinbeck provides us with a clearer perspective to comprehend the effects of the Great Depression fully. Our protagonist, Tom got out of prison and returned to his family moving into his uncle John’s house. Other members of the family are Granma, Grampa, Pa Joad, Ma Joad, Noah Joad, Al Joad, daughter Rose of Sharon and her husband Connie; and two youngest children Ruthie and Winfield. Furthermore, Jim Casy, a former priest, joins them. The family is forced to leave their home because of the landowners. Consequently, they decide to move to find jobs and a better life for the family. The Joads set out for California in hopes of living under better conditions. The setting is one of the main themes in the novel, emphasizing the importance of the land. Steinbeck illustrates the significance of the land itself for the people and the profound effects of leaving their homeland. During this time, the condition of the land is crucial for the survival of the people living on it and for their crops. 

Our voyage is starting…

During their journey to California, all the members of the Joad family undergo a range of emotions, However, one member in particular, Grampa Joad, begins to act out of character. Back when they were still in their homeland, he was a fierce, hardworking, and somewhat angry man. Grampa wants to stay on his land, like Muley (Muley was a neighboır of the Joad family and when all the families, including his own, left to find a better place, he did not.) After the family stops and encounters another family who allows them to put Grampa in their tent, Grampa falls ill with a fever. He becomes paralyzed and ultimately passes away. The family buries his body, and then they gather around a fire, eating dinner and discussing Grampa’s death. No matter what happens, they have to continue on the road. Steinbeck masterfully depicts the desperation of the people experiencing the Great Depression. Grampa Joad experienced significant distress after being compelled to leave his homeland due to circumstances beyond his control. This suffering ultimately leads to his death.  Granma will be the second family member of the Joad family, who dies on the road. Another significant setting is the highway, the road that the family travels on to California. On one hand, the highway represents a path to something new, a fresh start that the family believes will improve their lives. However, it is also a place where unfortunate events occur, events that would never have happened if they were able to remain at home.

As Rick Marshall argues in his work called Steinbeck's Cognitive Landscapes in "The Grapes of Wrath": The Highway as Commentary on 1930s Industrialization (2011), the highway was a way to escape for the migrants, however, the highway does not mean freedom for them because it represents the fact that they lost their homes. As mentioned earlier, the highway is where both of the eldest family members, Grampa and Granma, pass away. They were both fierce, strong, and respected members of the family. Despite their age, they did not require assistance or care. Another unfortunate event that occurs on the highway is Noah's departure from the family. Noah, the eldest son of Ma and Pa, decides to stay behind when the family stops by a stream in Arizona, near the California border. He believes that people do not genuinely care for him and only tolerate his presence because he is a family member. While the highway may initially appear to be a path to a better life for the family by leading them to California, it is also a place where they experience significant losses, losing several members along the way. The final significant setting in the story is California, the promised land that lies at the end of the highway. The Joad family anticipates a fresh start in California, hoping for good jobs, a comfortable home, and a better life. The family's decision to move to California is largely based on an advertisement, which sets their expectations high.

As the conditions of the road are harder, people have to help each other to survive. In the novel, Steinbeck shows that no matter who you are when you work together as a group, you will achieve great results. For instance, as the family sets out, each member of the family is aware of what needs to be done to prepare and what items to bring along for the journey. Whether it's cleaning, preparing food, organizing the car, or deciding what to take, everyone in the family knows their role. Interestingly, they don't need to discuss or assign tasks—whether due to their familial bond or not, they function as a cohesive unit, each understanding their responsibility. This early example showcases the Joad family's ability to work together seamlessly, without the need for verbal communication. Throughout the story, they demonstrate that this unity extends beyond their family, proving the benefits of collaboration with others. Now, we just observe that the family works excellently as a unit. In the following parts, it will be demonstrated how strangers from various parts of the country can collaborate effectively, focusing particularly on women. This unity is evident when the Joad family finally arrives in California, specifically at the Weedpatch camp. The Weedpatch camp is comprised of people from diverse regions, beliefs, and backgrounds. Nevertheless, they all cooperate seamlessly as one unified community within the camp. Following their time at the Weedpatch camp, the family secures a job picking peaches at Hooper's Ranch. However, this employment doesn't endure for long, prompting them to move on. Later, they encounter boxcars with signs indicating the need for cotton pickers. Opting to seize this opportunity, the family decides to stay and work, with the added benefit of being able to live in one of the boxcars. The Joads' new job brings improvement to their circumstances. With regular income, they are able to afford dinner every night and purchase new clothes. 

When The Joads are on their way with Wilsons to California, they have to cross the desert. However, the conditions of the desert are tough for the old family members of both families. Wilsons prefer to stay, yet the Joads decide to cross the desert. In particular, Ma is very decisive, even if she knows that crossing the desert has a cost to her family. This cost would be the death of Ma. Steinback leaves us in an ethical dilemma in this context:

Are you on the side of the Wilsons, who consider their family and take a break on the road, or the Joads, who want to see the end of the road no matter what?

On the other hand, when the Wilsons encounter car trouble with their broken-down vehicle, Al Joad's automotive skills come in handy. In a mutual gesture, the Joads help the Wilsons repair their car. This embodies the importance of helping others in need, as one never knows when they may require assistance themselves. The mutual helping extended by these two families, who serendipitously cross paths on the road, highlights the selflessness and compassion inherent in human nature. 

Despite the Joad family having barely enough food for themselves, Ma Joad shows admirably good character. After Granma’s death, the family stops at the closest camp near Bakersfield. Several other migrant families are already camping there. After settling down, Ma starts cooking dinner. Several other migrant families are already camping there. After settling down, Ma begins to prepare dinner. After a while, the fifteen children stand silently and watch. They feel embarrassed to be there, but they remain nonetheless. Ma learns from the children that some of them hadn't even had breakfast. Ma shares the food among the Joad family but ensures there's enough left to share with the children. Even though this means each of her own family members will receive a little less food than usual, Ma still chooses to do it. As a mother herself, she cannot bear to see starving children. Furthermore, her strong morals compel her to ensure that the children do not go hungry.

At the end of the story, a profoundly significant act of morality and strength occurs. Rose of Sharon, the eldest daughter of the family, gives birth to a stillborn baby during a flood while the family is living in boxcars and picking cotton. The flood compels the family to leave, and they come across an old barn where they find a little boy with his sick and starving father. Despite their own hardships, the Joads choose to stay and help the boy and his father. The boy expresses concern about his father starving to death and implores the Joads for help. In a moment of shared silence and understanding between Ma and Rose of Sharon, they grasp what needs to be done. Despite Rose of Sharon mourning her dead baby, she selflessly offers her breast milk to the dying old man so he can survive. This act of compassion is extraordinary, especially considering Rose of Sharon's young age and the discomfort she may feel in offering her breast milk to an older man. However, she recognizes that it is a moral thing to do and acts accordingly.

The following chapter will examine how the higher class, the powerful individuals, are depicted in the novel, and how they exert their control over the lower or working class. The powerless individuals are subject to the control of the higher class and lack agency over their own lives, even during a national crisis like the Great Depression. However, throughout the novel, there are instances where the lower-class people begin to realize that they have the potential to wield power over the higher class. Initially, an analysis will provide examples from the novel illustrating how the powerful higher class or institutions are portrayed in the story.

Some properties are owned by companies or banks, and the owners men blame them as though the bank or company were a monstrous entity, capable of thought and feeling, ensnaring them. The banks are depicted as "machines and masters," while the owners are portrayed as their "slaves." The banks, described as monsters, are portrayed as needing profits constantly to survive, unable to wait or they will perish. They are one part of the powerful upper class. The owner men, though slightly less powerful than the banks or companies, still exert control over the tenants, effectively enslaving them. The banks compel people to do jobs they would not normally be morally capable of, exploiting the desperation of hard times. People are encouraged by these entities to harm other families for higher pay, with the implication that they are willing to do so for the sake of their own families. The bank's influence drives people to act inhumanely, demonstrating the extent of the upper class's power over the lower class.

In conclusion, the communication between the powerful and the working class is often reprehensible. There is a clear lack of equality in their interactions, particularly evident when powerful entities, such as banks or companies, are involved in taking away homes or exerting control over the working class. Additionally, other powerful groups may feel the need to assert their superiority by belittling the intelligence of the working class during communication. This pattern of communication underscores the hierarchical power dynamics at play, where the powerful seek to maintain their dominance and control over the working class.