8 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2017
    1. He had a working analysis of mankind’s troubles: marriage, money and the tangles of human ties. Long practice had sharpened his perception. Within five minutes he understood what was wrong. He charged three pies per question and never opened his mouth till the other had spoken for at least ten minutes, which provided him enough stuff for a dozen answers and advices. When he told the person before him, gazing at his palm, ‘In many ways you are not getting the fullest results for your efforts, ’ nine out of ten were disposed to agree with him. Or he questioned: ‘Is there any woman in your family, maybe even a distant relative, who is not well disposed towards you?’ Or he gave an analysis of character: ‘Most of your troubles are due to your nature. How can you be otherwise with Saturn where he is? You have an impetuous nature and a rough exterior.’ This endeared him to their hearts immediately, for even the mildest of us loves to think that he has a forbidding exterior.

      What can you say about the Astrologer's prediction? What does the language reveal about his craft?

    2. This man spoke to people and the great secret was out. A kind of dread seized the people of the village. On an auspicious day, Soma went to the temple priest and asked, ‘At the coming full moon my Nataraja must be consecrated. Have you made a place for him in the temple?’ The priest answered, ‘Let me see the image first . . .’ He went over to the sculptor’s house, gazed on the image and said, ‘This perfection, this God, is not for mortal eyes. He will blind us. At the first chant of prayer before him, he will dance . . . and we shall be wiped out . . .’ The sculptor looked so unhappy that the priest added, ‘Take your chisel and break a little toe or some other part of the image, and it will be safe . . .’ The sculptor replied that he would sooner crack the skull of his visitor. The leading citizens of the village came over and said, ‘Don’t mistake us. We cannot give your image a place in our temple. Don’t be angry with us. We have to think of the safety of all the people in the village . . . Even now if you are prepared to break a small finger . . .’

      Gather evidence that it is Soma which initiates how the statue is to be used and that he is generally an unhappy and selfish person. Why do you think Narayan has characterised him in this way? What role does he function in this story? What kinds of people do they represent?

    3. After all, his labours had come to an end. He sat back, wiped the perspiration off his face and surveyed his handiwork with great satisfaction. As he looked on he was overwhelmed by the majesty of this image. He fell prostrate before it, praying, ‘I have taken five years to make you. May you reside in our temple and bless all human beings!’ The dim mud flame cast subtle shadows on the image and gave it an undertone of rippling life. The sculptor stood lost in this vision. A voice said, ‘My friend, never take this image out of this room. It is too perfect . . .’ Soma trembled with fear. He looked round. He saw a figure crouching in a dark corner of the room—it was a man. Soma dashed forward and clutched him by the throat. ‘Why did you come here?’ The other writhed under the grip and replied, ‘Out of admiration for you. I have always loved your work. I have waited for five years . .

      Find other evidence which demonstrates that Soma sees the Nataraja statue as his creation rather than an image of a god.

    4. but he did not mind it so long as it helped him to keep out prying eyes. He worked with a fierce concentration and never encouraged anyone to talk about it.

      What are some hints here that Soma is rather self-absorbed, rather than religiously spiritual?

  2. Feb 2017
    1. Doubtless, if things themselves be under-stood, it docs not seem material what names are assigned them.

      This is odd to me; that Campbell seems unconcerned with any possible etymological or symbolic importance behind the words that describe the concepts he is discussing. As if the concepts can exist in the same manner without the words used to describe them? That the words have no symbolic meaning or importance in themselves, or that they might even contribute to understanding the greater concepts they represent? Is it really possible to divorce a word from "things" and still be able to understand those "things" abstractly? Idk man. Sounds like some "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," kind of bullshit to me. Like, idk Romeo, if we stop calling it a "rose" and start calling it a "prickly red blob" then that line loses a lot of its gusto.

    1. you

      Determine who is the addressee referred to be "you" in both the stanzas. Can you justify your reason?

      Hint: Consider the different names, and figurative language to which "you" is compared.

  3. Oct 2016
    1. Flung their smoke into the laquearia

      Laquearia has two meanings, both of which fit here. One is for a ceiling made of panels, while the other one involves the boisterous vocal incantations of a hard-drinking orator.

  4. Sep 2016
    1. People did not act toward the things themselves, but to their meanings

      people have more a connection, whether positive or negative, with their own abstract meanings of things than the physical thing itself.